Post Archive

Region: The Thaecian Senate

History

Toerana V wrote:I sit in the "who does this hurt?" camp. Acronyms of up to 5 characters aren't gonna break anything, why not give movements a little bit more freedom.

I see the argument of "where should we draw the line" but I don't find it compelling enough to vote against this bill

If you want to give more freedom, you have to abolish the cap entirely. Anything less than that is just silly. If there's going to be a cap at all, it should be where there is popular demand for it. There has been no popular demand for an acronym that is five or more characters; every single party other than FREE has been at 3 characters. There has never been any serious movement for longer than a day's joke party that is 5 characters. I am not opposed to joke parties because I think they are a valid form of political protest, but when we are seriously legislating you have to take into account popular demand for this sort of length. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and the point it is currently drawn at is one that encompasses every single political party in history; to reiterate, there is literally no demand for anything longer. If you want to extend the line to a different position, the only logical thing to do is to abolish it entirely, because if you are setting it at 5 when there is no demand for 5, why not set it at 6 when there is no demand for 6? How far can you push it before it starts becoming ridiculous? I can tell you where: it starts becoming ridiculous when you have things like this, change for the sake of change.

Obalostan

Alright we’re now voting. Aye, nay, abstain.

[spoiler=Senators]

The Ambis

Obalostan

Toerana V

Creckelenney

New Central Iowa

Lesbia[/spoiler]

Amendments to L.R.58 Pass the senate, 3-2-1-0. Thank you all for voting.

We’re now debating Amendments to the Political Parties Act

[spoiler=Senators]

The Ambis

Obalostan

Toerana V

Creckelenney

New Central Iowa

Lesbia[/spoiler]

Looks good to me.

Sure to first amendment, not sure what the second one is for

Toerana V wrote:Sure to first amendment, not sure what the second one is for

Yep. In fact,

[spoiler=Amendment A]

Removes Article II[/spoiler]

Toerana V

Let’s vote on the above amendment.

[spoiler=Amendment A]

Removes Article II[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Senators]

The Ambis

Obalostan

Toerana V

Creckelenney

New Central Iowa

Lesbia[/spoiler]

Absolutely phenomenal. Best senators, right here! The amendment passes, and we will now be voting on the bill as amended. Please vote with an aye, nay, or abstain

[spoiler=Senators]

The Ambis

Obalostan

Toerana V

Creckelenney

Lesbia

New Central Iowa[/spoiler]

Alright. The [url=page=dispatch/id=1932808]bill as amended[/url passes the house 5-0-0-1 Snalland. We have nothing else to do. Therefore, it’s recess time bby

Post self-deleted by Chairman Ambis.

Heads up that I will be on vacation for the rest of the month. It is possible that I may check in a few times, but if you don’t hear from me, that’s why.

Toerana V, The Ambis

i can't believe those darn liberals would grind this fine institution to a halt with their uh, filibustering

The Ambis

Post by Porfloxia suppressed by Chairman Ambis.

Porfloxia

(._.)

We’re back! Now debating the below bill.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1937016

[spoiler=Senators]

The Ambis

Obalostan

Toerana V

Creckelenney

New Central Iowa

Lesbia[/spoiler]

No. While I may understand the desire for greater customisation, colours on charts are there to help easily identify at a glance the politicial party and/or movement someone is a part of, Independents included. All this does is risk confusion on the part of the electorate for no gain.

Brototh, Creckelenney, New Central Iowa, Obalostan

I have an amendment written by Brototh and sponsored by myself:

[spoiler=Amendment A]

Amends Article I to read as follows; new additions in bold and pre-existing in italics.

Political Parties shall have the liberty to select one colour to represent itself in official government documents and election results. Nations running as Independent may select a color to represent themselves in official government documents and election results. Multiple parties and nations may select the same colour.

[/spoiler]

Creckelenney

Toerana V wrote:No. While I may understand the desire for greater customisation, colours on charts are there to help easily identify at a glance the politicial party and/or movement someone is a part of, Independents included. All this does is risk confusion on the part of the electorate for no gain.

If parties (which by now don’t really tell you what a candidate stands for) use colors to express themselves to citizens, and don’t see why individual candidates can’t express themselves to citizens in the same way. The change will allow candidates to add a bit more of their brand, so that citizens can differentiate them from all the other IND (who don’t share similar policy positions anyway). A text always needs to have color, and right now we lump all IND candidates and gov officials together, implying to voters that they stand for similar things when the reality couldn’t be farther from the truth.

The bill will, in fact, do what we are all striving for: reducing political apathy and helping get citizens informed.

Toerana V wrote:I have an amendment written by Brototh and sponsored by myself:

[spoiler=Amendment A]

Amends Article I to read as follows; new additions in bold and pre-existing in italics.

Political Parties shall have the liberty to select one colour to represent itself in official government documents and election results. Nations running as Independent may select a color to represent themselves in official government documents and election results. Multiple parties and nations may select the same colour.

[/spoiler]

I’d be for this change if it also applied to parties. As it stands, it simply performs a disservice to citizens by blocking independent officials from connecting and informing citizens in the same way parties do.

Colours are used to quickly and easily identify political makeup. Giving all independents the same political makeup colour does not imply that at all because anyone who pays even passive attention knows what "Independent" means.

Given colours lack much political meaning in and of themselves, letting me select, say, Bright Blue, as my colour while Snall, who probably lies closest to me on a lot of Thaecian political issues, has a party who's colour is a bright green, tells the voter absolutely nothing about our alignment and may even imply that me and Snall stand for vastly different things when we in fact have a lot of overlap in our beliefs. If an Independent wants an acronym, an associated name and a colour to have voters quickly identify their beliefs then they can go and found a party.

Any independent should be capable of informing voters of their beliefs, and their identifying characteristic is their name. It isn't harder to get your message out there without a special colour in a government overview dispatch.

Well run parties are always going to have an inherent advantage over an independent. They can campaign on the behalf of candidates, they often have a loyal voterbase, they have more seasoned candidates that can help to boost the profile of newcomers, they have a coherent and well known ideology often tied to their name. All of what I just listed are benefits of parties we cannot legislate away without banning parties, a colour is not one of those.

Colours are cosmetic alone and letting independents pick a colour of their wishes will only ever serve to confuse the Thaecian system.

Brototh

Toerana V wrote:Colours are used to quickly and easily identify political makeup. Giving all independents the same political makeup colour does not imply that at all because anyone who pays even passive attention knows what "Independent" means.

Given colours lack much political meaning in and of themselves, letting me select, say, Bright Blue, as my colour while Snall, who probably lies closest to me on a lot of Thaecian political issues, has a party who's colour is a bright green, tells the voter absolutely nothing about our alignment and may even imply that me and Snall stand for vastly different things when we in fact have a lot of overlap in our beliefs. If an Independent wants an acronym, an associated name and a colour to have voters quickly identify their beliefs then they can go and found a party.

Any independent should be capable of informing voters of their beliefs, and their identifying characteristic is their name. It isn't harder to get your message out there without a special colour in a government overview dispatch.

Well run parties are always going to have an inherent advantage over an independent. They can campaign on the behalf of candidates, they often have a loyal voterbase, they have more seasoned candidates that can help to boost the profile of newcomers, they have a coherent and well known ideology often tied to their name. All of what I just listed are benefits of parties we cannot legislate away without banning parties, a colour is not one of those.

Colours are cosmetic alone and letting independents pick a colour of their wishes will only ever serve to confuse the Thaecian system.

Who's getting confused? The change effectively just simplifies the system. Candidates can go and make a single candidate party if they want, but they shouldn't have to. Our electoral system should not unnecessarily disadvantage independant candidates.

Tell me you didn't read what I said without telling me you didn't read what I said.

Porfloxia wrote:Who's getting confused?

The Voters, as I said, if an independent chooses a colour similar to an existing party.

Porfloxia wrote:The change effectively just simplifies the system.

Except it doesn't. The changes requires Domestic Affairs and the EC to keep track of a significantly larger quantity of colours and personal preferences because the number of independents is much greater than the number of parties.

Porfloxia wrote:Candidates can go and make a single candidate party if they want, but they shouldn't have to.

Agreed, and they don't have to, but if having a different coloured word in the government overview dispatch is that much of a deal breaker then they can.

Porfloxia wrote:Our electoral system should not unnecessarily disadvantage independant candidates.

As I have already said, it doesn't. Colours are purely cosmetic. No law prevents independent candidates from using colours in campaign dispatches, for example:

I tend to use blues and variations on Thaecia's colour scheme in banners, Ambis goes hard on their purple and gold. Speaking of which, where do we draw the line? Taking the example of Ambis for a moment, why should they be forced to choose only one colour when their "iconic" colours are arguably the purple and gold from their flag. Because it is unnecessary and has never disadvantaged myself, or Ambis, or any other independent candidate that chooses to run in an election. These colours don't even appear on the ballot.

If you want a colour next to your name this badly, Porflox, found a party instead of trying to over complicate our system and give the government more of a headache.

Brototh

We are now voting on Amendment A

[spoiler=Amendment A]

Amends Article I to read as follows; new additions in bold and pre-existing in italics.

Political Parties shall have the liberty to select one colour to represent itself in official government documents and election results. Nations running as Independent may select a color to represent themselves in official government documents and election results. Multiple parties and nations may select the same colour.

[/spoiler]

If Senators wish for us to return to debate following the conclusion of this amendment vote please state so to Chamber Leadership before the conclusion of the voting period.

[spoiler=Senators]

The Ambis

Obalostan

Toerana V

Creckelenney

New Central Iowa

Lesbia[/spoiler]

Amendment A has passed 4-2-0-0.

We are now voting on the final bill, IND Colors

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1938764

[spoiler=Senators]

The Ambis

Obalostan

Toerana V

Creckelenney

New Central Iowa

Lesbia[/spoiler]

The Ambis, Coastrul

I abstain

Coastrul

The Bill IND Colours has failed 0-4-1-1.

[spoiler=Senators]

The Ambis

Obalostan

Toerana V

Creckelenney

New Central Iowa

Lesbia[/spoiler]

The Ambis, Obalostan, Coastrul

Thank you Bow.

Toerana V, Coastrul

Post by Porfloxia suppressed by Chairman Ambis.

Porfloxia

smh thaecia establishment voting to suppress independent candidates!!!!!

Coastrul

Toerana V if I left the region tomorrow, regardless of where i went, what do you think would happen to thaecia?

Brototh wrote:Toerana V if I left the region tomorrow, regardless of where i went, what do you think would happen to thaecia?

Yes, Cinema is sponsored.

Since we have long since clarified you are the only true authority on what may or may not occur in thaecia, period, your own beliefs are that nothing will change. I will follow your guidance and state that nothing will change.

Toerana V wrote:Yes, Cinema is sponsored.

Since we have long since clarified you are the only true authority on what may or may not occur in thaecia, period, your own beliefs are that nothing will change. I will follow your guidance and state that nothing will change.

Since I am the only true authority on what may occur, my belief is that I would like to hear your own, personal, unfiltered opinion, regardless of what I might privately think without sharing. That is what I believe must occur in Thaecia. If I left the region tomorrow, and never returned- ceasing all executive, legislative, social, etc, activity, what do you personally think would happen?

The following nations are inaugurated as Senators of the Second class, dismissing Lesbia.

Snowflame

Sevae

Obalostan

Toerana V, The Ambis, Obalostan

so when we doin' the chairperson thing

Think we don't have to as Ambis didn't have to run for re-election

Obalostan wrote:Think we don't have to as Ambis didn't have to run for re-election

I mean, new term starts new Chair makes sense, I thought it worked this way

Hey senators got a UC for us

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1944637

I acknowledge the motion

I acknowledge the motion

I object to the motion

"Approximately"

The Candidacy Declaration Period for the Chair has now begun.

Senators have 48 hours to declare their intent to stand or not to stand.

If there are no candidates, the time allotted will continue until there is at least one.

[spoiler=Senators]The Ambis

Toerana V

Creckelenney

New Central Iowa

Snowflame

Sevae

Obalostan[/spoiler]

I will not be standing, unless no one else does so.

I will not stand unless nobody else will

I will not stand.

Lmao why not I'll run for chair sounds like a laugh

The Questions & Statements Period for the Chair has now begun; the period has now ended as the law gives no mandated minimum time.

This is because the only declared candidate is Toerana V. The voting period has now begun. The options are:

- Aye

- Nay

- Abstain

[spoiler=Senators]The Ambis

Toerana V

Creckelenney

New Central Iowa

Snowflame

Sevae

Obalostan[/spoiler]

The Ambis

Cinema is actively blackmailing a lawfully elected member of the Thaecian Senate.

Therefore, my vote is:

Aye Hell

Brototh

The final vote is 4-0-0-3.

Toerana V is elected Chairman of the Senate.

So based

Appointments for deputies gonna be up soon.

Gimmie bills too thx

Hey folks, two things:

One, Docket is here, just tell me if you want something added and how high priority you think it is:

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1945814

Second thing, we are now debating Deputy Minister Restrictions Liberalization Act (2023) (Amendments to LR 060):

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1945056

[spoiler=Senators]The Ambis

Toerana V

Creckelenney

New Central Iowa

Snowflame

Sevae

Obalostan[/spoiler]

Post self-deleted by Toerana V.

Yeah, I fully support this amendment. Nothing wrong with it.

Brototh

Awesome, we'll move on tomorrow

In other news: The Ambis is appointed Sr. Deputy Chairperson

Snowflame is appointed Jr. Deputy Chairperson

The Ambis

The amendment look good. No complaints from me.

We are now voting on the Deputy Minister Restrictions Liberalization Act (2023) (Amendments to LR 060):

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1945056

You have 24 hours to vote, afterwards the vote may be closed.

[spoiler=Senators]The Ambis

Toerana V

Creckelenney

New Central Iowa

Snowflame

Sevae

Obalostan[/spoiler]

Deputy Minister Restrictions Liberalization Act (2023) (Amendments to LR 060) has passed the Senate 7-0-0-0.

cc: Of Altonianic Islands

Brototh, The Ambis

We are now debating Election Length Specialisation Act (2023) (Amendments to Article VIII)

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1944651

[spoiler=Senators]The Ambis

Toerana V

Creckelenney

New Central Iowa

Snowflame

Sevae

Obalostan[/spoiler]

preamble says it all

better safe than sorry

Yep sure why not

Needed change. All good with me

We are now voting on the Election Length Specialisation Act (2023) (Amendments to Article VIII)

You have 24 hours, afterwards the vote may be closed at any time.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1944651

[spoiler=Senators]The Ambis

Toerana V

Creckelenney

New Central Iowa

Snowflame

Sevae

Obalostan[/spoiler]

Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.