Taking the pulse on government structure

[Ashcroft Burnham]

[quote="Ranma Tardis":2cb1xydw]In this system non-faction members do not have representation. Their vote is without meaning. They can only vote for a faction but not the person.[/quote:2cb1xydw]

That does not follow: why does a vote for a faction, do you contend, have no meaning at all? Different factions have different faction platforms, and those members of the Representative Assembly who come from any given faction strongly tend to make decisions based closely on that faction platform. Therefore, a vote between two or more faction platforms at any given general election is a vote that has the capacity to affect substantially the decisions that the Representative Assmebly will make during its next term.

[Ranma Tardis]

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":3vcjzkk0][quote="Ranma Tardis":3vcjzkk0]In this system non-faction members do not have representation. Their vote is without meaning. They can only vote for a faction but not the person.[/quote:3vcjzkk0]

That does not follow: why does a vote for a faction, do you contend, have no meaning at all? Different factions have different faction platforms, and those members of the Representative Assembly who come from any given faction strongly tend to make decisions based closely on that faction platform. Therefore, a vote between two or more faction platforms at any given general election is a vote that has the capacity to affect substantially the decisions that the Representative Assmebly will make during its next term.[/quote:3vcjzkk0]

I am sorry but the string of 5 to 0 votes says differently. They may have had a different platform in election but now seem to agree with each other. Thus it does not make a difference when voting. Please tell me how the factions differ from each other in a practical manner. I don’t see a difference when it comes to their voting. We get the same result no matter whom we vote for and non-faction members do not have a complete vote.

[Beathan]

Also -- RA voting appeals to indicate otherwise. I have seen at least 1 4 to 1 vote (with Justice Soothsayer dissenting). This means that Justice Soothsayer, at least on that occasion, voted on her own rather than with her party (which is the majority party).

People matter more than parties -- and the personal characteristics and commitments of individual representatives guide their votes more than abstract statements of party platforms.

I support Ranma's proposal to treat factions as informative association rather than as electable entities.

Beathan

[Patroklus Murakami]

I'd just like to clarify, in response to some of the recent posts in this thread, that there is a very clear dividing line between the two factions currently represented in the Representative Assembly. We stood on fundamentally different election platforms at the last election, just look at what we said at the time.

Now, there are at least two ways we could behave after an election. The Citizens' Social Democratic Faction (as the opposition party) could oppose every proposal the DPU (as the government party) either supports or proposes and the DPU majority could vote down every proposal that the CSDF supports or puts forward. That would lead to a lot of 3-2 votes but we would never get any constitutional amendments passed (because you currently need 4 out of 5 votes to pass a CA) and the opposition would never get any bill they wanted passed.

The alternative is for the two parties to cooperate (to the extent that they are able to) to pass legislation and CAs that they can live with. To that end, the CSDF has had to compromise on a number of issues, including the Chancellor position (we favoured a Cabinet system) and the detail of the Judiciary Act. A 5-0 vote in favour of a proposal should not be seen as meaning that the parties agree with each other on everything. It is the result of negotiation and compromise. I think this is a more productive way for our elected representatives to behave. And, as Beathan has pointed out, there have been occasions where one or more RA members have not been able to agree to a given change leading to a 4-1 or 3-2 vote.

[Beathan]

Patroklus wrote [quote:i7pqvx70]I'd just like to clarify, in response to some of the recent posts in this thread, that there is a very clear dividing line between the two factions currently represented in the Representative Assembly. We stood on fundamentally different election platforms at the last election, just look at what we said at the time.

Now, there are at least two ways we could behave after an election. The Citizens' Social Democratic Faction (as the opposition party) could oppose every proposal the DPU (as the government party) either supports or proposes and the DPU majority could vote down every proposal that the CSDF supports or puts forward. That would lead to a lot of 3-2 votes but we would never get any constitutional amendments passed (because you currently need 4 out of 5 votes to pass a CA) and the opposition would never get any bill they wanted passed.

The alternative is for the two parties to cooperate (to the extent that they are able to) to pass legislation and CAs that they can live with. To that end, the CSDF has had to compromise on a number of issues, including the Chancellor position (we favoured a Cabinet system) and the detail of the Judiciary Act. A 5-0 vote in favour of a proposal should not be seen as meaning that the parties agree with each other on everything. It is the result of negotiation and compromise. I think this is a more productive way for our elected representatives to behave. And, as Beathan has pointed out, there have been occasions where one or more RA members have not been able to agree to a given change leading to a 4-1 or 3-2 vote.[/quote:i7pqvx70]

I agree that cross-partisan cooperation is the best general legislative policy to have. I further agree that representatives should be able to vote their consciences or to vote against proposals they consider imprudent.

However, the problem with voting for parties based on platform is that it does not give individual representatives a mandate to do either. If people vote for the party that ends up in the opposition, it can fairly be assumed that those same people (or some of them) were actually voting against the prevailing platform. On this basis, the opposition has a mandate and obligation to oppose -- and has no mandate to cooperate. Cooperation could well be a betrayal of some of the voters who voted for the opposition.

Similarly, no representative has a mandate or right to depart in any way from the platform. After all, it was the platform that was elected, not the representative. For an appointed representative to depart from the elected platform is a form of usurpation.

All these problems disappear if we elect persons, not platforms, as Ranma proposes. Further, such elections allow for greater policy discussion by allowing individual candidates to challenge and debate at cross-purposes to their party's platform. This might reveal that the electorate, while generally supporting a platform, generally opposes some specific part of it. That is worth knowing.

Further, unless representatives are party robots, elections based on platform are entirely artificial. A highly objectionable person might support a highly acceptable platform -- but such a person should not be forced down the throat of the electorate for that reason. Personal character matters in elections -- and the election process that neglects these issues will produce, at some point, highly objectionable government because of highly objectionable governors, even if that government is trying to do popular things.

Beathan