Quote from: Eðo Grischun on January 31, 2021, 12:10:17 AM
If the Regent thinks it's proper to lump the Monarchy options together to "juke the stats", then it's only fair to do it for the other viewpoint...

The clearest mandate to take from this referendum is that the status quo was soundly rejected.

In round one, just 23 people voted in favour of the status quo, while 62 voted for options of change. That's 86% of first preferences seeking a change from the way things are today.  If we further look at those 62 ballots, only 4 of them selected the status quo option as their second choice.  Going to the next round only 14 of 62 ranked status quo as their third preference.

Even when lumping the two monarchy options together you only get 42%, but it should be pointed out that those two options are completely incompatible with each other.  Indeed, option 4 (for a wholly ceremonial Monarch) was the most preferred second choice to the voters who want an elected head of state as their first choice (22 of the 30).

The nation may be divided on what the future form of State should be, but it has spoken clearly in saying that the status quo must change.

I just said that.

Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on January 30, 2021, 07:11:09 PM
...

But further, as the Seneschal points out, a large majority prefers some change as their first preference even as they disagree dramatically about what that change should be.  I wish there were a clear mandate in favor of the monarchy beyond overall topline preference that we continue to be a Kingdom of Talossa, but the topline result is about as sharply divided as one could imagine.

And zero people who chose Option 1 as their first choice chose Option 3 as their second, and likewise vice-versa.  We're sharply divided, even if a majority is in favor of some form of monarchy.  Again, I'd be interested in seeing more suggestions about further action we can take.  One possibility might be re-running the referendum.  Adding the option to strengthen the monarchy -- so that the status quo didn't represent one pole versus three other options -- and running it at an actual general ballot would be one possibility.  A detailed analysis of what happened with the Republic might be another, if people are still interested in adopting their governmental structure.  I'd be happy to keep discussing the numbers here, but I think it's pretty hard to slice-and-dice this any which way where it yields some sort of resounding mandate for action either way (either in solidifying the monarchy as it is or abandoning it).  I remain overall very happy with it, though, since I think it shows that the Talossan people still support the monarchy.  I think a higher turnout would have made that clearer.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on January 30, 2021, 06:56:29 PM

Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on January 30, 2021, 06:43:22 PM
most Talossans prefer the monarchy in some form.  [...]  I'd be especially hesitant to destroy the monarchy on the basis of a 51.5% majority!

The whole point of using STV this time is that you cant expect everyone who supports a purely ceremonial monarchy to also support the status quo monarchy. As the voting results have shown, a third of those people would rather have an elected head of state than the status quo. The monarchy as it stands now does not enjoy majority support no matter how you look at the numbers.

Tallying up option 3 and option 4 voters and pretending they form one block is either naive or disingenuous.

Indeed, sorting out preferences and ranking them yields a much more granular result and shows 51.5% of respondents to this midterm referendum support a presidency as their preferred outcome versus the status quo when all other other options are eliminated, but also that a majority of respondents prefer as their highest preference that some form of monarchy continue, either in its current form or with emergency/crisis powers.  But further, as the Seneschal points out, a large majority prefers some change as their first preference even as they disagree dramatically about what that change should be.  I wish there were a clear mandate in favor of the monarchy beyond overall topline preference that we continue to be a Kingdom of Talossa, but the topline result is about as sharply divided as one could imagine.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 30, 2021, 04:54:06 PM

Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on January 30, 2021, 03:06:24 PM
In the most direct sense, the most preferred option once others were eliminated was option 1, of course, narrowly beating out the status quo by 34-32.  But first preferences for a monarchy, either ceremonial or traditional, had a similar edge over first preferences for option 1!

... and a change from the status quo had a 2-to-1 majority over the status quo.  ;D

Instead of trying to "spin" the numbers - something which the Leader of the Opposition has correctly identified as being a "sore loser" - Talossan monarchists would be well served to try to reach some kind of compromise with those who want an Elected Head of State.

As far as I can see, no one's mind has changed from the last time this question was offered to the nation, three years ago.  The format of the question has changed and fewer votes were cast, but the answer remains the same: most Talossans prefer the monarchy in some form.  I am glad of it.  I believe this fact would be even more clear if the referendum were asked on a general ballot, rather than a midterm one, but time and time again we arrive at the same answer.

I cannot claim to speak for any political group, but I will certainly observe any ideas offered by the Ziu with avid interest.  I have seen some suggestions which amount to adoption of the form of government of the Republic, with a change only in extending the term of their elected president; I am not sure that I could consent to such a proposal, since helping to destroy the monarchy would seem to directly contravene my duty to steward the monarchy which has served our nation so well.  I'd be especially hesitant to destroy the monarchy on the basis of a 51.5% majority!

I have also seen the suggestion to add an additional elected figure to the governmental structure to provide another check against the increasingly centralized power of the Government, which is of interest to me -- the "co-prince" mentioned in the referendum; this seems like an intriguing possibility, although the devil is very much in the details.

Ideally, this will only be the beginning of a discussion and in-depth conversation about possibilities for the future of our shared country.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on January 30, 2021, 01:59:26 PM

Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on January 30, 2021, 01:36:41 PM
I am also exceedingly pleased with the outcome of the referendum.  Despite a 32% dropoff in turnout, the Talossan people have once again affirmed their preference for the continuation of the monarchy, although opinion remains divided as to the continued role of the monarch.

Excuse me S:reu Rexhaint, but Option 1: "the King of Talossa shall be replaced by an elected Head of State" won the referendum.

In the most direct sense, the most preferred option once others were eliminated was option 1, of course, narrowly beating out the status quo by 34-32.  But first preferences for a monarchy, either ceremonial or traditional, had a similar edge over first preferences for option 1!  I'm not sure how to interpret the addition of a second elected prince if we're breaking things down in this way, since it's a bit orthogonal to the other three options.

There's certainly not an overwhelming mandate for monarchy, but considering the fact that the last referendum which was conducted during a general balloting showed much stronger turnout and much stronger royalist results, I am very well-satisfied with these results.

I appreciate the whimsical and amusing nature of this bill, and I am glad to see people having fun with this sort of stuff.

Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on January 25, 2021, 07:53:20 PM
Voting has now closed on the referendum. The results are as follows:




Option 1 - an elected head of state wins the referendum.



Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă,
Secretary of State

Acting on behalf of the crown, I wish to formally thank the Secretary of State in the name of King John for his efforts in conducting an election in the middle of the Cosa, which is often a tricky affair and which requires navigating some of the most complex aspects of our laws and traditions.  No one can fault any minor hiccups, particularly not when conducted in good faith and resolved with his usual alacrity.  Secretary of State Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM should have all of our gratitude for these efforts.  C'estev'iensă tasc'hă ben fäts!

I am also exceedingly pleased with the outcome of the referendum.  Despite a 32% dropoff in turnout, the Talossan people have once again affirmed their preference for the continuation of the monarchy, although opinion remains divided as to the continued role of the monarch.  Since the time I have begun acting on behalf of our monarch, we have begun to see a revival of this aspect of Talossa, and I hope to see the long tradition of Talossan monarchy continue to grow and thrive -- and I hope, too, that His Majesty himself will be able to return to his duties soon.

It is time to further reflect on the many blessings that we have in our country.  A unique and beautiful language, long traditions and institutions that give us a singular place on the world stage, skilled and thoughtful leadership, and the varied and vigorous talents of our people... Talossa is a truly great place and we are so lucky to be here.  No matter our differences of opinion on governance or any other subject, we must always keep our good fortune and fellowship at the fore of our minds.

Long live Talossa, and long live good King John!

              —  Sir Alexandreu, Rexhaint d'Ian Regeu

A great loss to Talossa and to the world.

Com'el rexhaint per la Coronă, aprovéu acest proxhect da legeu.

Acting on behalf of the crown, I hereby issue my approval in the name of King John acting in the person of his cunstaval for the resolution in question, and thank l'Etats for its good service.

              —  Sir Alexandreu, Rexhaint d'Ian Regeu

The Crown vetoed the last bill which was submitted for consideration, requesting to discuss it.  It would have seemed a matter of basic courtesy to at least acknowledge and reply to my concerns.

Com'el rexhaint per la Coronă, aprovéu acest proxhect da legeu.

Acting on behalf of the crown, I hereby issue my approval in the name of King John acting in the person of his cunstaval for the resolution in question, and thank l'Etats for its good service.

              —  Sir Alexandreu, Rexhaint d'Ian Regeu

I cast my vote in the following way:

3
2
4

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 13, 2021, 01:17:47 AM

Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on January 12, 2021, 10:35:24 PM
I don't think it's feasible to really fairly design any process that can act on the basis of another country's accusations: only convictions should be an acceptable basis for review by our courts.

I can understand the logic of this position, though I'm not 100% convinced. Is there no act outside Talossa that a Talossan could do which would be, not illegal, but (a) repugnant to the Covenants, and (b) brings Talossa into disrepute, and that we might want to impose sanctions on? We couldn't decide to censure a Talossan who - oh, let's say - spread legal but repulsive hate speech outside Talossa?

I'm sure there are all sorts of things that fall into those categories, either justly or unjustly! But that's the danger, isn't it? We can't punish people without due process, including a trial. Plus, the covenants are mostly guarantees against the power of the government, not specific crimes or even principles around which you could construct the basis for a criminal charge. If I told my daughter that she couldn't get an abortion, I couldn't be prosecuted for that, I don't think. Instead, it would just be a mechanism by which she could sue to get an abortion anyway, without my consent.

It might be possible to come up with a process that will ensure due process while also allowing for the prosecution of things that aren't crimes under our laws but which we don't like, but I can't even begin to imagine such a thing.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 12, 2021, 04:59:51 PM
PETTY THEFT: violation of the Fourth Covenant right to property. Should be liable for a misdemeanour charge, only if the Cort is satisfied that it's of the kind that brings Talossa into disrepute.

EMBEZZLEMENT: felony violation of the Fourth Covenant and brings Talossa into disrepute. More chance of a conviction and a serious punishment.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: felony violation of the Sixth Covenant and brings Talossa into disrepute. More chance of a conviction and a serious punishment.

ACCUSATION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: Let's specify that conviction by a macronational court should be only considered prima facie evidence of bad behaviour; a State prosecutor (or the Cort) could look at the sentencing authority and go "kangaroo court under a dictatorship, not touching that". Or, alternatively, if someone gets off a rape/spousal abuse case because of a misogynist judge or jury, the Court would still be enabled to use the "balance of probabilities based on the evidence" test. The "bringing Talossa into disrepute" test would also come into action, for example, if it were a famous trial and a lot of people saw a rapist getting off because the courts are misogynist.

Here's where the rubber hits the road, though, doesn't it?  Under this proposal, the scope of Talossan prosecution seems as though it would -- in your view -- encompass all potential convictions or accusations or even exonerations, serious or no, as a basis for potential prosecution.  So if we were to end up someplace in this neighborhood -- which I'm not opposing -- there would need to be a whole trial and things really get messy.  If we're trying someone on the basis of an accusation of spousal abuse, for example, the Talossan in question would have due process rights that a Talossan court probably couldn't exercise in any real way.

Because of those things, I'd suggest the most practical way forward is to view and treat the matter as a question of accepting another country's judicial proceedings as acceptable in the eyes of our own Organic requirements.  In other words, I don't think it's feasible to really fairly design any process that can act on the basis of another country's accusations: only convictions should be an acceptable basis for review by our courts.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 12, 2021, 02:12:46 PM
Let's focus on the point here. What shall we replace El Lex A:1-4 with?

- a full replacement Talossan legal code? Far too much work.
- would the Regent's special prosecutor system work fully to replace these sections? And how? Can we have a hypothetical example, eg: what would a "special prosecutor" have done in the I. Canún case?
- do we need extra "principles" to guide the Courts in these "special prosecutor" cases outwith those currently in the Covenants?

There is a much broader question I've raised of whether our current "quasi common law system" is adequate for our purposes - and indeed what is the statutory basis for it since the reference to Anglo-American principles was taken out of the OrgLaw. (Are we to assume that Talossa inherited the common law on 26/12/79?) The alternative would be to resort to Civil Law, i.e. precedent no longer has value and where there's no statute the Court can't rule.

I agree, the discussion should stay focused on the actual question at hand about how and if we incorporate other countries legalities into our own.

I will pose a couple of hypotheticals to assist.

A. A person is convicted of a minor crime like petty theft in their local jurisdiction, but is also widely disliked by people in power. Who and how do we decide whether or not to apply consequences here, by whatever mechanism the Ziu designs?

B. A person is convicted of a very serious crime like large-scale embezzlement, but not a crime that is immediately inflammatory to a lot of folks. Do they suffer consequences here?

C. A person is convicted of a very serious crime that is abhorrent to everyone, like spousal abuse. Do they suffer consequences here?

D. A person is accused of a very serious crime that is abbhorent to everyone, like spousal abuse. Do they suffer consequences here?

E. A person is convicted of a crime that is controversially illegal in some places but not others, such as obtaining an abortion. Who and how do we decide whether or not they suffer consequences here?

Any reform made by the Ziu must be able to handle each of these situations without endangering the liberties of our people.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 12, 2021, 01:43:01 PM
All right, time for some archeology. Wisconsin law was written into our law (at the proposal of KR1) by 31RZ14, which reads in part:

QuoteWHEREAS under Talossan law, there are no actual, legal prohibitions against murder, rape, robbery, or any other crimes...

So clearly KR1 was thinking of the kind of crimes of gross moral turpitude that I. Canún is currently doing time for. This was further amended (at Sir Cresti's proposal) by 35RZ21. The list of those sections of the Wisconsin Code "dynamically included" in our law are:

QuoteChapters 240-243 Fraudulent Conveyances and Contracts
    Chapters 401-411 Uniform Commercial Code
    Chapters 421-429 Wisconsin Consumer Act
    Chapters 700-710 Property
    Chapters 938-951 Criminal Code
    Chapter 961 Controlled Substances

I suppose we could go through Old Witt's debates to find out exactly why Sir Cresti thought these sections should apply to Talossa. But I maintain the following:

• putting Wisconsin law into Talossan law means that Talossan judges and lawyers have to be familiar with Wisconsin case and statute law to really know our law, which is ridiculous and puts the Talossan law out of reach for any but US-trained lawyers (like Cresti, lol)
• no case of "murder, rape or robbery" has ever been tried under these law in Talossan court
• I believe that the only time these sections were invoked was when Cresti relied on Wisconsin court decisions as precedent in Talossan court - see above

These sections need to be repealed. Talossan law should be indigenous. But what will they be replaced with? That's what we're discussing.

A point I've made which seems to have been ignored is that Talossa's current common law system already allows courts a lot of discretion to hear cases on matters not referred to by statute. So if we adopted a set of "Principles of the Common Law of Talossa", Courts could base their decisions on those rather than on the "Anglo-American" precedent enshrined by the previous OrgLaw. But if the idea of judges ruling on matters not specifically referred to by statute is a problem, then we should switch to a Civil Law code post haste, which removes judicial discretion over matters not in statute. The Regent seems upset by something which is the status quo.

I'm not upset, but I also would note that you are mistaken about a few things. Multiple times, people have been charged or nearly charged with crimes under those legal codes. It hasn't happened a lot, but it has happened. It just isn't very equitable.

Yes, the modern court system has been bent inexorably towards the court system with which most of the judges in office have been familiar. It's not quite as open-season as you think, though!