PRIVATE - Coalition to Preserve the Republic

[unmerged(4271)]

Originally posted by hughbartlett
But when our candidates withdraw, Phalanx will win.

Wait, now I'm confused. How do we reconcile the above statement with the one below?

a) Everyone shall vote for their parties' candidate, but preference Phalanx,

Do all the parties vote early then the candidates of the other parties bail out at the last minute leaving only John O'Floinn (Phalanx) and the CRE candidate in the race?

Isn't that a bit like playing "chicken"? (Umm, is everyone familar with that analogy? Don't know if translates into other cultures...)

 

[unmerged(4271)]

Originally posted by Melanchthon
This is the balance sheet of your proposal

[color=white][u]Centre-Right/Right        Centre-Left/Left[/u]
President                 Vice-President
Speaker                   Deputy Speaker
Minister                  Minister
Minister                  Minister
Total positions: 4        Total positions: 3[/color]

In other words, the Centre-Right/ Right takes the highest-ranking position both in Cabinet and in Parliament (and an overall majority of positions), while the Centre-Left/ Left is expected to be content with the deputy positions - without any other form of compensation. *That* is why the proposal is unfair.

Well, in truth, the proposal could be viewed as fair if you look at total vote counts. The CC brings more votes than the other parties, I believe, with the MP and ESRP about equal (with Snow King's addition) and the RD bringing the fewest.

There is the ideological way to look at a coalition: as a partnership of equals, and the more pragmatic way of rewarding what each party brings to the table. I'm not saying which is right or wrong, only that Mr. Langley's proposal is not "patently unfair", just a different, equally valid view.

In theory, the ESRP could easily claim that they, not the RD, should enjoy the higher offices, but I think the ESRP may suffer from the same problems as the CC in terms of being perceived on the "wings", thus the MP and RD seem like "safer" choices for top spots.

Again, the 4-way alliance is the expressed preference of the Moderate Party, and I think that if the CC concedes the Presidency and will go along with this plan that some reasonable concessions should be made to them.

If we can keep cool heads, we can iron this thing out before Tuesday at 6:00pm EST. After that time, if we cannot reach agreement, we may need to look for alterantive strategies for defeating the monarchists.


In the meantime, we'll be bringing in refreshments for everyone participating here. We apologize though, that we won't be serving cake as the monarchists do at their club. But that's okay, there's a precedent about that from the French I remember fondly...

 

[System Lord]

OOC please people can't we all just be friends and get along. I just wish I wasn't in prison so I could have my two cents worth. Isn't it afterall the goal of this alliance to keep the CRE out, so in the interests of democracy we must make this alliance work.

Damm these ....... Jailers

 

[unmerged(1522)]

Originally posted by heagarty
Well, in truth, the proposal could be viewed as fair if you look at total vote counts.

What do you base your estimate of vote counts on? (honest question )

 

[Craig Ashley]

I think if you look at last year's parliamentary vote counts, you see the CC was the leading vote getter, and did an extrodinary job of reaching out to unaffiliated voters. I do not see this changing. Also as I pointed out earlier, the CC can draw from the center all the way to the far right.

The MP is most likely going to cut into both CC voters and RD voters. The only question how much. I have a feeling (and it's just a feeling) it will cut the RD deeper. I may be wrong. As I stated earlier, the CC will most likely bring in the most votes, so I could easily argue we deserve the top spot, but I am willing to concede that claim in the interest of making this work (since the RD is completely unflexible on this issue and unable to look to the future, only dwelling on past grudges.)

However, the CC must receive fair compensation for what we bring to the table. How could I expect people to vote for the CC if we are willing to bargain away their votes to other parties? The CC and its voters must be represented fairly. On this point, I must be unyielding.

[OOC: No problem, Mel. I was going to send you a PM saying the same thing. It's all in fun for me.]

 

[Jools]

Great, so it has devoured into pointless bickering.

Jake, as party leader I withdraw our envoy from this place. Please don't continue any discussion here.

 

[unmerged(1522)]

Originally posted by Craig Ashley
I think if you look at last year's parliamentary vote counts, you see the CC was the leading vote getter, and did an extrodinary job of reaching out to unaffiliated voters. I do not see this changing. Also as I pointed out earlier, the CC can draw from the center all the way to the far right.

In the last parliamentary election, the CC received 14 votes, the RD 12 - hardly a world of difference. As far as the presidential race is concerned, the RD's candidate won 21 votes, compared to 16 for the CC candidate (who has since left your party).

More to the point, I'm not convinced that these numbers are a reliable indicator of what's ahead: many things have happened over the last term, not least the emergence of the MP, the significant loss of members experienced by the CC and RD, and the CC's temporary dissolution due to sheer lack of organization. At this point, any predictions are consequently a shot in the dark.

since the RD is completely unflexible on this issue and unable to look to the future, only dwelling on past grudges.

Given your past diatribes against the Left, did you honestly expect the RD would have no problem whatsoever supporting you as President? You've made your name in Eutopian politics through polemics, and very successfully so; unfortunately, there is a price tag attached to being polemical, and this it. Your stance and rhetoric may, for the most part, have become more cooperative over the last term. However, given your past actions, the RD has yet to overcome a great many hurdles in order to trust your goodwill. You may try to portray this as unfair, but it wasn't us who placed those hurdles.

As far as flexibility is concerned: I'm quite confident that the RD could have seen its way clear to supporting a CC-President who has been less openly hostile to the Left in the past.

 

[unmerged(10397)]

Originally posted by Jools
Great, so it has devoured into pointless bickering.

Jake, as party leader I withdraw our envoy from this place. Please don't continue any discussion here.

This is what I was afraid of. We are handing Eutopia back to a king. The coalition may have failed, but I hope those of us remaining can co-operate to keep the true issue of the republic open.

 

[unmerged(1522)]

Originally posted by Phalanx
This is what I was afraid of. We are handing Eutopia back to a king. The coalition may have failed, but I hope those of us remaining can co-operate to keep the true issue of the republic open.

The RD would be open to an ESRP-RD-MP coalition. We'd obviously still prefer a coalition including the Conservatives, but if the CC is not interested, that leaves us little choice.

 

[unmerged(3748)]

Originally posted by Melanchthon
The RD would be open to an ESRP-RD-MP coalition. We'd obviously still prefer a coalition including the Conservatives, but if the CC is not interested, that leaves us little choice.

I am prepared to retract my candidacy and urge the RD voting base to support Mr. O'Floinn as soon as an agreement is reached here.

An agreement does not entail nitpicking about who gets which spot. An agreement is the honest will to stand behind one candidate and one program in which every partner has a fair voice. Dividing seats is a matter for after the elections.

 

[Josephus I]

I wonder if Jools represents the interests of his party. Seems to me Mr. Langley was doing a pretty good job for the CC in this coalition negotiation.

 

[unmerged(3748)]

If we cannot trust party chairmen to speak for their parties, how can we discuss and negotiate in these or any circumstances? Whatever may be the current position of the CC, I think some explanation about Mr. Jools' recent behaviour is in order.

 

[unmerged(10397)]

If the CC members are with Mr. Jools on this, then we must move on. If we can't get the rational heads of the CC to prevail, then I suggest the following. Everyone gets a ministry, the RD gets VP, the ESRP gets speaker, and the MP gets dep. speaker. Any objections?

 

[Josephus I]

I just ran into Mr. Langley at the grocery store (ooc-pm). He is unable to continue discussion here, as per his leader's orders. He wanted me to assure you all that he is still committed to a CPR coalition; that Jools is not speaking for his party.

I think we should wait until Tuesday's deadline before ending negotiations here.

I personally think Jools is not acting in his party's best interests, and I'm on record many times as questioning the minister's abilities.

If this coalition fails, I see it as a failing of the CC; and other parties should see this point when forming another coalition.

 

[Craig Ashley]

Gentlemen, I have returned. I am here without the blessing of our party chairman, but I and other prominent leaders in the CC believe we should try to make this work. So please disregard Jools's ealier statements. He does not speak for the party and only for himself.

 

[unmerged(10397)]

Good to hear Mr. Langley.

 

[unmerged(3748)]

Originally posted by Craig Ashley
Gentlemen, I have returned. I am here without the blessing of our party chairman, but I and other prominent leaders in the CC believe we should try to make this work. So please disregard Jools's ealier statements. He does not speak for the party and only for himself.

That leaves me with a simple question: How will you ensure that you have a chairman who does speak for his party?

This may be a slightly rude and intrusive question, but you must understand that this is imperative in order to be able to conduct negotiations on any matter.

Sebastian Fitzpatrick
Rally for Democracy

 

[Craig Ashley]

As you all know, the CC was formed hastily last election. It was Jools who masterminded the formation of the broad alliance and he was a natural fit for party chairman. However, I believe his time in that seat is about to come to and end.

Also I have been in contact with various members of the CC and I can assure you that they agree with myself and Mr. Lundgren. We want to see a multi-partisan coalition work. Jools is out on a limb.

 

[unmerged(6657)]

I have the following issues to discuss. First of all, we need to have the non-MP presidential cnadidates stricken from the ballot ASAP. If a citizen votes for a candidate that is going to be stricken, and doesn't have Mr. O'Floinn as his 2nd vote, the ballot is disregarded. We need public retractions, as since the election is done via PM, we cannot be sure that members of the CPR aren't going behind each other's back, and undermining the alliance.

Second, are we sure that we will control all four ministries?? The CRE will have at least 3 seats, and that may entitle them to one ministry. Can we guarantee that the CPR will be able to divide up all the spoils of the election without ant concessions to the CRE?? This is a major issue, and must be resolved before we proceed.

Finally, regarding the Ministries. We should decide which party, and which member will control which ministry right now. As I am the first in line from the MP for minister, I would prefer MHA. However, Vasco IKK has been a good minister, so I would settle for METI if necessary. The parties should decide who each minister will be, so there will be little delay in setting up offices once the election is over, and parliament is called.

 

[Craig Ashley]

I have a proposal that is a little out there, but it also may be the break through we need.

We agree to support MR. O'Floinn and that each party gets one cabinet spot. We can inform Mr. O'Floinn what spot each party wants, and who we think should be appointed, but in the end, it would be his decision. He would also choose the VP based on who he thinks is most qualified.

We leave the speaker and deputy speaker posts until after the election. then based on who does what in the election we decide who gets the spots. With the only agreement being the MP cannot get the either chair since they have the presidency.

It leaves a lot in the air, but I think we all trust Mr. O'Floinn to do what is best for Eutopia. Agreed?