Submit amendments to the Manifesto & Statutes

[Lüc]

I wanted to post my own amendments one by one below but it's better imo if we can avoid creating too many threads so if anyone wants to submit their amendments they can do so here.

[Lüc]

Manifesto: that "An elected Seneschal, either direct or indirect (via the Cosâ) is an option the MRPT will on the long term consider." be struck from the "On political reform" paragraph.

This is mostly because I personally don't agree with this point (the Seneschal is technically already elected via the Cosa, as it's been three elections in a row that the leader of the largest party hasn't led the government). The system works fine the way it is and I don't really like a "presidential" style of choosing a head of government when the PM is not accountable to the Cosa (because this is what it implies: you could argue that it really doesn't, but if the people gets to choose the Seneschal then the Cosa can't unseat him because it didn't appoint it in the first place). Also by "will on the long term consider" we are giving the electors a very vague timeframe.

[Lüc]

And yes, I am still pushing on this

The first amendments aims to end the silliness of having goddamn hard to codify official colors. Also I wanted something less aggressive than electric blue. So there you go: colors that go along well, aren't painful to look at and that have NAMES! Invented names, but still - I find it a bit poetic. The colors are the same that can be found on the proposed new logo.

Key Statute:
That #3,
"The official colors of the MRPT are electric blue and orange."
be replaced with
"The official colors of the MRPT are #126ECC (Moderate Blue) and #FF6600 (Radical Orange)."

The second amendment aims to change our cartoonistic logo to a more modern version (which is the same I proposed last year). Why do I want to change our logo?

1. Glüc seems to be in love with acronyms (eg. when referring to the Free Democrats as FDT instead of FreeDems), I personally think that acronym overuse should when possible be avoided - plus our own acronym is twisty to pronounce. At least on the logo that many uninformed voters see, let's put our name, not a blind and blunt acronym.

2. I've simply grown tired of our logo. You can't really get a short or long-width version of it, the font is a bit silly, it just feels old and overused to me. After almost three years, isn't it time to get a new and fresh one?

3. For those who say that the current logo is still effective, that does sound like the first search result I would get if I googled "Reasons to keep the current logo". Did you talk to the electors? To other Talossans? Who said that to you? It's not really a reason to keep the current logo if you made that up.

4. The proposed logo has been praised by members of other parties. We used it as an unofficial campaign logo last time and everyone liked it. Everyone but ourselves. It's amazingly fresh, sleek and effective.
 

Key Statute:
That #4,
"The official logo of the MRPT is the word “MRPT” in electric blue, with the “M” having a wider left bar with an orange seahorse inside it, and an orange horizontal bar of 1/3 of overall logo height beneath."
be replaced with
"The official logo of the MRPT shall be the one described in MD 12: Party Logo, which can be amended in the same way as the Key Statute.".

Furthermore, a new document shall be added to the digest, numbered 12 and titled Party Logo, which will have the following content:

The Official logo of the MRPT is the following:

The Extended logo of the MRPT is the following:

The Talossan Extended logo of the MRPT is the following:

[Lüc]

A lot of criticism last time came from the official "small" logo which didn't have the acronym. It now does and I've added to it an "extended seahorse" kind of effect that I like a lot personally.

[Ian Plätschisch]

I would prefer the word to be all blue (it looks a little messy and harsh), but other that that I have come to like the new logo.

I agree that an elected Seneschal has never quite made sense to me.

[Glüc]

A vote for the Cosa is usually based on ideology, while a vote for the cabinet is usually based on who you consider competent enough to govern. I think it would be best to separate those votes. For example, I would feel very uncomfortable supporting a minority government, because it has no real democratic mandate, but Id have no problems supporting a directly elected government. So I still think electing a PM is a good idea.