NationStates Jolt Archive

The Party of Whatever Works no longer has sufficient membership to continue as a viable political entity. We are currently trying to decide whether to continue the Party or to simply dissolve it. If you have comments concerning this proposed action, please post them here.



The Platform of The Party of Whatever Works

Preamble: We, the members of The Party of Whatever Works, hereby provide this statement of beliefs, principles and process, to clarify the basic legislative and political standards of our Party.

Basis For Our Platform:

We believe that the human race is only one of the many species of Earth and that any political process should take this fact into account.

We believe, in a paraphrase of a well-known saying, that government is best which has to govern least.

We believe that an educated citizenry is the best defense against many of the ills which beset humanity, and that the intelligence, knowledge, creativity and ingenuity of our people will find a way to overcome when free to do so.

We believe in the maximum amount of freedom for all members of society, consonant with the maintenance of safety and prosperity.

We believe that one of the primary functions of government is to defend our people from foreseeable threats from other nations, organizations, natural disasters, and other assorted ills and threats from what can sometimes be a dangerous universe.

We believe in the right of people to live their lives as free from governmental interference and regulation as possible.

We believe in the essential dignity of every human life, and do not support discrimination of any sort on the basis of race, religion, sex, age, sexual orientation or sexual choice.

We believe that the right of the individual citizen to defend him or herself is sacrosanct.

Specific Issues:

1. Abortion. Though we do not approve of abortion as a means of birth control, we oppose any limitations on a woman's prerogative to abort during the first trimester, or on medical abortions necessary for the health of the mother. We also advocate support for those organizations which provide legal and rational alternatives for women who elect to not abort but who are unable or unwilling to raise a child.

2. Gay Marriage. We do not consider this to be an appropriate issue for consideration by the government.

3. Transgender Issues. We do not consider this to be an appropriate issue for consideration by the government.

4. Medical Insurance. We advocate universal medical insurance for all citizens, to be managed by a private organization, a list of approved procedures and treatments, and a legally-enforced schedule of fees and charges for all approved procedures and treatments. We also advocate spreading the cost for this program across the entire insurance industry.

5. Taxes. We advocate the total elimination of all deductions and exemptions, the taxation of every dollar of income for all individuals and organizations ( without exception! ), and the establishment of a fixed percentage for this taxation regardless of income, above a fixed minimum income level. We advocate the elimination of all governmental welfare programs which cannot show a 20% increase in the standard of living for at least 80% of clients over a three-year period ( and "sunset law" provisions for all programs remaining ), and the institution of a "reverse income tax" on a sliding scale based on income, for all those below the fixed minimum income.

6. Environmental Issues. We advocate that in any situation where there is a clear and provable conflict between any sort of "development," whether private or public, the conflict will be resolved in favor of environmental restraint. We also advocate heavy fines for environmental pollution, and substantial monetary rewards for individuals and organizations which demonstrate a proven track record in improving the environment. We also advocate expansion of all national parks, national forests and other wild and/or scenic areas, with "fair market value" compensation for citizens who prove loss as a result of this expansion.

7. Military Preparedness. We advocate a strong, technologically advanced, highly trained, all volunteer military. We also advocate training programs for all members of the military in civil affairs/civic operations and in methods to prevent/minimize civilian casualties.

8. International Relations. We advocate a four-step process in resolving international conflict: direct diplomacy with the nation(s) involved, diplomacy through the United Nations, sanctions against recalcitrant nations, and only when it becomes obvious that the first three options have failed, military intervention. We also advocate international dialogue on ways to improve the United Nations, or in creating a more viable alternative organization.

9. Education. We advocate the establishment of a national council on education, to include representatives from all walks of life, which will be responsible for establishing minimal educational standards for teachers and curricula nationwide. We also advocate the imposition of severe penalties for failure on the part of local educational and governmental organizations to maintain these minimal educational standards, up to and including substantial fines and jail terms, as well as substantial financial and other rewards for those who use creative and effective means of furthering education below the college level. We also advocate substantial financial aid for college students based upon family income and asset levels.

10. Space Programs. We advocate full funding of viable space programs and initiatives, including substantial financial and other rewards for the development of new, cost-effective methods of improving these programs.

11. Basic Research. We advocate full funding of basic research at levels above a minimum of 2% of GDP.

12. Death Penalty. We advocate working toward total elimination of the death penalty. We advocate immediate elimination of the death penalty for all crimes other than treason, child molestation, severe child abuse or neglect, premeditated murder, mass murder, serial murder, or murder in the commission of another felony.

13. Genetic Research. We advocate the funding of all genetic research, with effective safeguards, which have no adverse effects on the environment as determined by the best scientific methods available, and which safeguards the privacy of human beings and the genetic integrity of all naturally existing species.

14. Maintenance of the National Infrastructure. We advocate following the recommendations of the National Transportation Board and other independent organizations.

15. Private Ownership of Weapons. We advocate the abolition of all laws prohibiting or limiting private ownership of personal weapons normally available to the average military infantryman for any citizen other than convicted felons or those proven to advocate the violent overthrow of the duly constituted government. We also advocate legally mandated training in weapons safety and use for all gun owners, including ( but not limited to )child safety, weapons security, and legal circumstances of use.

16. National Financial Responsibility. We advocate elimination of the national debt and a prohibition against governmental spending ( at all levels! ) which exceeds governmental income, except in times of national emergency.

17. National Priorities. In the event that insufficient revenue precludes funding for all requirements of this Platform, we advocate a national plebiscite which gives registered voters an opportunity to prioritize governmental goals and objectives in descending order of preference.

18. Election Integrity. We advocate the establishment of an independent commission to recommend secure processes and procedures to guarantee that all citizens eligible to vote will have the opportunity to do so, that all votes are valid, and that all valid votes are counted, for all elections at all levels, national, state and local.

19. Citizen Initiative. We advocate an initiative law allowing citizen-initiated legislation upon the submission of petitions containing no less than 10% of all registered voters within the appropriate political division ( national, state or local ).

20. Energy Policy. We advocate increasing the tax on non-renewable energy resources, with all revenue from this tax going to individuals and organizations seeking alternative energy options.

Involvement of Non-Party Members:

We encourage all citizens, whether members of The Whatever Works Party or not, to comment on this Platform, and to make suggestions for other issues they feel we should address.

http://img157.echo.cx/img157/5324/thethinker1sy.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

[ Last edited in response to citizen input at 21:40 hours, May 18, 2005 ]

The Platform of The Party of Whatever Works


dictatorships and monarchys work! does that mean this is a dictatorship or monarchy party?

dictatorships and monarchys work! does that mean this is a dictatorship or monarchy party?
No. Whether or not a dictatorship or monarchy "works" depends upon who you ask. Besides, it's not a nation, it's a party platform intended for a democracy. Try reading it and you'll see that.

Where do I sign up comrade?

Where do I sign up comrade?
Um ... "Comrade?" Hmmm.

Technically, there is no "sign-up." There will be an election of sorts here on the General Forum, but I'm not involved in that. Just keep your eyes open and vote for The PWW platform if you like us. :)

1. Abortion. Though we do not approve of abortion as a means of birth control, we oppose any limitations on a woman's prerogative to abort during the first trimester, or on medical abortions necessary for the health of the mother. We also advocate support for those organizations which provide legal and rational alternatives for women who elect to not abort but who are unable or unwilling to have an abortion.

Methinks that last sentence should read "women who elect to not abort but who are unable or unwilling to raise a child."

2. Gay Marriage. We do not consider this to be an appropriate issue for consideration by the government.

I would assume, then, that the government will have no rules whatsoever pertaining to marriage? I could sort of see that, but I think things would get pretty messy.

4. Medical Insurance. We advocate universal medical insurance for all citizens, to be managed by a private organization, a list of approved procedures and treatments, and a legally-enforced schedule of fees and charges for all approved procedures and treatments. We also advocate spreading the cost for this program across the entire insurance industry.

Perhaps the organization regulating this should be a panel including doctors, laymen, representatives of the insurance companies, and lawyers?

5. Taxes. We advocate the total elimination of all deductions and exemptions, the taxation of every dollar of income for all individuals and organizations ( without exception! ), and the establishment of a fixed percentage for this taxation regardless of income level, above a fixed minimum income level. We advocate the elimination of all governmental welfare programs which cannot show a 20% increase in the standard of living for at least 80% of clients over a three-year period, and the institution of a "reverse income tax" on a sliding scale based on income, for all those below the fixed minimum income.

Unless you are setting that minimum income awfully high, I'm iffy on this.

I would also say that immediate elimination of welfare may not be necessary - but reform certainly would.

We also advocate substantial financial aid for college students based upon family income and asset levels.

With the addition of, I would hope, consideration of the aptitude of the student?

11. Basic Research. We advocate full funding of basic research at levels above a minimum of 2% of GDP.

Fully funding? Sweet!

13. Genetic Research. We advocate the funding of all genetic research, with effective safeguards, which can be proven to not affect the environment, and which safeguards the privacy of human beings and the safety of all living things.

You just wiped out all genetic research. Perhaps instead of "proven to not affect the environment," we should say "with no demonstrable adverse effects on the environment." We can never be fully sure that something will not affect the environment at all or that it will not be harmful in the least.

15. Private Ownership of Weapons. We advocate the abolition of all laws prohibiting or limiting private ownership of personal weapons normally available to the average military infantryman for any citizen other than convicted felons or those proven to advocate the violent overthrow of the duly constituted government.

Can we at least require gun safety classes? and classes on when lethal force is acceptable? Pretty please?

Your average military infantryman is trained in the proper use of these weapons. I see no reason that your average citizen who wants one should not have to be trained as well.

16. National Financial Responsibility. We advocate elimination of the national debt and a prohibition against governmental spending ( at all levels! ) which exceeds governmental income, except in times of national emergency.

Hear hear!

This seems like a pretty good manifesto, not sure about the name. "The Pragmatist Party" sounds like a better name with the same meaning.

You just wiped out all genetic research. Perhaps instead of "proven to not affect the environment," we should say "with no demonstrable adverse effects on the environment." We can never be fully sure that something will not affect the environment at all or that it will not be harmful in the least.

This is a good point though.

Um ... "Comrade?" Hmmm.

Yeah, I do that alot, don't worry about it.

1. Methinks that last sentence should read "women who elect to not abort but who are unable or unwilling to raise a child."

2. I would assume, then, that the government will have no rules whatsoever pertaining to marriage? I could sort of see that, but I think things would get pretty messy.

3. Perhaps the organization regulating this should be a panel including doctors, laymen, representatives of the insurance companies, and lawyers?

4. Unless you are setting that minimum income awfully high, I'm iffy on this.

5. I would also say that immediate elimination of welfare may not be necessary - but reform certainly would.

6. With the addition of, I would hope, consideration of the aptitude of the student?

7. Fully funding? Sweet!

8. You just wiped out all genetic research. Perhaps instead of "proven to not affect the environment," we should say "with no demonstrable adverse effects on the environment." We can never be fully sure that something will not affect the environment at all or that it will not be harmful in the least.

9. Can we at least require gun safety classes? and classes on when lethal force is acceptable? Pretty please?

10. Your average military infantryman is trained in the proper use of these weapons. I see no reason that your average citizen who wants one should not have to be trained as well.

11. Hear hear!
Thanks for taking the time to read that! :)

1. Perhaps, although I really don't see much difference in the wording. Lemmie think 'bout it.

2. How about "marriage between consenting adult humans?" :)

3. That's probably a bit more detail than I was willing to go into, but perhaps I'll add that.

4. I need more explanation here. Why do you say that? What's your reasoning?

5. We don't advocate the total "elimination" of welfare, just of those programs which can be demonstrated to create "learned dependence."

6. Apptitude will, presumably, be considered by the individual college or university when studends apply for enrollment.

7. Yup! Basic research is an investment in our future.

8. Good point. Let me think on it ... I may change the wording.

9. I'll add that. I was just being a bit too vague, I suppose. Sorry.

10. Ditto.

11. :D

Thanks for the very thoughtful and insightful comments! :)

2. How about "marriage between consenting adult humans?"

Your party doesn't need to make any ruling on what makes a marriage valid unless your party plans to treat married people differently to unmarried people. Otherwise, leave it to the religions to deal with.

Thanks for taking the time to read that! :)

No prob. =)

1. Perhaps, although I really don't see much difference in the wording. Lemmie think 'bout it.

Right now it doesn't make sense. It says we should provide alternatives for women who elect not to abort but can't have an abortion. It doesn't really make sense.

2. How about "marriage between consenting adult humans?" :)

Sounds good to me.

4. I need more explanation here. Why do you say that? What's your reasoning?

I'm actually not a big fan of the whole flat-tax thing. While you obviously plan on cutting out a great deal of government spending, huge amounts of money are going to be necessary to run any government. A flat tax system would either need to have a really high minimum income (so that the little guys don't get taxed to the point they can't survive). In the end, what you seem to be proposing is simply a progressive tax system (as those below the minimum cutoff would be taxed by what they can pay and those above would have a set amount).

5. We don't advocate the total "elimination" of welfare, just of those programs which can be demonstrated to create "learned dependence."

Thing is, any program can lead to dependence. I think the trick may be taking all programs and making them temporary - like they were meant to be. If, after a certain amount of time, the recipient is not demonstrably making an effort, they get cut off.

6. Apptitude will, presumably, be considered by the individual college or university when studends apply for enrollment.

So any economically disadvantaged person who gets accepted to a school gets equal access to money?

Ok, I could see that.

8. Good point. Let me think on it ... I may change the wording.

kk. =)

9. I'll add that. I was just being a bit too vague, I suppose. Sorry.

10. Ditto.

No problem. I just thought when you said we should get rid of all laws that such things as training wouldn't be required. =)

Thanks for the very thoughtful and insightful comments! :)

Thanks for the well-written subject matter! =)

You had me on everything except taxes and guns. But the simple suggestion someone else said about training and/or safetly classes makes the gun portion of it not an issue.

Taxes are a bit iffy. But it seems like it might be quite alright.

I'm actually not a big fan of the whole flat-tax thing. While you obviously plan on cutting out a great deal of government spending, huge amounts of money are going to be necessary to run any government. A flat tax system would either need to have a really high minimum income (so that the little guys don't get taxed to the point they can't survive). In the end, what you seem to be proposing is simply a progressive tax system (as those below the minimum cutoff would be taxed by what they can pay and those above would have a set amount).

Thing is, any program can lead to dependence. I think the trick may be taking all programs and making them temporary - like they were meant to be. If, after a certain amount of time, the recipient is not demonstrably making an effort, they get cut off.

Thanks for the well-written subject matter! =)
:)

I changed some of the "planks" in the platform based on yours and others' input, but I'm still thinking about the ones I quoted above.

I also added a couple of planks to the list.

Thanks again for the input! ( I knew there was some reason I liked you! ) :D

Your position on the death penalty is piss-weak!

Your position on the death penalty is piss-weak!
So make a recommendation. It's a lot easier to criticize than it is to create.

Hmm...Your expanded platform is even better. I could support such a party platform easily, almost without hesitation. Whatever small disagreements I might have could easily be tallied up to small conflicts in philosophy.

The devil, of course, is in the details. The national healthcare plan is essential, but how would one set up such a program? What is the nature of the private company that the government would work through; and how would the people get imput on the issue? How much oversight would the government get, who would decide standards of care to prevent cost overruns?

Stuff like that would prove difficult to flush out more fully, but even good ideas turn bad if you cannot fully plot them out.

Hmm...Your expanded platform is even better. I could support such a party platform easily, almost without hesitation. Whatever small disagreements I might have could easily be tallied up to small conflicts in philosophy.

The devil, of course, is in the details. The national healthcare plan is essential, but how would one set up such a program? What is the nature of the private company that the government would work through; and how would the people get imput on the issue? How much oversight would the government get, who would decide standards of care to prevent cost overruns?

Stuff like that would prove difficult to flush out more fully, but even good ideas turn bad if you cannot fully plot them out.
This is true. Unfortunately, that takes considerable time and a great deal of thought and effort. I'm not sure if I have either the will or the inclination to do so, but suggestions are always welcome. :)

Thank you for the kind comments and for your support. You will soon receive some of our literature in your mailbox which will include an opportunity for you to participate in this historic effort to turn our country in the correct direction ( any amount is welcome! ). :D

Since others have "resurrected" their proposed political party "manifestos," I decided to resurrect this one. :)

As we approach the election, The Party of Whatever Works humbly invites your further comments and/or questions. If we are unable to respond with a logical, reasonable, workable response we will simply so state, rather than merely reiterating party propaganda.

Methinks we have a small political party. Considering fewer than a dozen people have actually posted here. Oh well. Whatever works for them too, I guess. ;)

Methinks we have a small political party. Considering fewer than a dozen people have actually posted here. Oh well. Whatever works for them too, I guess. ;)
That's because I've been somewhat less than the "tongue-in-cheek" approach taken by most of the other parties ( i.e. I'm too serious, and definitely not ideological about this ). :D

Interesting. I like this party more than I do the rest of them.
It appears to make an attempt at actually making sense rather than holding up some ideology above all.

So, when is the election?

I can only disagree with these. 12, because I don't support the death penalty for anything, 7, because I don't support the military. :(



7. Military Preparedness. We advocate a strong, technologically advanced, highly trained, all volunteer military. We also advocate training programs for all members of the military in civil affairs/civic operations and in methods to prevent/minimize civilian casualties.

12. Death Penalty. We advocate working toward total elimination of the death penalty. We advocate immediate elimination of the death penalty for all crimes other than treason, child molestation, severe child abuse or neglect, premeditated murder, mass murder, serial murder, or murder in the commission of another felony.

Huh. Well, aside from the lack of an NHS, I'm for it. Despite it's flaws, the NHS is what I like most about Britain, and I'd never give it up. Besides, we even prove that it can work with the private sector. See Bupa.

I can only disagree with these. 12, because I don't support the death penalty for anything, 7, because I don't support the military. :(

Well, if you read carefully 12 will lead to the removal of the death penalty, but simply in a "sunset program" rather than an immediate cessasion, which we have reason to belive will cause a backlash.

7...I've got nothing. Perhaps another party will better serve your desires there.

Well, if you read carefully 12 will lead to the removal of the death penalty, but simply in a "sunset program" rather than an immediate cessasion, which we have reason to belive will cause a backlash. Yes, I did get that...would the eventual goal be a complete ban on the death penalty then?

7...I've got nothing. Perhaps another party will better serve your desires there.
Hmmmm...yet I like the rest of the platform so much! Could I live with the army issue? I'll have to think about it...the rest gells so well with my philosophy...

*hint..promise me a spanking now and again and I'm yours for life*

Yes, I did get that...would the eventual goal be a complete ban on the death penalty then?


Hmmmm...yet I like the rest of the platform so much! Could I live with the army issue? I'll have to think about it...the rest gells so well with my philosophy...

Yeah, that was my understanding. Eventually the death penalty will be removed entirely, but the length or duration of the Sunset program is not mentioned.

You'll have to ask Eutrusca, since he's the party head, he'd have to delegate any and all spankings ;)

Except that I'm totally and absolutely against the death penaly, I could say
Eutrusca for President!

Except that I'm totally and absolutely against the death penaly, I could say
Eutrusca for President!
Read post 28. And there will be spankings! Who can say no??

I can only disagree with these. 12, because I don't support the death penalty for anything, 7, because I don't support the military. :(
It's ok, sweetie. I know you love me anyway! :D

Interesting. I like this party more than I do the rest of them.
It appears to make an attempt at actually making sense rather than holding up some ideology above all.
Kewl! That's exactly the tone I was aiming for. :)

... we ...
:D

Read post 28. And there will be spankings! Who can say no??Do I get to be spanker or spankee?

Apart from the spanking bit, this seems like a good party.

:D

I figured you could use a little help, plus I like the party ;)

Apart from the spanking bit, this seems like a good party.
That's just one of our more ... um ... exuberant members being a bit more exuberant than usual. :)

I figured you could use a little help, plus I like the party ;)
Kewl beans, dude! :D

Go for it. :)

In other news...I've been on the internet too long...I just QUOTED a SMILEY.

No words, no statement. Just a smilely, sitting bare and alone against a field of white. AND I QUOTED IT!

I'm gonna go to starbucks and cry into my 5$ cup of coffee. The death of English is upon us.

So when is the election, and who are the candidates? They're listed on a thread somewhere aren't they?

The death of English is upon us.

Never!!

:eek:

:fluffle: :fluffle: :D:p:(

:mp5:

I had to translate it for those of us with the times....

I had to translate it for those of us with the times....
:cool:




see? thats how its done ;)

In other news...I've been on the internet too long...I just QUOTED a SMILEY.

No words, no statement. Just a smilely, sitting bare and alone against a field of white. AND I QUOTED IT!

I'm gonna go to starbucks and cry into my 5$ cup of coffee. The death of English is upon us.
ROFL! But it was a very eloquent smiley! :D

I've loved this party idea from the beginning, and although there are a few ideological differences I have with the manifisto, I respect this party and it's creater alot more then some of the others out there, it is obviouslt built on common sence and rational thinking.

My only 2 issues are

1) the flat tax thing. I'd suggest a progressive tax above a certain income level.

2) military. I'm not against a strong military per se, I'd just like to see countries working towards less of a need for one, and I think that having a strong military makes a nation more beligerent and dominearing. I'd like a clause that says that that military will ever only be used defencively, like Japan has, or offencively only in the case of extreme need, or must be approved by a referendum of all registered voters, or something similar. And a statement of dedication to peace, as much a possible.

Other than that, I couldn't find a party I'd more want to be a part of unless I made one my self. There's some real thought in this party, and it will attract the kinds of people we want.

I'm definatly in ^_^

I've loved this party idea from the beginning, and although there are a few ideological differences I have with the manifisto, I respect this party and it's creater alot more then some of the others out there, it is obviouslt built on common sence and rational thinking.

My only 2 issues are

1) the flat tax thing. I'd suggest a progressive tax above a certain income level.

2) military. I'm not against a strong military per se, I'd just like to see countries working towards less of a need for one, and I think that having a strong military makes a nation more beligerent and dominearing. I'd like a clause that says that that military will ever only be used defencively, like Japan has, or offencively only in the case of extreme need, or must be approved by a referendum of all registered voters, or something similar. And a statement of dedication to peace, as much a possible.

Other than that, I couldn't find a party I'd more want to be a part of unless I made one my self. There's some real thought in this party, and it will attract the kinds of people we want.

I'm definatly in ^_^
Thank you for the vote of confidence, Kat! I greatly appreciate it, and I'll give some thought to the suggestions. :)

sweet :D

See, that's what I like about this party, input is encouraged and concidered, not dismissed out of hand because it doesn't fit a certain ideology

Kudos to Eutrusca!
I'd sign on. I have a few quibbles in the details- like a little more progressive tax.
My only worry is what isn't stated. I'd like to see a statement that while religious views and ideology may be an imputus to ideas of the party, it will never be the reason for a platform. The current trend of fundamentalist christians trying to enact laws based on thier narrow belief make me cry. It could be any minority fanatics trying this.
Otherwise, Excellent party.

sweet :D

See, that's what I like about this party, input is encouraged and concidered, not dismissed out of hand because it doesn't fit a certain ideology

If you've taken a look at the UDCP thread, you'll have seen that input from our members is what we value the most; our manifesto includes points suggested by many different members, and debated by all.

Oh, and glad to see your party is successful, Eutrusca. I'll look forward to our parties going head to head tomorrow. ;)

I have already voted for this party! :)

It's platform is much more rational than most of the other parties.

I have also attempted a little bit of campaigning on the Parties behalf...albeit with little success...

...ah well. We'll suprise 'em in the end. :D

The election has started! I voted for The Party of Whatever Works.

I have already voted for this party! :)

It's platform is much more rational than most of the other parties.

I have also attempted a little bit of campaigning on the Parties behalf...albeit with little success...

...ah well. We'll suprise 'em in the end. :D
Thank you so much for the kind comments, and for your vote!

"Help restore sanity to the process!" :D

The election has started! I voted for The Party of Whatever Works.
Thank you! Every vote helps!

"Help restore sanity to the process!"

A vote for us is a vote for restoring a measure of sanity to the political process. Vote "Party of Whatever Works!" You'll be glad you did! :)

I'd like to direct you to this thread I made: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=423366

I'd like to direct you to this thread I made: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=423366
I posted the compass figures to it. Basically, we're "centrist" largely because we're not ideological. Our primary interest is in restoring rationality and practicality to the political process.

I'm game. You've got me. Especially since this is suppose to be a centrist party. I only have a minor quabble on taxes, but that is easily overlooked. This looks like a nice small party that could really do some damage if played right.

The Socialists and Libertarians seem to have a strong following due to the current results of the election, but they don't have a stranglehold over votes and seats, which makes the smaller parties like this one more important. If these smaller parties can make some good coalitions, then they can really do some damage in taking control of the Parliament.

Well, welcome to the Party then, Forumwalker! :)

I didn't have any major objecitons to any of the party platforms...which is why I chose to vote for it. I disagree with phasing out the death penalty, but that is a minor quibble.

I very much like our education and space programs...and this statement, in the "Basis of our Platform" section, is what truly sold me on this party...

"We believe that an educated citizenry is the best defense against many of the ills which beset humanity, and that the intelligence, knowledge, creativity and ingenuity of our people will find a way to overcome when free to do so."

Hell yeah! :cool:

Well, welcome to the Party then, Forumwalker! :)

I didn't have any major objecitons to any of the party platforms...which is why I chose to vote for it. I disagree with phasing out the death penalty, but that is a minor quibble.

Yeah, I only have like one or two minor quabbles here and there.

I very much like our education and space programs...and this statement, in the "Basis of our Platform" section, is what truly sold me on this party...

"We believe that an educated citizenry is the best defense against many of the ills which beset humanity, and that the intelligence, knowledge, creativity and ingenuity of our people will find a way to overcome when free to do so."

Hell yeah! :cool:

It is the sweetest part of the platform.

This election is really something. I haven't been this interested about something in these forums in a long, long time.

This election is really something. I haven't been this interested about something in these forums in a long, long time.

Same here. :)


Regarding a coalition in parliament...we could align with the Cult of TInk Party, which is closest to this party on the Political Compass...and possibly also the NS Meritocratic Republicans, who while economically more conservative, are still fairly centrist.

At this current time in the voting, that would give our three parties a total of 7 seats...more than the Democratic Socialists, or the Classsic Liberals, who each have five seats...

...we might also convince the Party of Order and the Mole Alliance to join us, since that would change them from relatively insignificant factors to part of the largest power block, giving our coalition 9 seats.

This, of course, would be up to our exalted leader :D

Don't vote!

http://img236.echo.cx/img236/9583/poster0vf.jpg

Stupid bum! :mad:

That's what he gets for passing out in the path of a charging elephant.

http://img228.echo.cx/img228/6298/tnstopus6kg.jpg

Gah....propaganda is for insecure politicians ;)

Gah....propaganda is for insecure politicians ;)
It was not propoganda... it was a message...

http://www.santharia.com/bestiary/beasts_pics/mhorashty.jpg

Call it what you like, it still means you need to see a shrink. :p

Call it what you like, it still means you need to see a shrink. :p

Heh... I've seen one. I scared her half to death with my ideas. :D

Heh... I've seen one. I scared her half to death with my ideas. :D

Heh, like wearing a black top-hat and munching on the world?

Why would she be scared of a thing like that? :cool:

A little BUMP...for the sake of sanity! :D

Eutrusca and Delator You have TGs

Eutrusca and Delator You have TGs

Intriguing... :D

Intriguing... :D

It could be, but no intrigue is intended.

TG to MT as well.

It could be, but no intrigue is intended.

TG to MT as well.

Acknowledged.

Eutrusca and Delator You have TGs

TG recieved, read and replied to.

Can I suggest you have a look at what is going on in the UDCP thread. :(

Same here. :)


Regarding a coalition in parliament...we could align with the Cult of TInk Party, which is closest to this party on the Political Compass...and possibly also the NS Meritocratic Republicans, who while economically more conservative, are still fairly centrist.

At this current time in the voting, that would give our three parties a total of 7 seats...more than the Democratic Socialists, or the Classsic Liberals, who each have five seats...

...we might also convince the Party of Order and the Mole Alliance to join us, since that would change them from relatively insignificant factors to part of the largest power block, giving our coalition 9 seats.

This, of course, would be up to our exalted leader :D


I'm still holding out hope that Mole and Order lose enough of the percentage to lose their one seats each. Having them in Parliament will really screw things up.

But anyway this is how it looks like the coalitions are coming down. NSCL and UYP have made a coalition so to speak, which gives them 7 seats. That's a pretty good amount, except if RTP, UDCP, and USP unite then they will have a whooping 9 seats combined. If Tink goes with them, make that 12. By then they pretty much have control.

I believe the NSCL has cemented a deal with MSRR which will give them 9 seats. Although if we could get MSRR and Tink we could have 7 seats, and the righties would fall back to 7 seats. But if the lefties combine to get those 9 seats, then they will have control. Then it comes down to who we should ally with if this happens. If us and MSRR go to the right and Tink goes to the left, then the left has a one seat majority 12-11. Then it's all about picking off Mole and Order. But I don't really want supremacy in the Parliament to come down to where Mole and Order vote.

It all depends on if the lefties ally or not, if they don't then it really opens things up. If they do, then things are gonna get messy.

Your stance on capital punishment contradicts itself. First you say you want to completely eliminate it, then you list a slew of situations where it is allowed. Drop your total elimination stance, add violent rape to the list, and I'm good on that.

Also, a totally flat tax is extreme. I support flat tax overall, but there needs to be a line. For instance, no taxes for those below poverty level, a formula-based progressive tax increase up until the point where a person's taxes will no longer put them below someone who is taxed less than they are, then flat taxes from there on. The progressive tax part is to avoid someone who is paying a 10% flat while making 31,000 - pretending that's above poverty for whatever democracy you'd be applying this to - making less after taxes than someone that is tax immune who makes 29,000 or so - assuming 29,000 is below.

Your international policy stance is weak. Let's say that half-way through step two the country you're dealing with gets pissed and blows a couple thousand of your people straight to hell. Now you have to go with military intervention, anyway, but you lost two thousand people more than was necessary.

Or, better yet, maybe you try to deal with a situation diplomatically, and it seems to work, and then a few years later the country does what you told it not to do, anyway.

Any further news on the TG suggestions.

We could use a decent discussion on gun control, without flamming involved. Is there anyone from this party willing to partake?

To the communists poster guy, the point of communism is saposed to be, in the end, "getting out of the nursery," the withering away of the government, people depending on themselves and their neibhors. Doesn't always work out that way, but that's because no one's really accully tryed. Except Moa. And that didn't really work. Also, you give the government total power, you can't expect it to then let it's self wither away.

It appears that there has been an alliance formed between the DSP, COTP and the UDCP. This casts the centre left much further to the left than they would otherwise be. The UDCP has by far the strongest political debators of the three, so will tend to determine the political line of the allied left.

Evidence of alliance (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9009346&postcount=384)

In response to this we, in the NSCL would ask for your support in at least economic matters in the parliament. Let us try to keep the tax burden to a minimum.

It appears that there has been an alliance formed between the DSP, COTP and the UDCP. This casts the centre left much further to the left than they would otherwise be. The UDCP has by far the strongest political debators of the three, so will tend to determine the political line of the allied left.

Evidence of alliance (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9009346&postcount=384)

In response to this we, in the NSCL would ask for your support in at least economic matters in the parliament. Let us try to keep the tax burden to a minimum.
The Party of Whatever Works advocates taxation at the lowest levels consonant with providing necessary services to those most in need of those services. We also advocate balanced budgets at all governmental levels. To this extent we agree with keeping "the tax burden to a minimum."

We are not, however, prepared to form alliances with any other party at this point in time. There are a variety of reasons for this, the primary one being that experience in the real world has repeatedly shown that many parties "talk a good fight," but tend to draft a platform only to depart from it at the earliest possible moment.

One of the basic tenets of the Party of Whatever Works' political philosophy is that most ideologies are either not worth the paper on which they were written, or are too limiting in what they "should" or "should not" do. We want no such limitiations.

From our Party Platform:

5. Taxes. We advocate the total elimination of all deductions and exemptions, the taxation of every dollar of income for all individuals and organizations ( without exception! ), and the establishment of a fixed percentage for this taxation regardless of income, above a fixed minimum income level. We advocate the elimination of all governmental welfare programs which cannot show a 20% increase in the standard of living for at least 80% of clients over a three-year period ( and "sunset law" provisions for all programs remaining ), and the institution of a "reverse income tax" on a sliding scale based on income, for all those below the fixed minimum income.

From our Party Platform:

16. National Financial Responsibility. We advocate elimination of the national debt and a prohibition against governmental spending ( at all levels! ) which exceeds governmental income, except in times of national emergency.

The Party of Whatever Works advocates taxation at the lowest levels consonant with providing necessary services to those most in need of those services. We also advocate balanced budgets at all governmental levels. To this extent we agree with keeping "the tax burden to a minimum."

We are not, however, prepared to form alliances with any other party at this point in time. There are a variety of reasons for this, the primary one being that experience in the real world has repeatedly shown that many parties "talk a good fight," but tend to draft a platform only to depart from it at the earliest possible moment.

One of the basic tenets of the Party of Whatever Works' political philosophy is that most ideologies are either not worth the paper on which they were written, or are too limiting in what they "should" or "should not" do. We want no such limitiations.


I, and I am sure muy colleagues too, understand the fear of opportunism. We too are worried about this. What we propose is not a formal coalition, but more an loose alliance of those who consider the right of the individual to be primary. We, obviously, do not consider ourselves to be limited by our ideology of personal freedom, but we respect your position and understand the origins of this with regard to ideologies.

I hope that over time you will come to see that we are true to our word and that we will be able to forge a strong and meaningful dialogue to further the interests all involved.

I, and I am sure muy colleagues too, understand the fear of opportunism. We too are worried about this. What we propose is not a formal coalition, but more an loose alliance of those who consider the right of the individual to be primary. We, obviously, do not consider ourselves to be limited by our ideology of personal freedom, but we respect your position and understand the origins of this with regard to ideologies.

I hope that over time you will come to see that we are true to our word and that we will be able to forge a strong and meaningful dialogue to further the interests all involved.
All of this is under consideration. We counsel patience. :)

If you voted for the POWW Party, please send a TG to The Free Republic of Eutrusca. I need your input on something. :)

If you voted for the POWW Party, please send a TG to The Free Republic of Eutrusca. I need your input on something. :)

You've got a TG Eutrusca. :)

You've got a TG Eutrusca. :)
Responded to. Please let me know what you think! :)

On behalf of the MRR, I apologize for Undelia's Stalin poster. I did not approve of it and only found it recently. This in no way reflects MRR policy. Again, I sincerely apologize for what happened.

Edit: It was just a joke on Undelia's part. I hope that no offense was taken.

On behalf of the MRR, I apologize for Undelia's Stalin poster. I did not approve of it and only found it recently. This in no way reflects MRR policy. Again, I sincerely apologize for what happened.
Ahh! Ideologically based politics! Don'tcha just love it? :D

One more chance to ask any questions about our Platform before the election is closed. :)

One more chance to ask any questions about our Platform before the election is closed. :)

The party's stance on gay marriage (not an appropriate issue for consideration by the government)...does this extend to marriage in general or just this particular issue?


EDIT: Oops, this was mentioned earlier on in the thread.

The party's stance on gay marriage (not an appropriate issue for consideration by the government)...does this extend to marriage in general or just this particular issue?

EDIT: Oops, this was mentioned earlier on in the thread.
NP. I thought we had addressed that somewhere, but there are now so many threads I am trying to monitor and post to that I'm losing track! Groan!

"Eutrusca
One more chance to ask any questions about our Platform before the election is closed."

Will the flat tax issue be adressed, will it become progressive above a certain amount? Is a statement of dedication to peaceful ronflict wherevere possible be added? Or wre we going with the platform as is?

"Eutrusca
One more chance to ask any questions about our Platform before the election is closed."

Will the flat tax issue be adressed, will it become progressive above a certain amount? Is a statement of dedication to peaceful ronflict wherevere possible be added? Or wre we going with the platform as is?
How about these:

Resolution of conflict:

I was under the impression that our Platform plank on "International Relations" adequately addressed this question, but we can add this statement of belief if you like: "We believe that armed conflict should, in almost every case, be the last resort after all attempts to satisfactorily resolve conflict by peaceful means have failed to yield positive results."

Income tax:

Please explain to me again why you think we should accept a progressive income tax as a viable option, particularly since we already advocate elimination of all exemptions and deductions?

If you voted for the POWW Party, please send a TG to The Free Republic of Eutrusca. I need your input on something. :)

Yo, I'm here now. What is up. Sending TG.

Yo, I'm here now. What is up. Sending TG.
We have some information to pass on to you. Please send a TG to The New Republic of Eutrusa and I'll send it to you. :)

We have some information to pass on to you. Please send a TG to The New Republic of Eutrusa and I'll send it to you. :)

Sent. Two of them.

Sent. Two of them.
Responded to. Let me know what you think. :)

Gogo, another tellie!

Gogo, another tellie!
Heh! "You've got ... telegram!" :D

Speaking of which...

...Eutrusca, you have a telegram. :)

Well, the results are in...so to speak.

We've got three seats! :)

Since Eutrusca will obviously occupy one seat (I assume), I'm wondering about how we will select the other two?

I know one of the parties (I believe it was the UDCP), is planning on having an internal party election to decide who their representatives will be.

I might be in favor of this, except we really have no way of knowing who voted for the PoWW...so I don't know if that would be the best way of going about it.

Then again, perhaps Eutrusca already has a couple of people in mind.

I myself would very much like to represent the PoWW in the NS Parliament. :D

I will, however, happily follow Eutrusca's recommendations regarding selection of Parliament members, and am more than willing to continue to help the Party of Whatever Works in whatever capacity is requested of me.

Great job everyone! :fluffle:
Especially Eutrusca! :)

Well, the results are in...so to speak.

We've got three seats! :)

Since Eutrusca will obviously occupy one seat (I assume), I'm wondering about how we will select the other two?

I know one of the parties (I believe it was the UDCP), is planning on having an internal party election to decide who their representatives will be.

I might be in favor of this, except we really have no way of knowing who voted for the PoWW...so I don't know if that would be the best way of going about it.

Then again, perhaps Eutrusca already has a couple of people in mind.

I myself would very much like to represent the PoWW in the NS Parliament. :D

I will, however, happily follow Eutrusca's recommendations regarding selection of Parliament members, and am more than willing to continue to help the Party of Whatever Works in whatever capacity is requested of me.

Great job everyone! :fluffle:
Especially Eutrusca! :)

Heh, yeah. Does Eutrusca have any recommendations, or are us three (Eutrusca, Delator, and myself) the only ones that voted for this party and continue to post on this thread about it's outcome?

Heh, yeah. Does Eutrusca have any recommendations, or are us three (Eutrusca, Delator, and myself) the only ones that voted for this party and continue to post on this thread about it's outcome?
As with any political process, out of those who vote only a handful continue to be active.

I have my own thoughts about who I would like to see as MPs for our 3 seats, but I will keep those to myself since I don't want to prejudice the outcome. :p

6 names have been placed in nomination:

Bitchkitten
Drakedia
Marmite Toast
Delator
Katzistanza
Eutrusca

If any of you not on this list would like to stand for one of the seats, please let me know as soon as possible. Voting will begin no later than midnight tonight. You may self-nominate or nominate another member.

If any of you not on this list would like to stand for one of the seats, please let me know as soon as possible. Voting will begin no later than midnight tonight. You may self-nominate or nominate another member.

It's probably worth pointing out that I have no idea when your midnight is. If it's several hours away, I won't be available, as I intend to go to sleep before my midnight.

It's probably worth pointing out that I have no idea when your midnight is. If it's several hours away, I won't be available, as I intend to go to sleep before my midnight.
I'm just trying to insure that everyone who wants to nominate has the opportunity to do so.

How about if we open the election at about 8:00 AM GMT tomorrow, and close it two days later? :)

I'm just trying to insure that everyone who wants to nominate has the opportunity to do so.

How about if we open the election at about 8:00 AM GMT tomorrow, and close it two days later? :)

Sounds fine. Should make up for times zones.

Sounds fine. Should make up for times zones.
So it's almost 5 PM here. What is that on GMT?

So it's almost 5 PM here. What is that on GMT?

Almost 10 PM.

Well...I would like to nominate myself for one of the Parlaiment seats.

Eutrusca...you have a couple of TG's

I hope it's not to late to throw my hat into the ring, so to speak. I was unable to be at my computer yesterday.

Thanks for addressing the "peace clause." ^_^

As to the flat tax thing, it just seemed to keep comming up as an issue, but if the majority of the party is for it, I won't try to force the issue. I was just wondering if a flat tax could adequitly fund the gov, but if we keep it as small as possible while providing vital functions, as our platform states, I suppose it could work.

So yes, I nominate my self for a seat, if the fine members of this party would have me.

I hope it's not to late to throw my hat into the ring, so to speak. I was unable to be at my computer yesterday.

Thanks for addressing the "peace clause." ^_^

As to the flat tax thing, it just seemed to keep comming up as an issue, but if the majority of the party is for it, I won't try to force the issue. I was just wondering if a flat tax could adequitly fund the gov, but if we keep it as small as possible while providing vital functions, as our platform states, I suppose it could work.

So yes, I nominate my self for a seat, if the fine members of this party would have me.
Ok. I'll add your name, even though nominations have technically ended. Without objection it is so ordered. :)

thankies ^_^

When looking for a party to join, I found this one, and finally a party that reflected my views! Is this party still open for new members, and if so, how can I go about joining this party?

When looking for a party to join, I found this one, and finally a party that reflected my views! Is this party still open for new members, and if so, how can I go about joining this party?Just tell Eutrusca. He's sort of party spokesman.

she

@Bitchkitten and/or Marmite Toast

Eutrusca is on a 14 day forum ban at the moment: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9146411&postcount=13

So someone else is going to have to grab the reigns here. May be you would want to nominate a pro tem substitute MP (whoever came fourth in your election).

::sigh:: I hope Eutrusca doesn't get deleted, it would be quite a loss.

Who did come in 4th in the elections?

The Party of Whatever Works no longer has sufficient membership to continue as a viable political entity.

We are currently trying to decide whether to continue the Party or to simply dissolve it. If you have comments concerning this proposed action, please post them here.

You could join my party.

You could join my party.
Which is???

Which is???
As soon as Yupaenu and I finish the manifesto, we'll post it. It doesn't have an official name yet, call it the NS Monarchist Party.

I believe I have a better name for your party: Populist.
Catchy enough?

The Party of Whatever Works no longer has sufficient membership to continue as a viable political entity.

We are currently trying to decide whether to continue the Party or to simply dissolve it. If you have comments concerning this proposed action, please post them here.

Great. If this dies then I'll probably end up going to something like the Reason Party or NSCL or ESP.

Well I'm hardly active around here anymore anyway, so I guess it really doesn't matter.