Recommendations for rules on whipping

[Miestrâ Schivâ]

1. For the purposes of this rule, the "Caucus" comprises of all Senators and MCs who are members of the Free Democrats of Talossa.
2. If the Party Leader considers a certain Bill on the Clark to be especially important for the enactment of the party's policy and principles, he may declare this bill to be subject to a "whipped vote", indicating that all members of the Caucus are expected to vote in accordance with the Leader's recommendation.
3. A declaration of a whipped vote shall specify precisely which plank of the party's policy and principles is involved.
4. A declaration of a whipped vote can be overridden by a vote of 50% or more of the Caucus members.
5. All Votes of Confidence shall be considered to be whipped unless the Leader or 50% or more of the Caucus specifically state otherwise. The opposite of a Whipped vote is a 'free vote'.
6. A member of the Caucus who votes contrary to a declaration of a whipped vote ("defies the whip") on two separate occasions in the term of a Cosâ may be suspended from Party membership by declaration of the Party Leader. This suspension may be overridden by a vote of 50% or more of the Caucus members, and in any case will expire at the end of that Cosâ term.

[Miestrâ Schivâ]

Are there any further comments, or can we take this to a vote?

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

Let's vote

[Dien]

I have some comments on this. Mind keeping it open for discussion for a couple days while I gather my thoughts?

[Miestrâ Schivâ]

I'm minded to open this for a vote on Jan 2, when I get back from holiday, so can you be quick with those comments, Dien?

[Dien]

1. For the purposes of this rule, the "Caucus" comprises of all Senators and MCs who are members of the Free Democrats of Talossa.

I disagree that the Caucus should comprise Senators and MCs, for the reasons I've stated in the past (and somewhat stated elsewhere below).

2. If the Party Leader considers a certain Bill on the Clark to be especially important for the enactment of the party's policy and principles, he may declare this bill to be subject to a "whipped vote", indicating that all members of the Caucus are expected to vote in accordance with the Leader's recommendation.
3. A declaration of a whipped vote shall specify precisely which plank of the party's policy and principles is involved.

I think that we should be careful in whipping votes that are related to the monarchy. I'm all for whipping up certain votes, and I even see when a whipped vote might be needed for, say, Cosa reform, but I think votes related to the monarchy--even where we have a plank--should be left to the better judgement of our FreeDem MCs, rather than be subjected to the possibility of suspension.

Or, on the other hand, at least allow for members to abstain (rather than vote the whipped PER or whipped Contra) from voting on bills that they simply cannottake the Leader's recommendation on. This could apply to bills on the Monarchy, or in the case of Senators, every bill--having a Senator subjected to whipped votes by their party makes them seem like their party comes before the people they were elected to represent.

4. A declaration of a whipped vote can be overridden by a vote of 50% or more of the Caucus members.
5. All Votes of Confidence shall be considered to be whipped unless the Leader or 50% or more of the Caucus specifically state otherwise. The opposite of a Whipped vote is a 'free vote'.

I can support this part, though I still think it's appropriate to UC any most governments in the First Clark, regardless of whether we're in it or not. I also think that the Caucus should have the ability to declare a whipped vote as well, given they can override it, but I'd be open to hearing more discussion on this part.

6. A member of the Caucus who votes contrary to a declaration of a whipped vote ("defies the whip") on two separate occasions in the term of a Cosâ may be suspended from Party membership by declaration of the Party Leader. This suspension may be overridden by a vote of 50% or more of the Caucus members, and in any case will expire at the end of that Cosâ term.

Suspension from Party membership is a bit harsh, first off, and it wouldn't really be any kind of punishment when Senators are involved, since they hold more than one term in office. Why not instead (especially if Senators remain in the "whipped vote" proposal) suspend them from discussion and voting in the Caucus for the rest of the term? They wouldn't be able to vote to override (or, possibly, declare) any whipped votes, for example.

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

Who would you suggest should comprise the caucus? I would think only those who had some kind of a vote in legislation should really be part of it.

[Miestrâ Schivâ]

Seriously, I do think Senators should be part of the caucus, because the Government needs to get its legislation through both houses. If there are specific issues that the Senator for Maricopa wants a "conscience opt-out" on, these can and should be discussed before the election. I suppose "number of Cosa seats" would be one?

[Dien]

Dec 30, 2015 18:20:15 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ said:

Seriously, I do think Senators should be part of the caucus, because the Government needs to get its legislation through both houses. If there are specific issues that the Senator for Maricopa wants a "conscience opt-out" on, these can and should be discussed before the election. I suppose "number of Cosa seats" would be one?

I don't think there should be specific opt-outs--if I was a FreeDem MC, I would certainly vote in favor of Cosa seat reform (and mandatory Cosa lists, which I personally see as worse than seat reform), because those who voted for FDT voted for the planks/platform that FDT stands on. On the other hand, people elect Senators based on what they stand on, not necessarily by the party they belong to (even though they could vote by party recommendation).

I would support whipping rules if Senators were allowed to abstain on bills without their vote being declared contrary to the whipped vote. I'd also recommend a few additions, such as allowing the caucus to declare a whipped vote (in addition to the leader) when more than 50% choose to, make it a requirement that the whipped vote (on bills) states which party policy that the bill seeks to implement, and possibly make it clear that votes on bills related to the monarchy are free votes by nature. 

I'd also suggest that the Caucus member, rather than be suspended from party membership for the rest of the term, just be suspended from voting in the Caucus--since they'll still hold their seats regardless of whether they are members or not--and perhaps limit the number of Cosa seats (to one or two) they could be given in the next term.

[Miestrâ Schivâ]

Hmmm. I could certainly give way on "abstentions don't count against the whip" - for all Caucus members, not just the Senators - as well as some of your other provisions. Can you be more specific about "bills related to the monarchy"? Any bill that mentions the King, or...?

As to the last position, I think that's incredibly toothless and offers no real deterrent for not simply thumbing one's nose at the Party.

[Miestrâ Schivâ]

Perhaps OT, but - given recent Royal shenanigans, we have to be VERY careful about what the Constitutional Agnosticism clause means. Is there room in the FreeDems for, not just monarchists, not just people who are loyal to KJ1, but people who actually think that whatever KJ1 wants, KJ1 gets? Because that is neither Free nor Democratic, IMHO.

[Dien]

I could handle the suspension from party membership clause staying in, but if they're free to become members in free standing after the end of the Cosa anyway, it's still kind of toothless since they can just request to be on the next Cosa list once the first Cosa expires. 

I'm not sure there can be much specificity in bills related to the monarchy. "Members shall be free from a party line that favors any side of the debate." I think it would be impossible to specify what may or may not "favor any side of the debate"; you and I may both agree, for example, that several departments of the Royal Household would be better served as part of the elected government or the civil service, and we may even have an official position on the subject, but how would we clarify this in the rules for whipping? I think it would be much simpler to just say "all bills related to the monarchy", trusting that there are no members in the party that believe the King should be an unchecked dictator--after all, as you said, that would be neither Free or Democratic.

[Miestrâ Schivâ]

But every bill is related to the monarchy, since we live in a Kingdom! I am in favour of a very narrow reading of the Agnosticism Clause - one which takes "the debate" to mean "monarchy or republic". I think questions of the power of the monarchy or the identity of the Monarchy are an open question.

In fact, I want to propose a Constitutional Amendment to clarify that. Right now.

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

Jan 1, 2016 20:52:05 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ said:

But every bill is related to the monarchy, since we live in a Kingdom! I am in favour of a very narrow reading of the Agnosticism Clause - one which takes "the debate" to mean "monarchy or republic". I think questions of the power of the monarchy or the identity of the Monarchy are an open question.

In fact, I want to propose a Constitutional Amendment to clarify that. Right now.

What amendment would you propose? I am in favor that we as a party should have some baseline here.

[Miestrâ Schivâ]

Jan 1, 2016 21:44:55 GMT -6 Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă said:

What amendment would you propose? I am in favor that we as a party should have some baseline here.

Please see thread entitled "Clarifying the Agnostic Clause".