Wittenberg

WHEREAS the monarchy is a good thing for Talossa, and the Talossan people have repeatedly affirmed that they want to maintain a strong, stable, and active monarchy, yet only the people should be the ultimate arbiters of power, through their democratic assent, and

WHEREAS this issue has consumed Talossans for years, often causing bitter rifts and exhausted partisans, and neither the restoration of the hereditary monarchy nor a regularly-elected president has the support of a majority of the people, and a middle path which embraces the virtues of both traditions might be the way to go,

THEREFORE Article II, Section 3 of the Organic Law, which currently reads

QuoteThe King of Talossa is King John I, until his demise, abdication, or removal from the throne. Should the King at any time renounce or lose his citizenship, that renunciation or loss shall be deemed to imply his abdication of the Throne. Upon the demise, abdication, or removal from the Throne of the King, the Uppermost Cort shall be a Council of Regency.

shall be amended to read

QuoteThe King of Talossa is King John I, until his demise, abdication, or removal from the throne. Should the King at any time renounce or lose his citizenship, that renunciation or loss shall be deemed to imply his abdication of the Throne.

FURTHERMORE, new sections 5 and 6 shall be added to Article II, with succeeding sections renumbered accordingly.  The new section 5 shall read

QuoteWith the advice of the Sabor, the King may select any Talossan citizen of his choice, and submit them to the people by referendum for confirmation as crown prince or crown princess.  Should this referendum succeed, the confirmed crown prince or crown princess shall be the heir apparent to the throne.  Upon the serving King's demise, abdication, or removal from the throne, the crown prince or princess shall be promptly crowned as the new King by the serving Seneschal.

The new section 6 shall read

QuoteIf the confirmation referendum described in section 5 should fail to achieve a majority any three times, or upon the demise, abdication, or removal from the throne of the serving king at a time when there is no confirmed crown prince or crown princess, then a nationwide election shall be conducted by the Secretary of State.  Any Talossan citizen may be nominated by another citizen as a potential crown prince or princess during a period of one month, after which any citizens who accept their nomination shall be submitted to the people in an open election conducted by Instant Runoff Voting. In case of a tie between two or more candidates, the Chief Judge of the Cort pü Inalt shall break the tie.

Uréu q'estadra så:
Alexandreu Davinescu (MC-TNC)

Plainly speaking, this bill lets the king choose a successor, but the successor has to be approved by popular referendum.  If the referendum fails three times in total (either with the same person, or with different potential nominees) then it just becomes an open election.

So after seeing GV specifically endorse this approach, and after consulting a whole bunch of people about ways to approach this, I thought this would be a way forward that could suit everyone.  It looks specifically to the people for their endorsement of any choice and doesn't allow unlimited bites at the apple, even allowing for the people to essentially call for a free election by thrice voting down a nominee.  But it also plays to the strengths of the crown, permitting individual choice at the heart of the selection and relying on the good judgment of the sovereign.  Finding a balancing point here was quite difficult, but I'm pretty proud of the results.

Go into detail on the last section: "If the confirmation referendum described in section 5 should fail to achieve a majority any three times". Does this mean for one particular candidate, i.e. the King gets three goes at trying to impose a successor? Or, the King picks 3 different successors and each one get rejected?

I wonder whether there's merit in an opposite approach. If there's no Crown Princess, the Ziu picks a slate of 3 candidates, and the King chooses one?

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 22, 2022, 06:12:12 PMGo into detail on the last section: "If the confirmation referendum described in section 5 should fail to achieve a majority any three times". Does this mean for one particular candidate, i.e. the King gets three goes at trying to impose a successor? Or, the King picks 3 different successors and each one get rejected?

The intent is for any combination -- retrying the same person three times, or two times and then a new person, or three different people.  Any three failed referenda will do it.  I might need to redraft the language.  It's a little fiddly, and I might need fresh eyes before I can see how to do it.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 22, 2022, 06:12:12 PMI wonder whether there's merit in an opposite approach. If there's no Crown Princess, the Ziu picks a slate of 3 candidates, and the King chooses one?

Do you mean rather than the king making his choice, or instead of the open election after three referenda?

Ok, whilst I can appreciate that this is some movement from the TNC on this front, i in all good conscious vote for, nor support a bill that will give the Monarch a say over their successor, or any possible veto, In all honesty, i don't feel comfortable straying away from the compromise too much, but that doesn't seem like it can go anywhere at the moment. But my personal absolute red line, is that the ZUI proposes and votes (with a 2/3 majority in each chamber) on a successor, and that person is confirmed by the people in a referendum. Separate from the Monarch and institution of the Monarchy. IF it will help, i would concede to it happening before the monarch abdicates, dies etc, but that is the most i feel i could personally support, also this is not an attack on these proposals, and i appreciate that something has been proposed, i am just stating my own personal boundaries with proposed changes on this

Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on September 22, 2022, 09:00:12 PMOk, whilst I can appreciate that this is some movement from the TNC on this front, i in all good conscious vote for, nor support a bill that will give the Monarch a say over their successor, or any possible veto, In all honesty, i don't feel comfortable straying away from the compromise too much, but that doesn't seem like it can go anywhere at the moment. But my personal absolute red line, is that the ZUI proposes and votes (with a 2/3 majority in each chamber) on a successor, and that person is confirmed by the people in a referendum. Separate from the Monarch and institution of the Monarchy. IF it will help, i would concede to it happening before the monarch abdicates, dies etc, but that is the most i feel i could personally support, also this is not an attack on these proposals, and i appreciate that something has been proposed, i am just stating my own personal boundaries with proposed changes on this

If you've declared a red line beyond which you won't go, committing yourself to opposing any compromise, then certainly it becomes impossible to persuade you.  Thank you for your views, at least.  I respect the sincerity of your beliefs.  I think that the monarchists who would prefer a hereditary monarchy -- or a free hand for the monarch to choose his successor, or something else further to the monarchist line -- might have their own red lines.  I hope that enough remain in the middle to support this compromise proposal.  It's not my preferred outcome, but it represents a real attempt at finding consensus.

I feel like we could actually be close to something here.

The only big issue I have with this bill is that it does not provide an opportunity to dethrone the King before their life term is up (or they abdicate). If a King is not doing their job, there should be a way to "legislatively decapitate" them, as some have called it. My compromise amendment provided this opportunity once every seven years.

Also, once we get to the point of having an election, I prefer the Convocation method described in my amendment compared to a regular IRV election.

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on September 22, 2022, 09:43:22 PMI feel like we could actually be close to something here.

The only big issue I have with this bill is that it does not provide an opportunity to dethrone the King before their life term is up (or they abdicate). If a King is not doing their job, there should be a way to "legislatively decapitate" them, as some have called it. My compromise amendment provided this opportunity once every seven years.

Also, once we get to the point of having an election, I prefer the Convocation method described in my amendment compared to a regular IRV election.

Thank you for your feedback.  I don't want to be unreasonable, but this represents a pretty careful months-long effort to bring together a number of stakeholders with very different views.  So please believe me when I say that I'm going to do my best, but I think only some of what you propose is possible.  I think the convocation thing might fly, on the one hand, if a significant number of others agree with you.  It's slightly less democratic, but I don't see think that the change would be insuperable if it really is warranted.   But I really doubt that there's any version of a "decapitation" provision that would pass.  Such a provision already exists for when the monarch is ill or convicted of a crime or reckless nonfeasance.  If such a thing were included, there'd probably need to be significant concessions going the other way, including restoration of some royal powers.  And I know to a mortal certainty that no presidential term of office would pass.

Do you think that a lot of others would prefer the convocation rather than a voter-wide referendum?  Would you prefer we reuse some of the language from your bill?

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on September 22, 2022, 10:08:38 PMthis represents a pretty careful months-long effort to bring together a number of stakeholders with very different views.

... not including any Free Democrats or Reformistàes, of course! Seriously - this is a partisan proposal, a Monarchist proposal. It's not the worst one imaginable but let's not pretend it's a new Compromise.

However, if the TNC (and, behind them, the King) were interested in actually taking a step towards compromise, we might want to consider taking the Seneschál's concerns into account by lowering the bar for removing the King as contained in the current II.4.

I must say that the track record of the King, nominating a Regent who was guaranteed to outrage majority opinion, does not give me any confidence that the incumbent could name a successor who wouldn't be bogged down in a series of divisive referenda, under this proposal. I humbly suggest that the idea of allowing the Ziu to pick a slate of possible successor, with the King making final call, would minimise the chance of a literal War of Succession.

Another point i wish to raise with the Baron, is that you already knew what the Free Democrats and other parties had come to as a compromise position ourselves, which we has stated previously, represented a lot of red lines on our side, and yet, you bring up a proposal, calling it a solution, with prior knowledge of what i have already said, and no negotiations with us, so i ask, how did you think this being proposed would go? As, as far as i can see it, based on the current makeup of the Ziu, i cannot see this passing. Also, i am not saying i am not interested in a compromise, as you have suggested above, also having red lines, despite your position, does NOT mean that the individual is opposed to negotiations, it means that there is a base line of principles they can't go past, i concede that my own views and the views in the bill proposed i dont think can be bridged, especially if, by your own admission, you have little room to manoeuvre yourself. So it is a little rich saying you cant change my mind on things, when your own position is essentially the same. But i honestly feel that the honest middle of the road of positions was the compromise bill we have been proposing, but the goalposts kept being moved in a monarchist direction. But a monarchy without democratic accountability, without being able for the Ziu to dismiss them outside of extreme circumstances, is just not something most of the people, if not all, of the Free Democrats, which holds and represents a large percentage of the views in Talossa, can accept. And that idea is basically being dismissed almost out of hand. So, whilst this might be a compromise amongst the monarchists, i do ask you, how is this a true compromise with people on our side of this debate? Because honestly, i cannot see that it is.

Also, i have one more question, do you know who, if this does somehow pass, the King might present as an heir? As another issue i can see, is that even if this is passed, somehow, is who a possible heir might be, in line with this bill, as if it is someone not palitible to one side of talossa, and that somehow is shoehorned through, a large portion of the population will be alienated in the country. Which is why i said what i said earlier, without some democratic safeguards from the Zui in this matter, as that makes it more likely a cross party support is reached. Also it doesn't solve the fact that a large portion of people would like some sort of term limits on the monarchy too (and your previous arguments dismissing the concept of elected monarchies when they have existed for millenia, and the fact that the current monarch was ELECTED, doesn't have much grounding in facts) is something that i cant see something like this being passed without. This just feels like alot of the concerns raised just by having the compromise bill we have been proposing have been dismissed and ignored as unimportant in the eyes of your party, which makes it harder to support this. So i ask, why the step BACKWARDS from what we were proposing, and not an olive branch towards our side? As i believe if you were serious about reaching a middle ground, these things should have been addressed with us before such a proposal was made. But it wasnt. So i just dont understand how this can honestly be thought of as a "middle of the road" proposal when is is so far from the middle its like a speck of dust in the far distance.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 22, 2022, 10:31:37 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on September 22, 2022, 10:08:38 PMthis represents a pretty careful months-long effort to bring together a number of stakeholders with very different views.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 22, 2022, 10:31:37 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on September 22, 2022, 10:08:38 PMthis represents a pretty careful months-long effort to bring together a number of stakeholders with very different views.

... not including any Free Democrats or Reformistàes, of course! Seriously - this is a partisan proposal, a Monarchist proposal. It's not the worst one imaginable but let's not pretend it's a new Compromise.

However, if the TNC (and, behind them, the King) were interested in actually taking a step towards compromise, we might want to consider taking the Seneschál's concerns into account by lowering the bar for removing the King as contained in the current II.4.

I must say that the track record of the King, nominating a Regent who was guaranteed to outrage majority opinion, does not give me any confidence that the incumbent could name a successor who wouldn't be bogged down in a series of divisive referenda, under this proposal. I humbly suggest that the idea of allowing the Ziu to pick a slate of possible successor, with the King making final call, would minimise the chance of a literal War of Succession.

However, if the TNC (and, behind them, the King) were interested in actually taking a step towards compromise, we might want to consider taking the Seneschál's concerns into account by lowering the bar for removing the King as contained in the current II.4.

I humbly suggest that the idea of allowing the Ziu to pick a slate of possible successor, with the King making final call, would minimise the chance of a literal War of Succession.

Changes to the removal criteria were not a part of internal discussions so I can't speak for the party. But, personally, as an alternative to the confidence votes, I am open to it. I am also, personally open to the Ziu's involvement with the King making the final call.

Miestra, are these measures which would garner significant FreeDem support?

Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on September 22, 2022, 11:29:55 PMAnother point i wish to raise with the Baron, is that you already knew what the Free Democrats and other parties had come to as a compromise position ourselves, which we has stated previously, represented a lot of red lines on our side, and yet, you bring up a proposal, calling it a solution, with prior knowledge of what i have already said, and no negotiations with us, so i ask, how did you think this being proposed would go?

Except that your red line is that the monarch can't have any say over his successor, which is a line drawn dramatically far away from any kind of possible compromise.  This proposal is already a big compromise between my preferred outcome and opposing views, and I designed it to bridge the gap after consulting with people in the FDT and my own party, with the king, and with ardent monarchists.  Moving dramatically in either direction is going to lose other people, many of whom already feel these are painful concessions.

I mean, under this plan, with three votes the citizenry could demand an open election and reject any royal say in a successor.  That's a very hard pill for a lot of people to swallow.

Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on September 22, 2022, 11:29:55 PMAlso, i have one more question, do you know who, if this does somehow pass, the King might present as an heir?

I have no idea.  I'll note that I asked this same question when the presidency bill was proposed, and no one could answer that, either.  There's no obvious successor right now.

Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on September 22, 2022, 11:29:55 PMAs another issue i can see, is that even if this is passed, somehow, is who a possible heir might be, in line with this bill, as if it is someone not palitible to one side of talossa, and that somehow is shoehorned through, a large portion of the population will be alienated in the country. Which is why i said what i said earlier, without some democratic safeguards from the Zui in this matter, as that makes it more likely a cross party support is reached. Also it doesn't solve the fact that a large portion of people would like some sort of term limits on the monarchy too (and your previous arguments dismissing the concept of elected monarchies when they have existed for millenia, and the fact that the current monarch was ELECTED, doesn't have much grounding in facts) is something that i cant see something like this being passed without. This just feels like alot of the concerns raised just by having the compromise bill we have been proposing have been dismissed and ignored as unimportant in the eyes of your party, which makes it harder to support this. So i ask, why the step BACKWARDS from what we were proposing, and not an olive branch towards our side? As i believe if you were serious about reaching a middle ground, these things should have been addressed with us before such a proposal was made. But it wasnt. So i just dont understand how this can honestly be thought of as a "middle of the road" proposal when is is so far from the middle its like a speck of dust in the far distance.

For my part, I don't see the presidency proposed in the former bill as any sort of compromise, just because it still has the label "king" on it.  I still don't see why exactly that was ever presented as a compromise, since typically both sides give way in a compromise.  I know that your party line is that a regularly-elected king with very little power can still be called a king, but that's only true in the most banal technical sense.  The word has been used a ton of different ways and has no inherent meaning!  We could elect someone to a one-year term and require them to collect stray dogs from the street, and they'd still be a dogcatcher even if we called them king.

This bill represents an actual compromise, on the other hand.  Instead of a hereditary monarchy, the next monarch would need to be confirmed by a plebiscite.  If the people decided to reject the offered choices, then there would be an open election instead.  That actually represents real compromise from both sides.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 22, 2022, 10:31:37 PMI must say that the track record of the King, nominating a Regent who was guaranteed to outrage majority opinion, does not give me any confidence that the incumbent could name a successor who wouldn't be bogged down in a series of divisive referenda, under this proposal.

Then you should certainly support this bill, since if no successor could be found who was broadly acceptable, then it would just go to a general election!

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 22, 2022, 06:12:12 PMGo into detail on the last section: "If the confirmation referendum described in section 5 should fail to achieve a majority any three times". Does this mean for one particular candidate, i.e. the King gets three goes at trying to impose a successor? Or, the King picks 3 different successors and each one get rejected?

I wonder whether there's merit in an opposite approach. If there's no Crown Princess, the Ziu picks a slate of 3 candidates, and the King chooses one?

These are only personal suggestions for discussion based on Miestra's suggestion:

What if the Ziu picks a slate of three with the King choosing from those three. But the King has the option of rejecting the first slate and sending it back to the Ziu. The Ziu sends a second slate and if the King rejects those again it is reversed. The King makes a selection and sends to the Ziu. In any of these three situations where a candidate is approved. They are to be approved in a public referendum by two-thirds vote.

That is three potential rounds with up to 7 potential candidates being considered. If there is no successful choice then we are in an exceptional situation which is where the Convocation suggested by Ian could be activated.

Would this address your concerns Miestra? Would this allow the King to have a significant say in choosing his successor, Baron?

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on September 22, 2022, 10:08:38 PMThank you for your feedback.  I don't want to be unreasonable, but this represents a pretty careful months-long effort to bring together a number of stakeholders with very different views.  So please believe me when I say that I'm going to do my best, but I think only some of what you propose is possible. 

On one hand, I see what you mean, but on the other, it's kind of irritating. If you were having a months-long discussion with the goal of presenting a nearly-finished amendment, it probably should have included everyone important enough to have their own entrance music (i.e., the Seneschal).

With that aside, I think there are two conceptually distinct aspects of Monarchy reform that both need to be addressed:
1. How should a new King be selected?
2. How should the current King be able to be replaced before their death or voluntary abdication?

Unlike my fellow Free Democrats, I am not that concerned with #1. I personally like my Convocation idea but the other proposals seem mostly fine to me as well (although I am not sure a new King should be able to be elected with only a bare majority of the votes). I think it is fine if the current King gets a say over their successor, and I do not think the democratic-ness of the selection process should be the overriding consideration, as long as there is an element of democracy involved.

As should surprise no one, I am very concerned with #2. A King could be doing a very poor job without committing anything actually criminal, so I don't think the current mechanisms for removing the King pass muster. I understand the aversion to regular votes of confidence, though. What about this:

If the Secretary of State is presented with a petition signed by 1/3 of all the citizens of Talossa to remove the King, then the Secretary of State shall call a referendum on the question. The King is removed if at least 3/5 of the votes are in favor.

Now there is no fixed term of office. I will also point out, given the nature of Talossa, getting 1/3 of all Talossans on the petition would be an enormous task, so this isn't something that could be done willy-nilly.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on September 24, 2022, 09:20:13 AM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 22, 2022, 06:12:12 PMGo into detail on the last section: "If the confirmation referendum described in section 5 should fail to achieve a majority any three times". Does this mean for one particular candidate, i.e. the King gets three goes at trying to impose a successor? Or, the King picks 3 different successors and each one get rejected?

I wonder whether there's merit in an opposite approach. If there's no Crown Princess, the Ziu picks a slate of 3 candidates, and the King chooses one?

These are only personal suggestions for discussion based on Miestra's suggestion:

What if the Ziu picks a slate of three with the King choosing from those three. But the King has the option of rejecting the first slate and sending it back to the Ziu. The Ziu sends a second slate and if the King rejects those again it is reversed. The King makes a selection and sends to the Ziu. In any of these three situations where a candidate is approved. They are to be approved in a public referendum by two-thirds vote.

That is three potential rounds with up to 7 potential candidates being considered. If there is no successful choice then we are in an exceptional situation which is where the Convocation suggested by Ian could be activated.

Would this address your concerns Miestra? Would this allow the King to have a significant say in choosing his successor, Baron?

Ian, as to #1 in your overview, I think the above proposal might be workable.

On point #2, I could support a recall petition along those lines.

Hopefully others will chime in but a proposal blending what I quoted above, Ian's petition proposal, along the lines of the Baron's initial draft might represent a workable way forward.

Let me work on this and see what can be done.

I should point out that, as it stands, I see no incentive for Republican Talossans - or those who want an elective monarchy - to vote for his bill, because it would be a step back (for us) from the status quo. The status quo is: on the demise or abdication of the King, the Ziu would have to name a successor by the normal OrgLaw proposal. That would be better for us than the King naming a successor.

So I don't think this bill is going anywhere this Cosa (or at any time Republicans or reformists have 67 Cosa seats) unless it has a "sweetener". Thankfully the Seneschal has started the discussion on possible sweeteners.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on September 23, 2022, 07:18:37 AMChanges to the removal criteria were not a part of internal discussions so I can't speak for the party. But, personally, as an alternative to the confidence votes, I am open to it. I am also, personally open to the Ziu's involvement with the King making the final call.

Miestra, are these measures which would garner significant FreeDem support?

Mmmmmmmmaybe? As I said above, this has to be better for Free Democrats than the status quo to get our support. For me, a way to democratically remove a non-performing King might be enough of a sweetener to swallow a less-democratic way of choosing a successor. That way there would be something in it for Monarchists as well as Republicans, if you see what I mean. We will get nowhere if either side has an incentive to simply block any reforms because the status quo is preferable.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on September 24, 2022, 10:43:37 AM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on September 24, 2022, 09:20:13 AM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 22, 2022, 06:12:12 PMGo into detail on the last section: "If the confirmation referendum described in section 5 should fail to achieve a majority any three times". Does this mean for one particular candidate, i.e. the King gets three goes at trying to impose a successor? Or, the King picks 3 different successors and each one get rejected?

I wonder whether there's merit in an opposite approach. If there's no Crown Princess, the Ziu picks a slate of 3 candidates, and the King chooses one?

These are only personal suggestions for discussion based on Miestra's suggestion:

What if the Ziu picks a slate of three with the King choosing from those three. But the King has the option of rejecting the first slate and sending it back to the Ziu. The Ziu sends a second slate and if the King rejects those again it is reversed. The King makes a selection and sends to the Ziu. In any of these three situations where a candidate is approved. They are to be approved in a public referendum by two-thirds vote.

That is three potential rounds with up to 7 potential candidates being considered. If there is no successful choice then we are in an exceptional situation which is where the Convocation suggested by Ian could be activated.

Would this address your concerns Miestra? Would this allow the King to have a significant say in choosing his successor, Baron?

Ian, as to #1 in your overview, I think the above proposal might be workable.

On point #2, I could support a recall petition along those lines.

Hopefully others will chime in but a proposal blending what I quoted above, Ian's petition proposal, along the lines of the Baron's initial draft might represent a workable way forward.

Miestra, are you referring to this summary not having a sweetener? The recall petition would be a pretty big sweetener in my opinion.

I repeat: Maybe the recall petition would be enough, but I'd have to see the details. And I can't imagine I'd vote for any process (either for removal or for nominating a successor) which is too complicated/has too many steps.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 25, 2022, 04:07:28 PMI repeat: Maybe the recall petition would be enough, but I'd have to see the details. And I can't imagine I'd vote for any process (either for removal or for nominating a successor) which is too complicated/has too many steps.

Complicated, right.
I am glad to hear the recall petition could be a step forward and that the TNC proposal might be the basis for an enduring solution.

I wanted to add something via this edit: Thank you to the Seneschal and Miestra for engaging with the proposal. This is actually an exciting moment.

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on September 24, 2022, 10:32:05 AM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on September 22, 2022, 10:08:38 PMThank you for your feedback.  I don't want to be unreasonable, but this represents a pretty careful months-long effort to bring together a number of stakeholders with very different views.  So please believe me when I say that I'm going to do my best, but I think only some of what you propose is possible. 

On one hand, I see what you mean, but on the other, it's kind of irritating. If you were having a months-long discussion with the goal of presenting a nearly-finished amendment, it probably should have included everyone important enough to have their own entrance music (i.e., the Seneschal).

With that aside, I think there are two conceptually distinct aspects of Monarchy reform that both need to be addressed:
1. How should a new King be selected?
2. How should the current King be able to be replaced before their death or voluntary abdication?

Unlike my fellow Free Democrats, I am not that concerned with #1. I personally like my Convocation idea but the other proposals seem mostly fine to me as well (although I am not sure a new King should be able to be elected with only a bare majority of the votes). I think it is fine if the current King gets a say over their successor, and I do not think the democratic-ness of the selection process should be the overriding consideration, as long as there is an element of democracy involved.

As should surprise no one, I am very concerned with #2. A King could be doing a very poor job without committing anything actually criminal, so I don't think the current mechanisms for removing the King pass muster. I understand the aversion to regular votes of confidence, though. What about this:

If the Secretary of State is presented with a petition signed by 1/3 of all the citizens of Talossa to remove the King, then the Secretary of State shall call a referendum on the question. The King is removed if at least 3/5 of the votes are in favor.

Now there is no fixed term of office. I will also point out, given the nature of Talossa, getting 1/3 of all Talossans on the petition would be an enormous task, so this isn't something that could be done willy-nilly.

Without regard to any other parts of this (and it would likely be well within a partisan effort to get a petition of one-third) I don't recall any other place in the law where there is a 60% supermajority vote, only 66⅔

Is there any update on this? I would imagine it will not be proposed this Cosa, but I am interested to hear any developments.

I don't have any immediate updates, since I had to mostly set aside Talossan stuff for the past few weeks (which is why I was pretty quiet).  I'm working on it -- I really want this to be a solved issue that we can set aside and stop fighting about.  But finding a solution that is palatable to everyone is crazy hard, since some monarchists feel like some recent proposals are just a stalking horse for the next step to ending the monarchy, and some republicans feel like they'd be signing up for the end of their movement if they agreed to anything.  I do think the gap can be bridged with a sufficiently thoughtful approach.  I appreciate the earnest and thoughtful engagement so many have already given the proposal.

We can and will find a point of agreement to settle this issue that is mutually (un)satisfactory to His Majesty, supporters of strong monarchy, and supporters of republicanism.

I'd like to reintroduce this to the current Cosa.  I will be contacting stakeholders again soon, to see if there's a path forward right now.

One thing right off the bat that might be able to be done: @Ian Plätschisch , you were very open to this proposal initially, but suggested you'd like something more selective than an open election, and also an easier means to remove the monarch.  If the method of selection of a candidate were by means of the convocation thing you invented for your own monarch selection bill, compromising between the two, would you be in support of this?  I know it wouldn't be your ideal, but I'm not sure that everyone would sign off on a way to make it much easier to remove the monarch beyond the existing methods that permit removal with one vote in case of mis or non feasance.  I don't want the perfect to be the enemy of the good, here -- let's get a system in place that hits this great sweet spot with the strength of the monarchy but also the voice of the people.

No, no, and no.

If the King is allowed to nominate his own replacement, we all know who he will nominate.

He will nominate the same person who he nominated as Regent when he "ragequit" last time.

And that is simply unacceptable, and would lead to mass renunciations.

There is absolutely no incentive for people who are not members of the TNC and are not part of its "personality cult" to support this amendment. As it stands, when the King abdicates or passes to his great reward, his replacement will be chosen by the regular procedure of Organic Law. And that's much better than letting him name a successor to lord it over us. So let it be.

Trying to "get around" Senator Plätschisch as an individual will have no reward. The Free Democrat majority in the Senäts will vote as a team on this issue. If you have an option which might be better for reformist or Republican opinion - the people who were elected on a platform that this current King must go - we crave to hear it, but we doubt it.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 20, 2023, 03:42:35 PMNo, no, and no.

If the King is allowed to nominate his own replacement, we all know who he will nominate.

He will nominate the same person who he nominated as Regent when he "ragequit" last time.

And that is simply unacceptable, and would lead to mass renunciations.

Fascinating.
Who would renounce in an actual "ragequit" rather than a theorized one?

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on March 20, 2023, 03:58:06 PM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 20, 2023, 03:42:35 PMNo, no, and no.

If the King is allowed to nominate his own replacement, we all know who he will nominate.

He will nominate the same person who he nominated as Regent when he "ragequit" last time.

And that is simply unacceptable, and would lead to mass renunciations.

Fascinating.
Who would renounce in an actual "ragequit" rather than a theorized one?

Preserving this against the inevitable deletion, once the Seneschal realises he just said "WELL GET OUT THEN, THERE'S THE DOOR" to a large proportion of the nation.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 20, 2023, 04:04:32 PM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on March 20, 2023, 03:58:06 PM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 20, 2023, 03:42:35 PMNo, no, and no.

If the King is allowed to nominate his own replacement, we all know who he will nominate.

He will nominate the same person who he nominated as Regent when he "ragequit" last time.

And that is simply unacceptable, and would lead to mass renunciations.

Fascinating.
Who would renounce in an actual "ragequit" rather than a theorized one?

Preserving this against the inevitable deletion, once the Seneschal realises he just said "WELL GET OUT THEN, THERE'S THE DOOR" to a large proportion of the nation.

And it is also saved for the next time you make this threat, Miestra.

First of all I should make clear that I have no reason to believe, at all, that the king has a successor in mind or that he would pick me. I'm not sure I would be a good choice, and I'm not sure I will be willing to accept a lifetime appointment. Everyone knows that I take that whole idea very seriously.

But if under this proposal, His Majesty selected myself or Dama Miestra or anyone else at all, they would only be confirmed as the successor once a democratically elected vote had agreed upon the choice. So there is absolutely zero chance that the king would somehow be able to force his choice on the country. In fact, one of the reasons why so many people like myself find this proposal so hard to swallow is that it would be pretty easy to force a general election instead of the outlined procedure.

I didn't know there was already an agreement on the matter, and that you could speak for every FDT senator. I thought I was able to ask Ian what he thought. Thank you for letting me know.

You see the issue in the above two posts. The Baron says that he can't understand why anyone would think he's already lined up for Dear Successor. The Seneschal admits that that's the plan, and that anyone who doesn't like it can get lost.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 20, 2023, 04:09:24 PMYou see the issue in the above two posts. The Baron says that he can't understand why anyone would think he's already lined up for Dear Successor. The Seneschal admits that that's the plan, and that anyone who doesn't like it can get lost.

No, I noted your threat of "mass renunciations" and asked who was a part of this mass, Miestra. Which you appear hesitant to describe. You have made a representation and I am curious who these potential rage-quitters are.

Brenéir, we had a PM conversation a while ago, do you remember? I tried to explain to you - in frank and unemotional language - exactly why there is such massive animus towards your Distain on our side of politics, and why trying to parachute that person into the Monarchy would be a disaster for the Kingdom. Now it appears that you simply didn't believe me, and want to try it out to see if we mean it.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 20, 2023, 04:13:47 PMBrenéir, we had a PM conversation a while ago, do you remember? I tried to explain to you - in frank and unemotional language - exactly why there is such massive animus towards your Distain on our side of politics, and why trying to parachute that person into the Monarchy would be a disaster for the Kingdom. Now it appears that you simply didn't believe me, and want to try it out to see if we mean it.

I simply ask who these people are, Miestra. You said "mass renunciation."

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 20, 2023, 04:09:24 PMYou see the issue in the above two posts. The Baron says that he can't understand why anyone would think he's already lined up for Dear Successor. The Seneschal admits that that's the plan, and that anyone who doesn't like it can get lost.

That's not what he said.

I'm not going to engage with you like this. If no one else from the FDT is allowed to work towards a compromise while under your watchful gaze, that's unfortunate, but fine. I'll keep trying to make progress anyway.

There's me, for a start. I will not live under "King Alex", or even under "Crown Prince Alex".

There's no organised movement - yet - because the situation has not become real yet. I am not discussing an already prepared plan, just what I sense is the general feeling on my side of politics. The precedent is the mass renunciation of the Talossan Liberal Party in 1999, after then-King Robert I said that he would simply never appoint one of them as Seneschal even if they won the election.

Maybe I'm wrong, lol, maybe it is just me.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on March 20, 2023, 04:05:55 PMBut if under this proposal, His Majesty selected myself or Dama Miestra or anyone else at all

Just on this issue: if KJ1 selected me, I'd turn it down because I'm a principled Republican.

I'm flattered that you think I'd be so easily confirmed by a plebiscite, but - frankly - I doubt either you or I would be likely to be selected.

Anyway, if you ever relax your red lines here, or if FDT members decide to engage outside of your representation, I'd be eager to keep working towards a compromise. I'll keep trying to do what I can to find workable solutions.

I'm not really interested in any reform to how the succession works unless it includes either fixed (renewable) terms or some other way of replacing the incumbent. Otherwise, to take an expression you use a lot, it's nothing but "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic." There is no reason to believe King John would need to be replaced under current law for the next several years, so there is little reason to do anything about it right now.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on March 20, 2023, 04:39:21 PMAnyway, if you ever relax your red lines here

So you take the first step:

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on March 20, 2023, 12:09:12 PMI'm not sure that everyone would sign off on a way to make it much easier to remove the monarch beyond the existing methods that permit removal with one vote in case of mis or non feasance.

Can you relax your red lines here?

Well, this proposal is not my preference. I'd prefer the king simply make his choice of successor. I think turning the monarchy into a partisan office, subject to campaigning and vulnerable to shortsighted backlash, would be a mistake. So making that entire prospect possible with a concerted campaign is already an enormous concession. My proposal is that the king gets to offer a candidate for approval first - still popular election, and limited in scope to only three candidates before the entire thing moves past him to just open partisan election.

I will continue to work on this, and hope for progress.

This is coming only from me, not the party, but, I see possible room for manoeuvre.

The biggest objection to giving the King free choice would be that the "racing favourite" would be someone who would cause uproar from the opposition party.

If the King made a pinky promise not to pick that person - and if that person were to say something like "even if chosen I would decline" - that would undercut a lot of the heat from the debate.

But to do that would infringe on the principle of "the King makes the choice", which would possibly not be acceptable.

I will repeat as I suggested last year: that the King's choice could be made from a list of 3 candidates presented by the Seneschal and Leader of Opposition by consensus (i.e. with mutual veto).

But all this still runs up over the problem - since the status quo is preferable to anything that the Government is suggesting, the Senäts majority has no incentive to approve anything suggested so far.

For what it's worth, I don't much think there should be a guaranteed succession upon the ending of the monarch's term (life, abdication, or whatever).  Or at the very least, I don't think that the current monarch should be naming their IMMEDIATE successor (for public/popular review or otherwise).

At least partially, I think that is too prone to either:

• Simply going to whomever the King is tight with at the moment -or-
• You wind up with a Charles III situation where the heir apparent simply sits there like week-old crudite and YET ANOTHER person is locked into a near lifetime of relative inaction.

This is at least based on the assumption that the named heir will be expected to "hold themselves above the fray," and I don't see why they wouldn't be.  And its not like Talossa has the personnel to really sustain itself at current.  Locking down a second (presumably) active individual seems like a bad idea.

As it stands, I don't see how the preference of a single individual is at all preferable to the vagaries of partisan preference.  I know the current monarch has used to analogy of "the grumpy old man who saves the town from itself," and I guess that would be great if I at all trusted the current occupant to do right by Talossa.  And, quite simply, I don't.

The problem with monarchy is that it is almost impossible to fully divorce the structure from the personality.  It's right there in the name, baked right into the clay, that you cannot fully do so.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on March 20, 2023, 07:28:25 PMWell, this proposal is not my preference. I'd prefer the king simply make his choice of successor. I think turning the monarchy into a partisan office, subject to campaigning and vulnerable to shortsighted backlash, would be a mistake. So making that entire prospect possible with a concerted campaign is already an enormous concession. My proposal is that the king gets to offer a candidate for approval first - still popular election, and limited in scope to only three candidates before the entire thing moves past him to just open partisan election.

I will continue to work on this, and hope for progress.

The point is that there are two aspects in this issue:

[1] Succession
[2] Term of office/Removal

The status quo is strong in both aspects but in two different directions.

If you ask one part to give up something on [1] you should give up something on [2].

Otherwise it's just one side relaxing their redlines: that's not a compromise.