I have some concerns.

As discussed in the thread for the committee on legal reforms, the Covenant of Rights and Freedoms has never been interpreted as a set of potentially criminal restrictions on individual behavior.  The Seneschal's theory is fundamentally that the Sixth Covenant effectively criminalizes all behavior that can be convincingly argued as "activities which injure, endanger, risk or compromise the physical health, privacy, or tranquility of other persons."  She has cited other covenants as the basis for other possible criminal prosecutions, but they're actually irrelevant in the light of this interpretation, since this view is amazingly broad and nonspecific.

Any behavior or speech could potentially be a crime under this interpretation.  Even something specifically authorized by law could potentially be a crime, in fact, since the Sixth Covenant overrides every statute, every other provision of the Organic Law, and every other covenant!

It was never the intent of the Covenant of Rights and Freedoms to be read in this way, since this interpretation doesn't make sense just on a first pass through them.  I mean, what would be the point of the Seventh Covenant?  If it's literally meaningless -- since actually anything can be a crime -- why bother including it?

Further, there's a reason that the Seventh Covenant does exist: if any activity is a crime once the Government decides that it might be, then it opens the door to ruinous corruption and abuse of power.  It costs the Government nothing but a little time to prosecute an offender, and they risk nothing.  If the Avocat-Xheneral or Seneschal decide they dislike you, then they simply need to identify something you did (or failed to do) at some point in your entire life as activity that plausibly offended the serenity of someone else.  If the prosecution fails, they've still cost you time and inflicted stress on you.  They can always try again, whenever they wish.  And maybe they'll get lucky and get you convicted!

Obviously, neither our current Avocat-Xheneral nor our current Seneschal would let their personal grudges influence their behavior.  But not all future officials might be so calm and virtuous.

It's worth noting, incidentally, that this interpretation would also conflict with other important covenants than just the Seventh.  Take the Eighth Covenant, for example.  Is euthanasia against the law?  Well, the Ziu isn't allowed to write a statute which makes it a crime to end the life of another human being, but that would be irrelevant: euthanasia would certainly be "compromis[ing] the physical health" of another person, and "no right herein enumerated" in the Covenant can protect such activity.

I urge that this approach be abandoned and a little more thought applied to this problem, which remains an important one.

If one side views an outcome as an indefinite compromise, and the other views the outcome as an interim concession, only one of them can actually be correct.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on February 09, 2021, 06:26:08 PM
if federal power is too centralised (not sure what that means in Talossan terms), maybe it would be in order to empower the provinces somehow instead of propping up a monarch for life to do the meaningful counterbalance.

History shows that's probably a pretty bad idea, since focus is so overwhelmingly on national politics that provincial politics seldom goes anywhere and there are usually -- not just often, but usually as a matter of course -- multiple provinces that are utterly silent because there's only one or perhaps two active people.  We could consolidate them to try to change that, of course, but then we're also making it much less likely that they will meaningfully diverge from the national results (since they already usually don't very much).  It's also possible that giving them more power will somehow inspire more activity, but they already each command 1/8th of the Senate individually and have a ton of latitude to do things (all power not explicitly vested in the Ziu or Government is theirs), and that hasn't changed much about the activity level for most provinces.  When they are active, they are usually historically dominated by one or two people, as well, who are themselves typically very active in national politics.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on February 09, 2021, 06:26:08 PM
Firstly, you've already said that the Talossan Monarch is elected, which by that logic would mean he already is a partisan prize. The fact that this symbolically and governmentally important post is only up for grabs once every few decades (I refuse to believe that anyone would actually hold on to the office for life) instead of once every seven years doesnt make it less of a prize, quite the opposite, that's just my personal opinion though.

That hasn't proven to be the case.  That may change, but we also need to again look at history: every single political party which existed when His Majesty was elected is gone.  Almost every single person active in politics at that time is no longer active.  The oldest political party now existing dates back to 2015, only six years ago.  Talossan politics just tends to move in smaller timeframes these days, because so many political parties lean heavily on the energies of just one or two people.  That might change someday, but the Seneschal just gave a big speech about how it's still true for her party, at the least.

Yes, I expect that the election of a new king someday will have some sort of partisan pressures, and I don't think there's any way to avoid that with elections in a nation with partisan elections.  But we can minimize it and also hope that infrequency lends some majesty to the process to help forestall it.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on February 09, 2021, 06:26:08 PM
Secondly, did you know that the Federal President of Germany is elected by federal and state legislatures and still manages to be a non-partisan figurehead? The office is so apolitical and inoffensive that you only ever get reminded of its existence when the incumbent manages to find himself implicated in a scandal of gargantuan proportions. Which is to say once in a lifetime or so. How's that for an idea?

I didn't know that!  I didn't even know that the President of Germany had significant power to wield in a way that made the office a meaningful part of sustaining the system of governance, I'm ashamed to say.  And I know other examples have been raised that are similar.  I'm not saying it's impossible for any country to have a nonpartisan empowered monarch who is regularly elected, but I will say that Talossa is very different from most countries.  I'd be interested to explain specifically how, if the topic is one you'd like to unpack, but for now this post is probably long enough.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on February 09, 2021, 05:43:18 PM

Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on February 09, 2021, 05:32:05 PM

Quote from: GV on February 08, 2021, 05:23:00 PMWhy can't we have the benefits of election along with the tradition of monarchy, Alexander?  What's wrong with that?

Probably the same reason you can't have hot ice cream.

Behold, hot ice cream.

I actually edited that metaphor almost immediately, since I reflected (as the father of three) that I have watched kids eat ice cream soup multiple times.  But looking at the link...

"An elective monarchy is a monarchy ruled by an elected monarch, in contrast to a hereditary monarchy in which the office is automatically passed down as a family inheritance."

His Majesty King John was elected.  His successor will also be elected.  So this seems to describe what we have.  ;)

But more seriously, this is just semantics -- just arguing over labels.  We can call any office the "king," if we so choose, but that's not what we're really arguing over.  We could decide that we'd start calling the Archivist the second king, for example.  It wouldn't mean that we had a king in any way that would be meaningful in terms of governmental continuity.  I'm prepared to argue semantics, but it seems wildly beside the point and tedious.

Like, why can't we have a king who is elected every month and can be dismissed by the town dogcatcher?  There's no reason why not!  There's nothing magical about the word, if we want to use it in a weird way, and we could pass that law immediately.  We can call such an office or any other the "monarchy," but that's sort of sidestepping any actual discussion of the merits.  Such a role would not be above partisan politics, it couldn't act as a meaningful counterweight to the increasingly centralized power of the Seneschal, etc.

Having a monarch has both tangible symbolic and tangible governmental benefits.  The value of the former will be somewhat eroded if the office becomes a partisan prize, since we already vote ourselves all kinds of awards and postnominals.  The value of the latter will be drastically eroded in the same circumstance.

Quote from: GV on February 08, 2021, 05:23:00 PM
What if I as a Senator decided to go incommunicado?

Well, the senator for Atatürk was last online in April of 2020.  He last posted a month before that.  The senators for Cézembre and Maricopa will often let a month go by between communicating here on Witt.  Typically, in fact, we acknowledge that people will often not be engaged with Talossa for long periods, even if they hold high office, and we let it slide unless it's gotten pretty seriously in the way (ie usually only when it comes to the Seneschal or Secretary of State).  In the case of His Majesty, he acted to ensure that things got done (95% of the rubber-stamp variety, since the monarch has relatively few responsibilities these days) by appointing a regent.  This seems like it should have been fine with you, since you personally suggested he do that in September, GV.

Quote from: GV on February 08, 2021, 05:23:00 PMBut monarchist Talossa wants a monarchy with power.  Fine.  Does this mean an endless string of unelected monarchs with power, then?  Is that what the conservative Talossa of 2005-present wants?

That's phrased in a weird way, but yes.  I'd prefer that Talossa not "end" and that it be ruled by a monarch with significant enough power to form a stabilizing counterweight to the vicissitudes of tide and time.  I'd note that the hereditary monarchy was already eliminated, though, as you are aware and as others have mentioned.

Quote from: GV on February 08, 2021, 05:23:00 PMThe 2017 Organic Law makes it very difficult to throw out a bad monarch.

In what way?  It can be done the same as any other constitutional reform.  And there were five of those on just the last ballot.  If the Ziu really wanted to remove His Majesty and replace him, it could already be done far too easily, in my personal opinion.  Is there some other obstacle of which I am unaware?

Quote from: GV on February 08, 2021, 05:23:00 PMWith an elected monarchy, we throw the bum (not John) out straightaway.

Not John?  This bill would indeed immediately depose His Majesty King John, actually.  You and the rest of the Ziu, the heads of provinces, and the CpI would all be immediately responsible for electing a new king, with V presiding over the proceedings.  Totaling up those numbers, it actually looks like the Free Democrats would be able to pretty easily just decide amongst themselves who they want to make the new monarch.  I can imagine a pretty short list of people who you guys might pick, in fact, s:reu ;)

Quote from: GV on February 08, 2021, 05:23:00 PMWhy can't we have the benefits of election along with the tradition of monarchy, Alexander?  What's wrong with that?

You're describing a French-style presidency, with a term of seven years instead of five.  The office immediately becomes political and partisan (cf above).

It would be an abrogation of my duty as Regent, appointed to act in His Majesty's stead in his absence, if I failed to warn that I could not in good faith approve a bill which would eject His Majesty from the throne immediately, and which would further adopt a drastic new change in government on the basis of a 1.5% majority in a midterm referendum.  I feel very strongly that King John would certainly veto any bill which dethroned him, and accordingly I will veto such a bill in his name, if put to it.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on February 01, 2021, 04:07:59 PM

QuoteGenerally speaking, the Covenants are understood as a list of rights that citizens enjoy and upon which the Government cannot infringe.

No, that's just how you understand them, presumably on the analogy of the US Bill of Rights. But the Preamble states that "The Covenant of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in them to all Talossan citizens". It positively grants rights rather than negatively prevents infringements upon them.

The U.S. Bill of Rights was explicitly the model for the Covenants, and a great deal of the language is identical, and the Covenants have been generally understood as a guarantee against action against your rights.  This is clear when we look at the Tenth Covenant, which says that "[a]nyone whose rights and freedoms, as guaranteed by these Covenants, have been infringed or denied may appeal to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such redress of grievances as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances."  Neither here nor anywhere else are there provisions for the criminalization of such infringements.  If the Ziu passes a law restricting someone's religious liberty, then no one can prosecute the people who voted in favor in the Ziu imprisoned for their "crime" of passing a law that violated the Covenants, for example.

Ah, I missed that before.  But I don't quite see this, still.  What in the Fourth Covenant provides a "right to property" or criminalizes embezzlement?  What in the Sixth Covenant criminalizes domestic violence?

Generally speaking, the Covenants are understood as a list of rights that citizens enjoy and upon which the Government cannot infringe.  The Ziu couldn't pass a law which would allow the A-X to read someone's correspondence, for example, unless that law required a warrant first.  But the Fourth Covenant protection against searches without a warrant doesn't extend to anyone else.  If I ran a mail service and told everyone I would be reading their mail if they used it, no one could sue me under the Fourth Covenant.

Could you give me an example of some crimes that violate the Covenants?  Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean by that.

I've read that a couple of times, and maybe I'm just tired, but I don't understand.  I would suspect there's general agreement on those principles you lay out: a conviction in another court, not just a prosecution, can be reviewed by our system somehow and possibly lead to a Talossan sentence, as well.  But aren't we still missing the main tricky bit -- that review process?  I think there still has to be some sort of adversarial trial for the sake of the Covenants, for example.  I wonder if there's a simple solution here, actually... could we just declare that being convicted of a crime in another court of law is itself a Talossan crime, subject to the Covenants?  I'd have to think more on whether or not that would be itself Organic.

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.