Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on July 26, 2020, 03:57:06 PM
I think we need an answer to this, on the record.

If the M-M Senäts election results in a tie, will GGS Plätschisch use his casting vote to make himself Senator?

It's my job as GGS to break a tie in the Senate race in favor of the candidate I think would be best for Talossa and best for Maritiimi-Maxhestic. Naturally, I believe I am that candidate. I can't imagine anyone else in my situation, of any party, would act differently. I also did not seek out the position of Grand General Secretary this term; I took it because absolutely no one else was interested.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on July 26, 2020, 03:45:59 PM

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on July 26, 2020, 11:39:58 AM
For the purposes of who would be in an LCC Cabinet, it is essentially irrelevant whether anyone is a "die-hard reactionary."

I heartily disagree.

Let me be clear, it is very good that Sir Cresti is coming out of political retirement, and even that Sir Alexandreu has volunteered to serve in an LCC cabinet. But the Cabinet is not a "bunch of active people who do jobs". It is a political leadership above all. And these are representatives of the RUMP tradition, who have been on "political strike" ever since they lost effective political power. Cresti's letter reveals to me the issue with people who, after losing a few public political battles, vacate the stage of public discourse altogether but continue to "machinate" behind the scenes.

I know full well, because I nominated Sir Alexandreu to the UC position - that these are talented people who are welcome back into activity and should be given positions of responsibility, preferable in the Civil Service. But positions of political leadership? Even worse, unearned ones, behind the veil provided by the paper-thin LCC programme? I have this image of a 55th Cabinet Cosa where Seneschál Plätschisch is a de-powered figurehead and ex-RUMPers run the show. I urge the good Senator to remember the line from Cabaret - "do you still think you can control them"?

QuoteIf the LCC wins a majority in the Cosa, there is still no way any new legislation could pass the Ziu without the approval of established moderates such as S:reu Itravilatx and myself.

... that's assuming that the Free Democrats and NPW are happy to help you out of the jam you've got yourself in  ;D

I will quote myself explaining how I intend to form an LCC cabinet:

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on July 20, 2020, 08:33:28 PM
Here's how I would go about building a cabinet:
-Starting with people I would consider LCC members, Txosue seems quite motivated, and Breneir Itravilatx and Sir Cresti could hopefully make themselves available as well
-AD just volunteered
-There have been several other people on Witt who have shown support for us
-I am, if I may say, one of the best of us at engaging with new citizens. I am in regular contact with some of them and, if I was trying to form a cabinet, I bet I could convince one or two to join
-A general call to citizens
-If I was still short, I'd reach out to the NPW and see if we couldn't find any common ground for a coalition.

Clearly, it is not my intention to fill up my cabinet with inactive ex-RUMPers. Even if I did, what are you afraid that they would do? I couldn't be couped unless the hypothetical FreeDem opposition actively helped the people you just called die-hard reactionaries, which doesn't seem likely.

While we may hope that opposition parties stay active, it is easy to see why, after having been included in only one government since the end of the 45th Cosa, why many in the RUMP would not be around much anymore. Indeed, the activity of Free Democrats on Wittenberg declined noticeably during the one Cosa since then (the 49th) they were excluded from Government.

Just because one email got sent out does not mean there is a vast amount of private activity going on.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on July 26, 2020, 01:06:47 AM
interesting to note that the RUMP still exists (as a mailing list, at least), and that #2 on the "LCC" list for this election is doing his best to motivate a big turnout from them.

A mailing list does not a party make. That said, it should not be surprising to you that people who are pro-Monarchy are using the means at their disposal to support the only party in the race that clearly supports the Monarchy.

QuoteDouble interesting to note that he is also trying to motivate them to vote down all of the outgoing Government's constitutional reforms for this election - including Non-Hereditary Monarchy, the pride and joy of the LCC founder/leader.

Given the incredibly loose nature of the LCC, in both programme and structure, moderates who might be tempted to vote for Senator Plätschisch as a steady moderate hand might think twice given that the most die-hard reactionaries in Talossa are not only backing him, but will most likely make up most of his cabinet.

It's essentially inevitable that a party trying to represent as much of the political spectrum as we are will occasionally be at cross purposes with itself. I am confident the Non-Hereditary Monarchy Amendment will pass, and I won't jeopardize the LCC's ability to appeal to the sundry factions of Talossan Monarchists by squabbling over it.

For the purposes of who would be in an LCC Cabinet, it is essentially irrelevant whether anyone is a "die-hard reactionary." The role of the cabinet is to enact our executive policies, which are clearly laid out here and have nothing to do with increasing the King's powers beyond what he still retains. If the LCC wins a majority in the Cosa, there is still no way any new legislation could pass the Ziu without the approval of established moderates such as S:reu Itravilatx and myself.

QuoteI think we need to know if the LCC is a big wooden horse full of RUMP.

It's not.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on July 23, 2020, 08:27:27 PM
Here's an interesting point. What happens if this election ends in a tie, which seems likely?

M-M electoral law says:

QuoteTies at any iteration shall be broken by the Grand General Secretary.

As far as I can tell, the GGS went AWOL a long time ago; and his deputy is one of the candidates.

Can someone reassure me that a tie won't be an unholy clusterfudge?

I became the GGS at the beginning of the current Convocation. The wiki just hadn't been updated yet.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on July 23, 2020, 04:17:40 PM
Senator Plätschisch's programme summarised:

1. Do what the outgoing Coalition government was doing, only not so much.
2. Eat sammiches.
3. Er...
4. That's it.

lol

You'll find that several of the items were in fact not performed by the current coalition. Even if they were, I was a part of that coalition too, so the FreeDems don't get to take sole credit for the ideas.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on July 22, 2020, 09:40:05 PM

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on July 22, 2020, 06:46:43 PM
-We will continue to find fun uses for Talossan social media accounts, such as the excessive celebrations of Maritiimi-Maxhestic Istuporaziua on Twitter and the "This Day in History" series on Facebook

You going to do it yourself again, or have you got a new person in mind? Because - and I'll be frank - that's been my biggest disappointment with the STUFF portfolio this term, that the social media was used in a very underwhelming and inconsistent fashion.

While my social media usage wasn't great, it was a heck of a lot better than all other Ministers of STUFF I can remember. Since I became STUFF Minister last fall, I have made 16 posts to the Talossa Facebook page. Before that, no one had posted anything there for the past two years! The story is similar with our Twitter account.

Also, it's a bit convenient that the first time I hear that you are so disappointed is right now.

When I wrote the manifesto of the League of Centre Conservatives, I was as big-tent as possible; after all, we are now the only party in a space that used to be occupied by two, and sometimes three, different parties. Therefore, I left out details of how we would govern were we to win the election. However, it's important that voters know we have a plan, beyond simply being a pro-Monarchist party, and therefore we present
PRIME MINISTRY
-We will reintroduce the Prime Minister's Days of Observance program, which was so popular when I implemented it during the 52nd Cosa that it got its own TalossaWiki page. I pledge to eat as many weird sandwiches as necessary, not only to encourage editing the wiki, but also other initiatives such as a fundraising drive, interaction with new citizens, etc.
-We will create a clear list of what government positions are open and how to apply for them. I also won't hesitate to fire anyone who is not doing anything with their post (I've done it before); vacancies are OK because there is the possibility someone will come along and get active in the post.

STUFF
-We will continue to find fun uses for Talossan social media accounts, such as the excessive celebrations of Maritiimi-Maxhestic Istuporaziua on Twitter and the "This Day in History" series on Facebook
-We will create a refreshed version of "What's Happening in Talossa?" to make it easier for new and returning citizens to get involved.

CULTURE
-Ministers will be expected to lead by example and coordinate and participate in cultural initiatives outside of Government.

FINANCE
-We will investigate partially diversifying the Kingdom's portfolio, which currently is held exclusively in a savings account, into higher-yielding assets
-We will conduct a fundraising campaign to raise money for the Kingdom

FOREIGN
-We will market our coins and stamps to members of the micronational community
-We will investigate ways to become involved in programs in the Greater Talossan Area

INTERIOR
-We will produce physical manifestations of Talossan citizenship, such as ID cards, citizenship certificates, and donation certificates
-We will attempt to arrange a trip to Cezembre for citizens who are able to attend

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on July 20, 2020, 08:04:33 PM
Sincerely, the point of the referendum is to find out whether either of the major options for constitutional reform has majority support right now. Admittedly this is so we can choose the option which will have the best chance of success. But this stuff about "referendums too often drive people away / are illegitimate" seems to just be trying to tip debate towards the status quo.

Are you suggesting a law which forbids this question to be asked too often? I believe there's one in Northern Ireland, i.e. they can have a referendum on abolishing the jurisdiction but only one every 10/20 years or something. But why is it worse than - for example - if we presented a New Talossan Republic Amendment or a King's Job Is Now Opening Shopping Malls, Nothing Else Amendment every single Cosa?

OK, I guess the point of the midterm referendum would be the practical consideration that you could not pass both the no-powers-Monarchy and the no-Monarchy amendments in the same term, because they would contradict each other. But if the goal is to see which of these could pass referendum, the RCV method would actually be unhelpful. The correct method would be to, like we did last time, ask two different questions, a yes/no on a figurehead Monarchy and a yes/no on a Republic.

I didn't say any referendum would be illegitimate or drive people away, only that lack of motivation to vote might strike one group of voters harder than others if the same question kept coming up.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on July 19, 2020, 11:24:34 PM
Thank you.

The people of Cézembre and Maritiimi-Maxhéstic in this election thus have no choice but to vote Free Democrat to have their say on Royal powers.

No, voting for the me in the Senate election is a vote to support the current level of Monarchical powers. I will also add that returning me to the Senate would have no effect on the Government's ability to enact their cabinet program (since VoCs are taken only of the Cosa).

If a voter's number one priority is an active cabinet (and does not believe the LCC can deliver that, which I admit would be a reasonable critique of us, but I can assure you we are working on it), but their number two priority is allowing the King to keep his small amount of remaining power, it would be completely reasonable to vote FreeDem for the Cosa but vote for me in my Senate election.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on July 20, 2020, 07:55:47 PM

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on July 20, 2020, 07:53:49 PM
You say you don't want to go through the trouble of writing the amendment if there isn't the support for it, but conducting and contesting a referendum is not a trivial task either,

As Ian Txáglh says above, Talossa springs into life in election season. In referendum season, too! Some work will need to be done but it will promote activity.

The kind of activity in which people debate the same question repeatedly would get old fast, I bet.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on July 20, 2020, 04:10:45 PM

Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on July 20, 2020, 12:30:16 PM
Well, ask the same question every other year, and eventually circumstances will change enough that the ~30-40% support that it has mustered will crest to 50%

Really? I'll keep going, then. We're playing the long game.

(Your innuendo that keeping the constitutional issue alive represses turnout is simply unfounded.)

If your plan is to keep asking the same question over and over until you get the result you want, why even ask it?

Also, I think there is something to the suggestion of voter fatigue. I can easily see how voters who are just voting to maintain the status quo on a particular issue would not be as motivated to vote in an ongoing series of referendums as those who are actually trying to make the change.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on July 19, 2020, 10:14:23 PM

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on July 19, 2020, 01:01:49 PM
If the position of most FreeDems is and will continue to be that Talossa should be a Republic (or that the Monarch should only have ceremonial power), what is the point of the referendum?

To see which (if either) of those options is accepted by the general public, before going to the trouble of writing the appropriate OrgLaw amendment. What exactly are you scared of? If the broad masses like the status quo, then the Free Democrats will not seek to change the status quo.

It's almost like you're afraid there is a majority out there for an end to a powerful Monarchy...

I'm not afraid of that, because in the last referendum a few years ago, in which we gave the exact three options (the referendum included two questions, one asking if the voter wanted a Monarchy and the other asking if the voter wanted a Monarchy with some power), the Monarchists won by a respectable margin on both counts.

You say you don't want to go through the trouble of writing the amendment if there isn't the support for it, but conducting and contesting a referendum is not a trivial task either, especially given we would have to hash out the exact same issues again when the amendment is actually proposed. It just does not seem like a good use of time and energy.

We're almost 1/3 of the way through the election and our M3 has somehow found the time to conduct his Senate campaign, but not the two minutes it would take to open the Assembly Call for the 18th Convocation. He has been repeatedly reminded to do this, I might add.

Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on July 18, 2020, 02:15:12 AM

I'm not arguing that Talossa is like other countries, however, I am arguing that principles that are ingrained in what is meant by a Constitutional monarchy, have existed and predates Talossa,  and is generally accepted Apolitcial Monarchy, which is the case for all the constitutional monarchies I have come across, and from what I can tell, is a KEY part of what constitutes a constitutional monarchy.  Due to that being how a constitutional monarchy survives.
Also you argue that there is no way that the monarch can infringe upon the rights of its Citizens? By virtue of vetoing a bill, the Monarchy is slapping down the rights of the people who sent MCs and Senators to the Ziu, even if temporarily, and infringing upon the political fray with voicing their political opinions on something. Whether or not the Ziu can override a veto is irrelevant. The act of the Monarch not adhering to the democratically ELECTED government of Talossa, and stating an opinion publicly against this, is undermining the principles which are at the heart of what a democracy is.
Also I find it hilarious that you don't equate a figurehead monarchy and a constitutional monarchy AS THE SAME THING, as that's what they are. The same thing.

No, the definition of "constitutional monarchy" is not that the Monarch has nothing but ceremonial power. It is only, according to Wikipedia, "a form of monarchy in which the sovereign exercises authority in accordance with a written or unwritten constitution," which is exactly has Talossa has.

Also, again, I don't see a problem with a group of people in (for all practical purposes) a voluntary association deciding that they want a Monarch with some power. You may want a different form of government, but that would be a disagreement over preference, rather than a disagreement over whether we have enough democracy.

It's true the Monarchy would work better if His Majesty didn't make people angry a lot, but most of the anger directed at him is due to how he goes about exercising his power (such as vetoing at the last second), rather than the object of that exercise (ie, the concept of a Royal veto).

Quote
There are options to wat we can choose going forward, you are right, and I expect those debates to come. And you are right in so far that we do need to have these debates. However from what I can tell, although yes the FreeDems in the majority of its members are in favour of Abolishing the monarchy, that is not what is in the party platform, as what is being proposed in our platform is "a ranked choice referendum on the powers of the King: choosing between the status quo, a Monarchy with only emergency powers, and an elected Head of State."
So what actions we do take will be on the democratic will of the people, not based on purely driving our political agenda. As it would be political suicide to peruse something which the majority of the population opposed. Whether they place us in power or not. Yes, our ultimate goal is a republic (which I have been coming evermore in favour of for Talossa), it is not something we can achieve without the country behind us. So we have been and will continue to argue our case. (I apologise to  Miestră if I'm assuming to much in speaking this in the way I have)

If the position of most FreeDems is and will continue to be that Talossa should be a Republic (or that the Monarch should only have ceremonial power), what is the point of the referendum? If the point is to get a mandate for the something the party wants to do anyway, it seems likely to me that the FreeDems will keep proposing to have referenda until they get the outcome they want. What would be the point of that, given the FreeDems could just pass the Organic amendment they wanted and have the referendum on the actual amendment?

Quote
Also my final points will be to say, that I never said, or implied that being a monarchist party automatically means you are "stagnant" I was merely pointing out that the opposition parties have the characteristics of also being politically stagnant, with little to no meaningful policy platforms that I have seen.

Well, so far the CCL is the most vibrant Monarchist movement Talossa has seen for a while.

Quote
As the values and principles in a democracy, and a democratic society, leave no place for dangerous intervention by a Monarch, as that could be seen as a slow erosion of democratic principles, leading ever so slightly closer to an absolute monarchy, if these what you might call "small" uses of veto powers remain unchecked.

It seems nonsensical to me to suggest that Talossa could be headed back toward absolute Monarchy, given the most prominent Monarchist politician right now (me) has spent his entire career making sure the Monarchy is not absolute.

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on July 18, 2020, 07:20:48 AM

Quote from: Viteu on July 18, 2020, 12:30:06 AM
Like that time I had to get a court order to fulfill my role as a Senator because the King, in a Talossan way, essentially locked me out of the Ziu ? Seriously, he can't curtail rights because than we can just leave Talossa? For this one post I'm stepping out of my apolitical retirement to say, Ian, your post is utter nonsense and an insult to your intelligence. With that, I'm back to being apolitical.

Any Witt admin could have done that to you; the fact that is was the King doesn't mean it's an abuse unique to the Monarchy.

Of course the King can do bad stuff, but unless he gets his authority to do the bad stuff because he is the King, rather than due to some other source of power that others also have, the problem is not the Monarchy.

OK, so I reflected some more on this and have some more to say.

When I said that the King could not infringe on people's rights, because they could easily leave, I was thinking of the rights people have in their offline lives; these are generally the rights that "real" democracies are most concerned with protecting (which is why I was thinking of them, because the original post was comparing Talossa to these countries). I still believe a Monarchy has no effect on whether Talossans can invade these rights. Both because of what I said earlier, and because even R. Ben Madison had no Organic right to do that; he did not rely on his Royal power to do it, and other citizens (to a lesser extent) have done the same since (like when someone called up the employers of Admiral Tim and Sir AD during Canungate).

However, it should have obvious to me that the right of citizens to post what they want on Witt is also very important, and that I overlooked this is indeed quite idiotic. I agree that in theory it is totally possible for the Monarch to infringe on these.

In practice though, I stand by what I said earlier; the only way the current King has infringed on the rights of people on Witt is by exercising powers that other people also have (such as the previous example, Witt admin privileges) and which would have to exist even if Talossa had no Monarch or a ceremonial Monarch. The King enjoys no special privilege in this regard, nor should he of course.