|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ on Feb 5, 2016 18:50:35 GMT -6
Question form 49th Cosa - Free Democrats.xlsx (8.77 KB) Right guys, can I have feedback ASAP on whether I've filled this out properly? Wherever possible I have given Party policy rather than my own preferences; but where we don't have a stated policy preference I've inserted my own ideas. I've also marked 8 questions EXTRA importance (max 10). I think Glüc would be VERY happy if we can get this back to him ASAP!
|
|
gv
Party Member
Posts: 104
|
Post by gv on Feb 5, 2016 20:03:32 GMT -6
Looks good to me. Glüc is thorough, if nothing else.
|
|
|
Post by Dien on Feb 5, 2016 21:14:58 GMT -6
I have a few thoughts:
On question 11, the ministers in opposition question, I would suggest that we mark the answer as extra (if possible), since our Cabinet of Talents is a big selling point for our party this election. (If we had to move an extra around, I'd suggest moving the extra from question 29. Not necessarily opposed to the answer for 29, though.)
On question 12, I don't know that I would be completely opposed to the idea, but I'd like to hear discussion on something like this and a party plank before we state our answer as in the affirmative. A copy of an ID is one possible step, but there are surely several other "are you a real person" verification methods that we could propose other than sending in a copy of an ID.
On question 20, one of our party planks is a $5 fee for Senate seats, so we should mark this Yes. (Unless we change this policy.)
On question 23, I would suggest marking this neutral. Our platform says we are aiming for a $10 fee, which is currently in place, but while it hints at further reform, it doesn't spell it out enough to make it a No.
On question 26, I'd just like to hear your thoughts on it. Seems an odd question to be on the electoral compass in the first place, honestly, and I'm sure that there are varying degrees of Yes and No answers.
|
|
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ on Feb 5, 2016 22:22:16 GMT -6
On 11: Agreed. On 12: Changed to SKIP for the time being. On 20: Agreed. On 23: Agreed. But I really want us to move to a "no fees for democracy" position ASAP. On 26: That seems to be a RUMP thing to attempt to argue that their Zombie hordes aren't actually inactive, i.e. a trick question. I think it would be BETTER if there were other forms of Talossan sociality. But for better or worse, Witt is where it is at right now, and what prospective political leaders should be judged on.
|
|
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ on Feb 6, 2016 21:44:23 GMT -6
I'm sending this to Glüc, but if anyone wants to make any more amendments, we have until the 11th.
|
|