50 Word Statements for Party and Amendments

[Ian Plätschisch]

Party (50 words);

The MRPT has been a moderating force which has brought about compromise between Talossa’s liberals and conservatives. We don’t make changes for the sake of it, but only when changes will lead to a better, happier tomorrow. A vote for us is for democratic reform, constitutional monarchism and individual freedom.

3/4 Majority Amendment IN FAVOR (47 words);

The King currently has an absolute power to block any amendment to the Organic Law that he pleases. This is an unacceptable situation for any democracy. The ¾ Majority Amendment removes that absolute veto, while still allowing the King a reduced, constitutional role in the amendment process.

Automatic Voting Validation Amendment IN FAVOR (38 words);

The Automatic Voting Validation Amendment dramatically reduces the time it takes to certify the election without reducing the validity of the election, and will decrease the likelihood of delay due to waiting for the election to be certified.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Or, an alternate Party 50-word statement (50 words):

The MRPT bridges the gap between Talossa's liberals and conservatives, and as such will prevent Talossa from miring in the past or from crashing into the future. We don’t make changes for the sake of it, but only when changes will lead to democratic reform, constitutional monarchism, and individual freedom.

I think I like this version better.

[Glüc]

Right, so what Im mostly concerned about is the word liberals. We're not officially a liberal party I guess, but personally I do consider myself a liberal and I know we are a party with many liberal values. (And honestly, Im not sure Liberal is a very accurate description for the FreeDems as a whole anyway). Apart from that, Liberals and Conservatives sounds so very American. They are not neccesarily synonyms for left and right elsewhere. I am not sure how to better describe the people to the left of us. Maybe just leftists? Idk...

Also, I like the future. We shouldnt crash into it, but still.

And with regards to the 3/4 majority amendment.
"while still allowing the King a reduced, constitutional role in the amendment process." Im not really in favour of that tbh, its more a compromise to me. The first part is why I support the amendment.

If theres no more time to change these, Ill just Abstain on the first two statements I think, so they'll probably pass either way. (Im not entirely sure where Im going with these concerns either.) But if the elections are just in one month, maybe some more discussion might be good idea to further improve them, if possible?

[Ian Plätschisch]

Jan 9, 2016 0:17:02 GMT 1 Glüc said:

Right, so what Im mostly concerned about is the word liberals. We're not officially a liberal party I guess, but personally I do consider myself a liberal and I know we are a party with many liberal values.

Personally I consider myself more conservative than liberal. That is what's great about the MRPT; we can lean one way or the other, but we all agree that the best solutions are more nuanced than strictly one-way-or-the-other. 

(And honestly, Im not sure Liberal is a very accurate description for the FreeDems as a whole anyway). Apart from that, Liberals and Conservatives sounds so very American. They are not neccesarily synonyms for left and right elsewhere. I am not sure how to better describe the people to the left of us. Maybe just leftists? Idk...

I guess I didn't have a better word to use.  "The MRPT bridges the gap between Talossa's leftists and rightists"? "Republicans and royalists"?

Also, I like the future. We shouldnt crash into it, but still.

Making it a goal not to crash into the future implies that we want to get there (otherwise why would we care about not crashing into it?)

And with regards to the 3/4 majority amendment.
"while still allowing the King a reduced, constitutional role in the amendment process." Im not really in favour of that tbh, its more a compromise to me. The first part is why I support the amendment.

Personally, I think the King should have some role in the amendment process.  He has a role in the passage of regular laws, so why shouldn't he have a role with amendments?  More generally, I wrote that 50-word statements with the hopes that it would appeal to a broad spectrum of people, not just those who lean left.

Any suggestions for changes?

[Lüc]

Jan 9, 2016 0:27:46 GMT 1 Ian Plätschisch said:

Jan 9, 2016 0:17:02 GMT 1 Glüc said:

Right, so what Im mostly concerned about is the word liberals. We're not officially a liberal party I guess, but personally I do consider myself a liberal and I know we are a party with many liberal values.

Personally I consider myself more conservative than liberal. That is what's great about the MRPT; we can lean one way or the other, but we all agree that the best solutions are more nuanced than strictly one-way-or-the-other.

(And honestly, Im not sure Liberal is a very accurate description for the FreeDems as a whole anyway). Apart from that, Liberals and Conservatives sounds so very American. They are not neccesarily synonyms for left and right elsewhere. I am not sure how to better describe the people to the left of us. Maybe just leftists? Idk...

I guess I didn't have a better word to use.  "The MRPT bridges the gap between Talossa's leftists and rightists"? "Republicans and royalists"?

Leftists and rightists is probably the most accurate but I don't like the sound of it very much. Republicans and royalists could also work but that's not everything that sets RUMP and FreeDems apart (although I realise that with the whole proclamation crisis going on that's probably the major one)

And with regards to the 3/4 majority amendment.
"while still allowing the King a reduced, constitutional role in the amendment process." Im not really in favour of that tbh, its more a compromise to me. The first part is why I support the amendment.

Personally, I think the King should have some role in the amendment process.  He has a role in the passage of regular laws, so why shouldn't he have a role with amendments?  More generally, I wrote that 50-word statements with the hopes that it would appeal to a broad spectrum of people, not just those who lean left.

No opinions on this passage, it seems fine to me.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Any more comments?

[Glüc]

Here's a potential alternative 50 word statement (thought its actually only 35) that I would like to add to the discussion:
The MRPT provides an alternative to uncompromising radicalism and boring conservatism. We want to reach across the aisle and work together with other parties for the sake of democratic reform, constitutional monarchism and individual freedom.

Then with regards to the amendment I would propose to just use the first part:
"The King currently has an absolute power to block any amendment to the Organic Law that he pleases. This is an unacceptable situation for any democracy. The ¾ Majority Amendment removes that absolute veto, which is a much needed change."
A big difference between orglaw amendments and regular bills is that while the King might be a useful extra check on regular bills, amendments always require a referendum anyway. An unelected head of state should not be able to prevent the people from having a say. That is not his role.

[Ian Plätschisch]

As to the party statement, I do like your version, but with 15 more words to work with, I came up with;

The MRPT provides an alternative to uncompromising radicalism and boring conservatism. We want to reach across the aisle and work together with other parties to provide compromises. We don’t make changes for the sake of it, but only when changes will lead to democratic reform, constitutional monarchism and individual freedom.

As to the 3/4 Majority Amendment, as I have said, the statement was written to accrue broader support than just from left-leaners. The 3/4 Majority amendment allows the king a suspensive veto before referendum, so it upholds the principle that the people should have the final say.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Any comments? I would like move forward.

[Glüc]

Two more suggested minor changes: The MRPT provides an alternative to uncompromising radicalism and boring conservatism. We want to reach across the aisle and work together with other parties to provide solutions. We don’t make changes for the sake of change, but only when changes will lead to democratic reform, constitutional monarchism and individual freedom.

[Glüc]

With regards to the 3/4 amendment, I would suggest a vote between both options.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Ok, I like your changes to the Party statement, and will put both 3/4 Majority Amendment statements to a vote.  Are we clear to move to a vote, then?

[Glüc]

I think so. Not sure if anyone else still has something to add.