Moderator: SC Moderators
It does no good to discuss passage of bad laws at the moment - I have found that in my 20 years on the internet, that forums such as these create more rivalry and argument than consensus and more poison than light.
But you got your "moderate" reform, so why thrash CARE?
==
"Nenia peno nek provo donos lakton de bovo."
[quote="Bromo Ivory":25s5fz5g]It does no good to discuss passage of bad laws at the moment - I have found that in my 20 years on the internet, that forums such as these create more rivalry and argument than consensus and more poison than light.
But you got your "moderate" reform, so why thrash CARE?[/quote:25s5fz5g]Bromo -
Michel disparaged the reform that was passed by the RA after I posted a factual account of the voting record so that citizens who are following this discussion would know what the outcome was. You then chimed in to call it 'a mess'. So, having voted in favour of this reform along with my CSDF colleagues and the Simplicity Party reps on a proposal from our DPU Chancellor, I feel I have the right to defend the proposal.
As for 'thrashing' CARE, I find your position confused and contradictory. Why shouldn't I say so? I find this desire to stifle free speech that you CARE types engage in to be very worrying. It also sits very badly with the type of personal insults and invective that your fellow co-chair is so fond of dishing out. If you want to start taking some of the 'poison' out of these forums, that would be a good place to start.
Stifling free speech, Pat? Those are rather big accusations. "Methinks thou protesteth too much"
If expressing my opinion is stifling free speech, if calling the reform a mess (which it is) is stifling free speech, and replying to posts on the forum stifling free speech then we are ALL guilty.
Please, Pat. You don't like what I said, and you don't like that I disagree with you on this one - but PLEASE. This is hardly stifling free speech.
Given your relative strength in the RA, one could say that you are attempting the same.
But again, the forums are poisonous to rational discourse. I do believe I did 2 too many posts on this awful medium.
"Congratulations on your moderate reform, Pat"
==
"Nenia peno nek provo donos lakton de bovo."
I agree with Dnate --
I also don't see how the law as passed is unworkable. I think it modifies the Borda-Count -- and I have some heartburn about that modification.
That said, this is a change to the way we do elections. Diderot is right -- we must start educating the citizens about this change, and start now, as far as possible in advance of the next election, so that the changes do not prove an unpleasant surprise to anyone.
Beathan
[quote="Dnate Mars":1gzx5k59]I fail to see how is was a bad law. It wasn't the CARE bill, that is true. But it did have the support of all the other parties. There are a lot of smart people in those other parties.[/quote:1gzx5k59]
Hi Dnate -
The things I didn't like about it, and what caused me to vote "no", was that it muddled the Borda system (meaning the strength of Borda is requiring people to rank the evils whether they liked them or not, and coming with a compromise therefore) - which was the strength of the previous system.
Other, albeit unimportant, was that the change was so small it might not be worth implementing, and increased personal accountability only a smidgeon - but those were forgivable provided the Borda system was intact.
Unfortunately because of RL commits, I was not able to be in world for the discussion or I would have suggested removing that part of it and we could have had tri-partisan passage, though I suggest that the sense I get with the RA, is that things are so polarized, that a faction could propose the sky be Blue, and there would be all kinds of posturing on how they were misguided, wrong and so on - so I am skeptical that tri-partisan would be welcomed.
You got your bill passed - so really the only thing I can say is why I voted it down.
I do see that Beathan had the same concerns with it, but the concerns were obviously not enough for him to vote it down.
==
"Nenia peno nek provo donos lakton de bovo."
Pat,
It's a bad law masquerading as moderate reform - just like your attempted citizenship bill of last term. We don't have to vote in favor of bad laws just because they give the impression of giving greater choice to people. I have no doubt you'll try to milk this for all it's worth. I think it's a big step backwards rather than forwards -and no amount of window-dressing can change that.
For all intents and purposes, we will have most party members vote for their own party only. Unless of course they want to minimie the chances of another party to get elected, in which case they will vote for all parties EXECPT that one. Whichever way you cut it, it still remains largely a party vote open to strategic voting and restricting citizens' choice of candidates. It is worlds away from the initial CSDF bill, which CARE was generally in agreement with. We stayed consistent- you are the one who went with the lowest common deniminator - in accordance with the well-known motto : "I am their leader therefore I shall follow them". Well done! 
Michel
Michel --
It is possible that citizens will vote in favor of their party and against all others. Hopefully, citizens who do this will do so only because they actually and actively oppose the other factions. Other citizens (including me) will not do so -- not because we want to play games with the system and maximize our votes against one faction -- but because we see the reason and have cause to support factions other than our own.
I expect that this proposal will not change my votes in future elections. I see value in the proposals of all factions -- but I also see clear distinctions which allow me to determine that I support some factions more than others, and no factions equally. I don't think I am alone in this regard -- and I am pleased that we are preserving the borda count system to allow me to vote as I am so inclined.
I also expect that some people will vote differently -- specifically those who wished that they had the opportunity to vote against more than one faction because they actively opposed the views of more than one faction. I think such people are missing an opportunity to balance evils and choose the lesser evil -- but I was, in the end, persuaded that this decision should be left to the individual voter, rather than being a forced choice.
Beathan
[quote="Bromo Ivory":2jdflucj][quote="Dnate Mars":2jdflucj]I fail to see how is was a bad law. It wasn't the CARE bill, that is true. But it did have the support of all the other parties. There are a lot of smart people in those other parties.[/quote:2jdflucj]
Hi Dnate -
The things I didn't like about it, and what caused me to vote "no", was that it muddled the Borda system (meaning the strength of Borda is requiring people to rank the evils whether they liked them or not, and coming with a compromise therefore) - which was the strength of the previous system.
Other, albeit unimportant, was that the change was so small it might not be worth implementing, and increased personal accountability only a smidgeon - but those were forgivable provided the Borda system was intact.
Unfortunately because of RL commits, I was not able to be in world for the discussion or I would have suggested removing that part of it and we could have had tri-partisan passage, though I suggest that the sense I get with the RA, is that things are so polarized, that a faction could propose the sky be Blue, and there would be all kinds of posturing on how they were misguided, wrong and so on - so I am skeptical that tri-partisan would be welcomed.
You got your bill passed - so really the only thing I can say is why I voted it down.
I do see that Beathan had the same concerns with it, but the concerns were obviously not enough for him to vote it down.[/quote:2jdflucj]
Honestly, I had most of the same concerns with my own bill. The thing that I debated over for the longest was weather to allow the multiple no votes. For me, it I saw it as giving more voter choice on the matter. I do regret that you were unable to attend that meeting. Your ideas are always worth hearing, even when I don't agree with you.