RPers:
Please feel free to vote with puppets only if you use them to vote the way those nations' IN-CHARACTER students WHO GO HERE would vote. Otherwise, use any criteria you please.
Do me a favor and let me know which part(y/ies) you voted for, and why!Just to keep this thing bumped until my issues box fills back up.
Thanks for your interest!
The Radical Student Union swept the last election, taking 62 seats in the first Senate, to the Student Safety Party's 24 and the Market Party's 14. Now it is time for the second wave of elections, including this Senate voting.
Changes from before the Senate came to order, to now:
Classification: from "Psychotic Dictatorship" to "Democratic Socialists" to "Liberal Democratic Socialists"
Political freedoms: 48 to 73 "Excellent"
Civil rights: 66 to 68 "Very Good"
Economy: 76 to 66 "Strong"
Legislative history:
Advertising:
Radical Student Union passed a ban on advertising.
Student Safety Party stance: Install public loudspeakers to warn citizens of emergencies and broadcast SSP propaganda, for everyone's good of course
Market Party stance: Pocket radios should be issued to all residents to warn them of emergencies and push advertising on them
Energy:
Radical Student Union passed the Renewable Energy Act.
Student Safety Party stance: Nuclear power, tighter restrictions on anti-nuclear protests
Market Party stance: Coal power, looser regulations on pollution
Internet privacy:
Radical Student Union passed a ban on all government intrusion into Internet privacy.
Student Safety Party stance: Heavy censorship of potentially criminal or anti-government material
Market Party stance: Law enforcement should monitor domestic Internet activity to prevent crimes before they happen
DNA sampling from the accused:
Disagreement within RSU ranks stalled this legislation until it was dropped. All RSU senators disagreed with the other parties, however.
Student Safety Party: Collect DNA samples from all 109 million students, teachers and staffers
Market Party: Law enforcement should be free to collect blood and tissue samples from the accused
Military conscription:
Radical Student Union passed the Conscientious Objection Act allowing all residents to opt out of military service based on scriptural or philosophical requirements of their central belief system(s); people who cannot prove they have been individually anti-war since before the Act went into effect or since before the last defense authorization passage, but who fundamentally disagree with a specific policy or decision of the Free University military and could not enforce it in good faith as their defensive duties would require, can apply to be added to the Provisional Objector List. Those residents on the POL, assuming they can cogently state the policy they disagree with in written, oral or any other form of empirically observable communication, will not be drafted unless and until the policy is changed, at which point they will be automatically removed from the list. They can reapply if the new policy still isn't to their liking. A new Civil Volunteer Corps was established with no coercive power, which automatically enrolled the custodial, maintenance, landscaping, road cleanup etc payroll while adding new positions of employment for students to pay off some of their academic expenses and make a small stipend while beautifying the sprawling campus-state and making needed infrastructure repairs.
Student Safety Party: Keep the full draft in place as it is; all students share the responsibility of defending the university
Market Party: Conscientious objectors can do non-violent jobs in the military when their number is called
Minimum wage: A living wage requirement was established by the RSU majority.
Ballot freedom: "None of the Above" is now an option on ballots (not necessarily in FaNI!)
Stances on current issues:
The Issue
A recent anti-government rally by highly disgruntled teens has brought a previously minor issue to the fore: should people be permitted to burn Free University's flag, or should it be a crime?
The Debate
"We should be able to burn the flag as a sign of protest. I say ignore those crazy red-blooded fanatics who won't let us! After all it's because we are a tolerant nation that we should allow it!" says Peter Yeats, civil rights activist, while accidentally immolating many nearby protesters.
Supported by the Radical Student Union and the Market Party.
"Burning should be allowed for everything! Down with the pig cops and their repressive regime!" says well-known anarchist and arsonist Max Dredd, from the comfy and non-flammable confines of a prison cell. "Burn! Burn burn burn! Everything! Kyahahaha!"
Supported by no one, you self-defeating blockhead.
"These barbarians are suggesting burning the flag of our glorious nation as if it were a piece of scrap cloth! First it's burning the flag, and before you know it, it's rebellion and anarchy!" Robin Mistletoe scowls. "Flag burning should be punishable by jail terms and a good flogging!"
Supported by the Student Safety Party.
The Issue
A group of environmentalists are protesting against plans to expand urban and suburban developments into greenbelts, the designated countryside between settlements.
The Debate
"Do we really have to listen to these nutcases?" asks real estate developer, Jonathon Cogswell. "The fact of the matter is that nature is BORING. Give us permission to build on the greenbelt and you'll have pink hotels, boutiques, and swinging hot spots that'll be the envy of the region and draw tourists from all around! We can always transplant a few trees and put them in a tree museum to keep the tree-huggers happy. Free University stands to make a lot of money from this! Think about it for a moment!"
Supported by the Market Party.
"I agree with my colleague here, but he doesn't go far enough," says Ariel Mistletoe, a city planner. "These protestors are standing in the path of progress. It slows the growth of our economy and harms my portfolio - er - the future of our nation, I mean. It's unpatriotic and we should increase police funding to deal with these troublemakers. Then we wouldn't have to worry about greenbelts or any other nonsense about keeping the 'environment' safe. Think about it for a moment!"
Supported by the Student Safety Party.
"I can't believe what I'm hearing!" exclaims environmental activist Lucas Yeats. "Tree museums? Police funding? Don't it always seem to be the case that you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone? We're talking about natural treasures and you're talking about destroying them. Is there anything that you can build that can really be better than nature? We should put a stop to all encroachment into natural areas. Think about it for a moment!"
Supported by the Radical Student Union.
The Issue
After watching the movie 'The Fast and the Belligerent', boyracers from all over Free University have been petitioning for the abolition of speed limits.
The Debate
"Today's cars are safer at high speeds than ever before," argues Stefanie Mistletoe, editor of Sports Car Monthly. "And long-distance commuters are tired of spending hours on the road just to get to the next city. Abolishing the speed limit would be great for the economy too! People would be more likely to go out and buy cars if they thought they'd be able to use them properly. It seems like such a shame to be puttering along at the speed limit in a magnificent car like the 450HP twin-turbo Frantic freshman SX/T-7700 you know."
Supported by the Market Party.
"Are you crazy?" cries Ariel Yeats, a road-accident victim. "We need lower speed limits on automobiles, not higher. You might as well enforce mandatory blindfolds on the road too, it'll come to the same conclusion! People's lives are at stake here! If people were made to drive at, say, no faster than fifty kilometres per hour, I would feel a lot happier walking the streets. Besides, if it takes a long time to get places via car then people might begin using mass transit for once."
Supported by the Radical Student Union, along with a rapid expansion of mass transit for fairness' sake.
"I think the current speed limits are fine, but we need better enforcement," says John Sparkle, the most feared traffic warden in Free University. "If we required GPS tracking devices in all vehicles, we'd ticket every single speeder, no problem. In addition, we could monitor the movements of criminals and other suspicious individuals, and vastly reduce the risk of crime, terrorism, and other subversive activity. Some say that's an invasion of privacy, but if you've done nothing wrong what's there to fear?"
Supported by the Student Safety Party.
The Issue
Dorothy Terwilliger lies immobilized in a hospital bed, unable to move. She has end-stage cancer, and wishes to end her struggle against death. However, laws prevent her doctors from obeying her wishes.
The Debate
Dorothy and her family are campaigning for a "Dying with Dignity" bill, to change this situation. She implores the government to legalize euthanasia.
Supported by the Radical Student Union.
"I understand this is a very difficult time for these people," says freelance medical writer Stefanie Mistletoe. "But the solution is not to let our medical system slide down the slippery slope of killing people in pain. We must cure, not kill. This is not the right time for euthanasia."
Supported by the Market Party.
"I agree, but go further: there is never a right time for euthanasia," says Bishop Ariel Yeats. "The lives we lead are given to us by the grace of God, and he decides when they end. It is not for us to question God's divine purpose, no matter how odd or screwed-up it may seem."
Supported by the Student Safety Party.
