I would enter such a contest, probably.

I vote per.

Just FYI, I'm getting a bad gateway error when I try to go to the referendum website, either with or without my voting key appended to the URL. The link from the original post also doesn't work, so I know it's not a problem with just the email. Not sure if it's just my region though.

Regarding ID cards, the incoming Government were kind enough to take that off my plate at the start of the term. I don't know how much movement there has been since then, but it's one of the more demanding tasks so please be charitable and patient.

As to RZ14, The Making SoS Succession Easier Act, I vote per.
As to RZ15, BHAID: Palestinian Children's Relief Act, I vote per.
As to RZ16, The Immigration Reform (Quality over Quantity), I vote non. It is a bad idea to have a Government minister render a private judgment about a subjective standard for each potential immigrant, even though it is good that the bill now requires some disclosure.

As to the Vote of Confidence, I vote contra.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on September 30, 2024, 11:34:20 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on September 30, 2024, 10:30:44 PMName the last rejected referendum.

Based on a little light digging, it would appear to be the referendum on an unknown amendment during the October 2005 general election. The Digest is pretty unclear on exactly what this bill was, as is the relevant ProBoards thread.

Indeed.  Virtually every referendum succeeds.  It is unwise to design a system where referenda are the only backstop against a hasty and foolish change.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on September 30, 2024, 08:02:11 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on September 30, 2024, 07:05:40 PMOkay, I can see the edge case where (a) the Government falls, (b) there's no successor who can themselves convince people to support them, and (c) the king is persuasive enough to convince the Cosa to support someone anyway.  That seems very unlikely to me.  Under your proposals, would this circumstance be more common than I might expect, or would you agree with me that this is an unlikely scenario?

Yes and no; keep in mind this reform does not distinguish between "failed votes of confidence" and "any other time we need a new Seneschal". It's just less likely to present an issue in the aftermath of a regularly-scheduled election (though, of course, as the 59th Cosa shows, not that much less likely).

Clearly, the king should only be exercising this power when there's some doubt about who has a majority, so I assume that he wouldn't be allowed to reject someone with a letter of majority, right?  So it should still only apply for failed VoCs... which are, I assure you, exceedingly rare.

You do seem to be planning just for this fairly unusual edge case.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on September 30, 2024, 08:02:11 PM

QuoteI am not sure that I agree that it'd be better to have the monarch arrange a fill-in rather than call a new election if the Government fails a Vote of Confidence.  There might be some scenarios where that's hypothetically preferable, but isn't it more likely that the Government just had precarious support?

Would you not agree that "precarious support" is preferable to endless electioneering?

I'm not sure I buy this false binary.  If a Government can't maintain a confidence vote, then probably another election is going to usually be a correct move.  And there has never been a time when a Government lost a confidence vote and then the next election had a similar outcome... the election has solved the issue.

And again, I don't understand the logic of justifying this system by pointing to these weird edge cases.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on September 30, 2024, 08:02:11 PM

QuoteI guess it seems to me like a lot of this is planning for marginal circumstances out of convenience's sake, and not enough thought has been given to the long-term robustness of the arrangement.  I mean, for example, absent a royal veto of some kind, the monarchy will be eliminated as soon as it's slightly inconvenient to a future strong Government.  It seems like this plan is just pointing towards fairly quick abnegation of itself.

That would of course require the amendment be put to referendum; even without a royal veto, the Cosa would not suddenly be able to amend the Organic Law at whim. Nowhere have I suggested we should do away with referenda.

Name the last rejected referendum.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 30, 2024, 07:52:47 PMBut my preferred alternatives would be ones which work well globally:

a) a "constructive VoC" which takes the form of a regular Cosa-only bill naming a specific candidate for Seneschal. This would follow the current rule whereby you can't submit the same bill multiple times, thus preventing the same person trying to bring down the government every month. Should it fail, we're at status quo.

b) the ability of the King to dissolve the Cosa early or to declare a month of recess at the request of the Seneschal, or upon the Government losing the Budget bill but only if the King agrees that it's necessary and proper for good government.

These seem like reasonable options and this might be a fruitful discussion to have, regardless of these proposals.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 30, 2024, 09:33:34 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on September 30, 2024, 07:05:40 PMabsent a royal veto of some kind, the monarchy will be eliminated as soon as it's slightly inconvenient to a future strong Governmen

Going to riff on this a little, although it's a bit of a side issue.

What this shows is a lack of confidence in the Monarchy being able to build long-term democratic legitimacy in Talossa.

No, quite the opposite, actually... it's short-term actions that worry me.  The monarchy already has to consistently maintain long-term democratic legitimacy, since two successive simple majorities would be enough to eliminate it, or one determined supermajority.

Your interpretation doesn't make any sense.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 30, 2024, 09:33:34 PMBut I suppose the idea of a monarchy which needs a veto to, er, defend its own existence (circular logic if ever I've heard of) goes along with the idea that, if a majority is allowed to make changes, we'll end up in a situation where we have a revolution every 8 months or so and Talossa will look like the aftermath of the 30 Years War or something. The central point is: a lack of faith in majority rule.

This is phrased in kind of the most pejorative way possible, but yeah... that's the basic idea.  We don't have parliamentary sovereignty in the broadest sense, and that limits the amount of change that any single Government can enact.

As we have already seen, you and I have fairly different views on this.  I think these limits are good, since otherwise our remarkably fragile institutions would be mostly smashed-up at this point.  It's entirely possible for a Government to do permanent damage to Talossa, especially since we have few physical anchors.  My town would continue existing no matter how badly it was governed, and if it was governed badly enough then outside forces or its own citizens would act to correct it.  Talossa just... doesn't have that.  A bad Government could break the country and destroy it forever.  This is not hyperbole.  It's obvious fact.  And so the only sane way to design a system needs to limit the ability of a Government to enact its will.

So yeah... I like Talossa, and I would like it to survive.  I think we should act on the basis of at least a Civics 101 level of knowledge in that regard.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 30, 2024, 09:33:34 PMThe problem is - as is shown by the inflexibility of the US constitution - if you deprive majorities of the ability to make changes (Senate filibuster, a fortiori the complexity of Constitutional Amendments), people will just do "end runs" around the democratic system if it reaches a dead end (viz. the current centrality of SCOTUS decisions).

As before, we're talking about a spectrum.  The choice isn't "maximum veto points" or "no checks" -- there's a pretty broad range in between.  It's obviously not too hard to do things in Talossa, because laws are rearranged all the time and to a wide degree.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 30, 2024, 09:33:34 PMAnother thing that I think we can learn from US politics is that, the more nothing can be done with the
democratic system, the greater the incentive for politicians to strike fire-breathing radical poses, even murderous demagoguery, because they won't be called to deliver on their promises even if the win.

This does not seem to be happening.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on September 30, 2024, 06:38:57 PMAs noted in the original proposal, MCs voting Non are asked to nominate a replacement Seneschal, which would certainly help a great deal towards forming a new majority. Of course, it is certainly possible that even if the VoC fails, not everyone will nominate the same replacement, and that is where the discretion becomes important. The King will be able to review the nominations and work out a successor in conjunction with the party leaders in the Cosa. Maybe everyone who votes Non votes for their own party's leader as a matter of simple partisanship, but ultimately in discussions with the Crown, arrive at one of the leaders overall. Maybe someone misses a VoC due to some emergency, but is able to return, and the incumbent Government is actually able to continue overall. In both of these examples, under our current system, the entire Cosa dissolves and then we spend a whole two months on an early election, which, if you agree that a fixed system is preferable, would be time we agree is better spent on running the country.

Okay, I can see the edge case where (a) the Government falls, (b) there's no successor who can themselves convince people to support them, and (c) the king is persuasive enough to convince the Cosa to support someone anyway.  That seems very unlikely to me.  Under your proposals, would this circumstance be more common than I might expect, or would you agree with me that this is an unlikely scenario?

I am not sure that I agree that it'd be better to have the monarch arrange a fill-in rather than call a new election if the Government fails a Vote of Confidence.  There might be some scenarios where that's hypothetically preferable, but isn't it more likely that the Government just had precarious support?

I guess it seems to me like a lot of this is planning for marginal circumstances out of convenience's sake, and not enough thought has been given to the long-term robustness of the arrangement.  I mean, for example, absent a royal veto of some kind, the monarchy will be eliminated as soon as it's slightly inconvenient to a future strong Government.  It seems like this plan is just pointing towards fairly quick abnegation of itself.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on September 30, 2024, 06:33:04 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on September 30, 2024, 06:27:06 PMYes.  The thread detailing how to request arms, pinned to the top of the forum, has instructions about how to request arms.  I have quoted above the section about how to request arms.  Further examples are on the first page of this forum, which include several citizen requests for personal arms, as well as an institutional request from the Ministry of Culture.

-Dean

Well darn, so fulfilling the last request was a mistake. That is unfortunate. Carlus did such a good job with that last request you assigned him I was hoping for a repeat. Good to know the rules now. Thanks Baron.

We were late in addressing your request last time, and so in the interests of mediating our own tardiness, I let the formality slide.  I'd encourage you to make your request again.  Please follow the example of any of the other most recent petitioners.

-Dean

Yes.  The thread detailing how to request arms, pinned to the top of the forum, has instructions about how to request arms.  I have quoted above the section about how to request arms.  Further examples are on the first page of this forum, which include several citizen requests for personal arms, as well as an institutional request from the Ministry of Culture.

-Dean

I concur with the Rouge Elephant.

-Dean

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on February 12, 2022, 06:08:26 PMHow Arms are Granted. The King of Talossa will grant the right to bear a coat of arms to citizens only in response to a petition made to the King by the Royal Talossan College of Arms. Citizens may not obtain an audience with the King directly on matters of arms.

The full, ordinary procedure for obtaining arms, is:

A citizen requests arms by posting a specifically formatted request on this board. In true Monty Python imitation, this post must answer Three Questions.

• What is your name?
• What is your request?
• What is your favourite colour?

The answer to the second question must be "If it so please the Squirrel King of Arms, I request the assistance of the College in designing and obtaining arms for myself and my lawful heirs."

After this post is made, the Squirrel King of Arms or other official will assign a member of the College to assist you.

-Dean

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on September 30, 2024, 05:54:52 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on September 27, 2024, 09:14:00 AMOkay, I guess I see what you're getting at.  So you're envisioning a situation where the Government collapses in such a way that they can't pick a new leader, and so the king decides who will be the next Seneschal until the election?

Correct -- these changes are intended to work in concert with each other, as I had thought out the pros and cons of my proposal pretty thoroughly. This may come as a surprise, but I'm not just sitting over here, throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks. :P

That wasn't my implication.  I'm over here just literally trying to imagine a scenario where it might be a good thing for the king to pick the leader of the Government, since -- to be frank -- you spend very little time on the why of these proposals.

Okay, so currently the Seneschal is the person who can put together a majority.  Is there some reason to think that the king's pick would be able to put together a majority, under this proposal?  Or would the king's pick need special immunity to the end of the term?  Ordinarily, I'd assume that eliminating the king's only point of leverage against the legislature would weaken his ability to spur them into supporting his pick.  Walk me through this and why this change would be not only a good thing, but better than the current system.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 27, 2024, 02:14:16 AMIn a unicameral system a lot more miéidă da toro would have happened in the last 2 terms - and then we could roll it back just as easily.

I think this might be the crux of it: I think it's underappreciated that there might be consequences of reckless changes to our country's institutions.  Some things are breakable and can't just be "rolled back."  Eventually we might end up with six or seven people standing in the ashes and taking turns being in charge.