More than any election I have taken part in during my time as a citizen of Talossa, I feel that this is one of the most important. As this is a crossroads in Talossan politics, especially with the many controversies the monarchy has caused which has sparked a debate on the role of the monarch in its current state and going forward into the future. This is something I haven't voiced my opinions on much if at all in this time due to not keeping fully up to date, and other more personal issues. But I think the time has come to share my views.
As many of you might know, I am from the UK, where we have one of the oldest constitutional monarchies in the world, which has inspired others of its type across the world. The way the monarchy functions in the UK is why I support its existence (I do recognise they're issues and reform does need to take place), it remains mostly apolitical, keeping their political opinions behind closed doors, and never go against the democratically elected government, and never will veto their laws, which is a critical part of the concept of constitutional monarchy, so it can survive. And consistently whilst I've been a citizen of Talossa, this crucial test has been failed by King John.
Time and time again the Monarch has gone against the will of a DEMOCRATICALLY elected government in Talossa, whilst providing political analysis at the same time. So, remaining far from apolitical, the monarch has deemed fit to throw them into the political array, whilst drastically devaluing the value of the monarchy.
For many years I have thought that Talossa as a Kingdom is not viable for the future, especially in its current form.
We as Talossan's have a vital choice ahead of us in these coming elections, do we value the democratic values which Talossa strives to be, and the rights that are afforded to us all, where the government works for Talossa, for the people, striving to take Talossa into the future and make Talossa thrive with activity.
Or once again become politically stagnant, under a monarchist party, which are largely opposed to change, relegating Talossa as a relic of the past, and a play thing of the monarchy and their allies, whilst ignoring the development the amazing rich and diverse country we have here In Talossa.
For all that I've said above and more. I ask my fellow citizens to vote for FreeDems in the coming election, for a party that truly cares about the people, and has been, is and will continue to be a force for Change to build Talossa that we can all believe and take pride in.
Or, we check the power of the King by the election of a second "co-prince." Votez NPW
There has been a lot of criticism of the King recently for not acting more like Monarchs of other countries. Talossa is not like other countries.
If Talossa was a country in which people essentially had to live (ie, if we exerted any real control over Milwaukee), then I would of course be advocating for a figurehead Monarchy. Talossa is not like that, though; we are for all practical purposes a voluntary association. There is no possible way for the Monarchy to actually infringe on the rights of citizens, because a citizen can, with a single post, leave and no longer be the King's subject (EDIT: some of this sentence is true and some of this is really stupid without further explanation: see below). So the question is really how we want our voluntary association to be set up, which is why it is not anti-democratic to be in favor of a Monarchy with the capability of temporarily vetoing bills (and I will take this opportunity to remind everyone that the reason the King's veto over legislation is now temporary is an amendment that I passed). The claim that a Monarch's political activity devalues the Monarchy only makes sense if you already believe the Monarch should not get involved in politics.
Can anyone provide an example of how the Talossan Monarchy has actually curtailed anyone's rights? How it converts Talossa into a plaything of the King's allies? Makes it a relic of the past? Talossa is wide open for any citizen; go out there and make it yours! The King is not standing in your way (the bureaucracy sometimes does though, which is why I am still committed to AMP as a think tank...).
Talossa, like all other vibrant societies, must continually change! On that I agree. But there are more changes available than an ever-more anti-Monarchy programme of Organic amendments. Change comes via the citizens engaging with each other. The Monarchy doesn't hinder that, and I would argue can encourage it, if operating at its best.
Accusations that Monarchists are "politically stagnant" take an extremely narrow view of what constitutes freshness, and how Talossa can be taken into the future
Finally, the King very rarely vetoes anything that is not related to reducing his own prerogatives. So, for all of the (quite understandable) bellyaching about the King's antics, what does it matter if the King protects his power if he never does anything else with it? It's a self-licking ice cream cone.
Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on July 17, 2020, 04:20:17 PM
For all that I've said above and more. I ask my fellow citizens to vote for FreeDems in the coming election, for a party that truly cares about the people, and has been, is and will continue to be a force for Change to build Talossa that we can all believe and take pride in.
There are fewer active Talossans each year, and even those who are active are much
less active than before. Fewer Talossans vote in each election.
You yourself are a good example of the drop-off in interest... you have eleven posts here, total, even though this Witt became official in February. In the year prior, you posted more than a thousand times on the old Witt. And there can be all kinds of reasons for that, but you're not the only citizen who's approximately 1% as interested in Talossa as they used to be.
So if you're advertising the Free Democrats, your pitch should probably not be, "We're going to keep making Talossa great." Things aren't going great. Your pitch should probably be, "We're going to dramatically change our approach to account for the dramatic decline in interest on our watch."
In a brilliant demonstration of "outsmarting oneself", AD defends the proposition that inactive citizens have somehow been driven to inactivity by the Free Democrat-led government by... blaming and shaming a less-active citizen. :o
But of course the Free Democrats are changing our approach, by becoming more aggressively confrontational with our proposals for more democracy and a less political monarchy. You're welcome.
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on July 17, 2020, 07:05:14 PM
There has been a lot of criticism of the King recently for not acting more like Monarchs of other countries. Talossa is not like other countries.
If Talossa was a country in which people essentially had to live (ie, if we exerted any real control over Milwaukee), then I would of course be advocating for a figurehead Monarchy. Talossa is not like that, though; we are for all practical purposes a voluntary association. There is no possible way for the Monarchy to actually infringe on the rights of citizens, because a citizen can, with a single post, leave and no longer be the King's subject. So the question is really how we want our voluntary association to be set up, which is why it is not anti-democratic to be in favor of a Monarchy with the capability of temporarily vetoing bills (and I will take this opportunity to remind everyone that the reason the King's veto over legislation is now temporary is an amendment that I passed). The claim that a Monarch's political activity devalues the Monarchy only makes sense if you already believe the Monarch should not get involved in politics.
Can anyone provide an example of how the Talossan Monarchy has actually curtailed anyone's rights? How it converts Talossa into a plaything of the King's allies? Makes it a relic of the past? Talossa is wide open for any citizen; go out there and make it yours! The King is not standing in your way (the bureaucracy sometimes does though, which is why I am still committed to AMP as a think tank...).
Talossa, like all other vibrant societies, must continually change! On that I agree. But there are more changes available than an ever-more anti-Monarchy programme of Organic amendments. Change comes via the citizens engaging with each other. The Monarchy doesn't hinder that, and I would argue can encourage it, if operating at its best.
Accusations that Monarchists are "politically stagnant" take an extremely narrow view of what constitutes freshness, and how Talossa can be taken into the future
Finally, the King very rarely vetoes anything that is not related to reducing his own prerogatives. So, for all of the (quite understandable) bellyaching about the King's antics, what does it matter if the King protects his power if he never does anything else with it? It's a self-licking ice cream cone.
Like that time I had to get a court order to fulfill my role as a Senator because the King, in a Talossan way, essentially locked me out of the Ziu ? Seriously, he can't curtail rights because than we can just leave Talossa? For this one post I'm stepping out of my apolitical retirement to say, Ian, your post is utter nonsense and an insult to your intelligence. With that, I'm back to being apolitical.
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on July 17, 2020, 07:40:31 PM
Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on July 17, 2020, 04:20:17 PM
For all that I've said above and more. I ask my fellow citizens to vote for FreeDems in the coming election, for a party that truly cares about the people, and has been, is and will continue to be a force for Change to build Talossa that we can all believe and take pride in.
There are fewer active Talossans each year, and even those who are active are much less active than before. Fewer Talossans vote in each election.
You yourself are a good example of the drop-off in interest... you have eleven posts here, total, even though this Witt became official in February. In the year prior, you posted more than a thousand times on the old Witt. And there can be all kinds of reasons for that, but you're not the only citizen who's approximately 1% as interested in Talossa as they used to be.
So if you're advertising the Free Democrats, your pitch should probably not be, "We're going to keep making Talossa great." Things aren't going great. Your pitch should probably be, "We're going to dramatically change our approach to account for the dramatic decline in interest on our watch."
That is unfair, as i have on many occasions stated the reasons why im not as active as i would like to be, and it is not due to a lack of interest. It is due to my mental health, and trying to work through things. Which i have been completely open about. If i was more able to, I would have been a lot more active. Also the number that you quoted about my activity, wasn't done in one year but since I've been a Talossan (since 2012ish).
Also from what I can tell, a lot of the people who have become inactive over the years since I've been a citizen are disenfranchised supporters of the old RUMP party, and conservatives in Talossa, who from what i can tell, instead of staying to defend their position and keep an opposition going, they decided to give up. With limited numbers choosing to remain. I may have missed some things over the years, but from what i can see, thats what happened.
Also after re reading my post many times i fail to see how you acquaint it with me saying "We're going to keep making Talossa great" as although yes I do believe that the FreeDems are the best choice for our nation, they're are faults with the country, which we may politically disagree on (FreeDems and yourself), and have debates on, but that does not mean that you should drag things to a personal level whist avoiding the actual principles at stake, as you have in your characterisation of myself and my interest in Talossa, whist ignoring the fundamental principles that I have been advocating for in my post.
Also you argue that we need to drastically change course, I think that the populace disagrees, otherwise the RUMP would still be in power and the FreeDems would never have been in government in the first place. Also you paint all of those who have declined activity with one brush, not acknowledging that there may be a range of issues that have prevented people from taking part more.
Things in Talossa have improved and progress over the last few Cosas has been great, though more does need to be done, especially to make the system more democratic especially in regards to the monarchy. I do apologise if you don't like the direction, but instead of complaining about things and pointing out what you perceive as flaws in the Government, you could try to build an effective opposition, and have counter proposals, and engage in meaningful debates, which will bring more life into Talossa, that just criticising people you don't agree with.
It is not for the FreeDems to change out approach, but for those who disagree to provide credible plans to put to the Government through their terms and the People in elections, and show that you have a vision for the future and make people believe in you. Which is the heart of what a democracy is, a healthy exchange of policy ideas and allowing the people to decide where they want the country to go, no matter whether you agree with the outcome or not. And it is those democratic principles that we need to protect.
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on July 17, 2020, 07:05:14 PM
There has been a lot of criticism of the King recently for not acting more like Monarchs of other countries. Talossa is not like other countries.
If Talossa was a country in which people essentially had to live (ie, if we exerted any real control over Milwaukee), then I would of course be advocating for a figurehead Monarchy. Talossa is not like that, though; we are for all practical purposes a voluntary association. There is no possible way for the Monarchy to actually infringe on the rights of citizens, because a citizen can, with a single post, leave and no longer be the King's subject. So the question is really how we want our voluntary association to be set up, which is why it is not anti-democratic to be in favor of a Monarchy with the capability of temporarily vetoing bills (and I will take this opportunity to remind everyone that the reason the King's veto over legislation is now temporary is an amendment that I passed). The claim that a Monarch's political activity devalues the Monarchy only makes sense if you already believe the Monarch should not get involved in politics.
Can anyone provide an example of how the Talossan Monarchy has actually curtailed anyone's rights? How it converts Talossa into a plaything of the King's allies? Makes it a relic of the past? Talossa is wide open for any citizen; go out there and make it yours! The King is not standing in your way (the bureaucracy sometimes does though, which is why I am still committed to AMP as a think tank...).
Talossa, like all other vibrant societies, must continually change! On that I agree. But there are more changes available than an ever-more anti-Monarchy programme of Organic amendments. Change comes via the citizens engaging with each other. The Monarchy doesn't hinder that, and I would argue can encourage it, if operating at its best.
Accusations that Monarchists are "politically stagnant" take an extremely narrow view of what constitutes freshness, and how Talossa can be taken into the future
Finally, the King very rarely vetoes anything that is not related to reducing his own prerogatives. So, for all of the (quite understandable) bellyaching about the King's antics, what does it matter if the King protects his power if he never does anything else with it? It's a self-licking ice cream cone.
I'm not arguing that Talossa is like other countries, however, I am arguing that principles that are ingrained in what is meant by a Constitutional monarchy, have existed and predates Talossa, and is generally accepted Apolitcial Monarchy, which is the case for all the constitutional monarchies I have come across, and from what I can tell, is a KEY part of what constitutes a constitutional monarchy. Due to that being how a constitutional monarchy survives.
Also you argue that there is no way that the monarch can infringe upon the rights of its Citizens? By virtue of vetoing a bill, the Monarchy is slapping down the rights of the people who sent MCs and Senators to the Ziu, even if temporarily, and infringing upon the political fray with voicing their political opinions on something. Whether or not the Ziu can override a veto is irrelevant. The act of the Monarch not adhering to the democratically ELECTED government of Talossa, and stating an opinion publicly against this, is undermining the principles which are at the heart of what a democracy is.
Also I find it hilarious that you don't equate a figurehead monarchy and a constitutional monarchy AS THE SAME THING, as that's what they are. The same thing.
Also as I said in my post, I support the Monarchy of the UK, although I do believe they should have less power than they have on paper, so I do believe reform is needed, to make the country even more democratic. However, one of the main key reasons I support them is because Queen Elizabeth II does remain apolitical, and only acts ON ADVICE OF GOVERNMENT, despite what powers they still technically possess. They defer to and accept the will of Parliament.
So this begs the question, of if we are a constitutional monarchy, why do we tolerate the trespass into the political fray by King John? I mean no disrespect to His Majesty; however, it isn't the cleverest move for a monarch to voice a political opinion on anything. This restraint is a key aspect of why constitutional monarchies work, and if this restraint on the monarchy's part isn't kept in place, then that does create a clear and present threat and weakening of and to the democracy in which we live in.
There are options to wat we can choose going forward, you are right, and I expect those debates to come. And you are right in so far that we do need to have these debates. However from what I can tell, although yes the FreeDems in the majority of its members are in favour of Abolishing the monarchy, that is not what is in the party platform, as what is being proposed in our platform is "a ranked choice referendum on the powers of the King: choosing between the status quo, a Monarchy with only emergency powers, and an elected Head of State."
So what actions we do take will be on the democratic will of the people, not based on purely driving our political agenda. As it would be political suicide to peruse something which the majority of the population opposed. Whether they place us in power or not. Yes, our ultimate goal is a republic (which I have been coming evermore in favour of for Talossa), it is not something we can achieve without the country behind us. So we have been and will continue to argue our case. (I apologise to Miestră if I'm assuming to much in speaking this in the way I have)
What is more important that following a political agenda, is doing what's best for the country, in a way that improves things for the country, with reforms and policies, that the country is behind. The will of the people, and the democratic voice are key principles that must always be protected, and our monarchy is undermining.
Also my final points will be to say, that I never said, or implied that being a monarchist party automatically means you are "stagnant" I was merely pointing out that the opposition parties have the characteristics of also being politically stagnant, with little to no meaningful policy platforms that I have seen.
Lastly, your last point I have addressed many times in different ways throughout this reply. Just because the monarch has the powers, it does NOT mean that the monarchy SHOULD use them.
This isn't a question of the Kings reasons for veto, but questions raised by the King using the power of veto against the advice of the Government. It isn't an easy role of being Monarch, but if you are to have the role, in a constitutional monarchy, then you must accept the principles of the country, and fully uphold them. And if the King can't, then he should just abdicate and be done with it.
As the values and principles in a democracy, and a democratic society, leave no place for dangerous intervention by a Monarch, as that could be seen as a slow erosion of democratic principles, leading ever so slightly closer to an absolute monarchy, if these what you might call "small" uses of veto powers remain unchecked.
I doubt this would have convinced you, but I hope it has caused you to pause and fully consider the full implications of why the King veto's are dangerous for Talossa, whether you agree with me or not, I do hope that this informs you just a little and causes some reflection over your position. And I look forward to hearing your response (whatever that might be)
And sorry for the length of this, I didn't realise I has do much to say in reply (although I feel I might have repeated myself too much)
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on July 17, 2020, 07:05:14 PM
There is no possible way for the Monarchy to actually infringe on the rights of citizens, because a citizen can, with a single post, leave and no longer be the King's subject.
Holy motorscootin' crap, no Talossan who lived through the days of King Robert I could say that. It's actually quite reprehensible to say that there is no way Ben could have been an abusive, gaslighting tyrant because we could have quit at any time. (Of course, many of us did - and his abuse didn't stop then.)
John I Lupúl is of course no R. Ben Madison, but he can easily ruin our Talossan fun for us. That's only a problem if we're
patriotic Talossans and don't think quitting the nation is something to be taken lightly if we feel offended.
Quote from: Viteu on July 18, 2020, 12:30:06 AM
Like that time I had to get a court order to fulfill my role as a Senator because the King, in a Talossan way, essentially locked me out of the Ziu ? Seriously, he can't curtail rights because than we can just leave Talossa? For this one post I'm stepping out of my apolitical retirement to say, Ian, your post is utter nonsense and an insult to your intelligence. With that, I'm back to being apolitical.
Any Witt admin could have done that to you; the fact that is was the King doesn't mean it's an abuse unique to the Monarchy.
Of course the King can do bad stuff, but unless he gets his authority to do the bad stuff because he is the King, rather than due to some other source of power that others also have, the problem is not the Monarchy.
(EDIT: A later post expands on this response, and I admit I was partially wrong!)
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on July 18, 2020, 02:19:24 AM
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on July 17, 2020, 07:05:14 PM
There is no possible way for the Monarchy to actually infringe on the rights of citizens, because a citizen can, with a single post, leave and no longer be the King's subject.
Holy motorscootin' crap, no Talossan who lived through the days of King Robert I could say that. It's actually quite reprehensible to say that there is no way Ben could have been an abusive, gaslighting tyrant because we could have quit at any time. (Of course, many of us did - and his abuse didn't stop then.)
John I Lupúl is of course no R. Ben Madison, but he can easily ruin our Talossan fun for us. That's only a problem if we're patriotic Talossans and don't think quitting the nation is something to be taken lightly if we feel offended.
My response is the same as it was to Justice Marcianüs; anyone can act like gaslighting jerk, so ditching the Monarchy would not necessarily make that problem go away.
I can certainly see how an Absolute Monarchy would make that situation more likely, which is why for the past five years I fought to reduce the King's power.
We may disagree on whether th current King ruins our fun or not, but framing the argument like that is essentially the argument I was trying to make; the discussion should be which form of government provides more enjoyment, rather than saying we must pursue democracy at the expense of everything else (because, as I said, Talossa is not like other countries that people actually have to live in)
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on July 17, 2020, 09:48:40 PM
But of course the Free Democrats are changing our approach, by becoming more aggressively confrontational with our proposals for more democracy and a less political monarchy. You're welcome.
"Yes, the house is on fire, but now we're
really going to pour on the gasoline. We'll drown the blaze, don't worry."
Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on July 18, 2020, 01:05:33 AM
That is unfair, as i have on many occasions stated the reasons why im not as active as i would like to be, and it is not due to a lack of interest. It is due to my mental health, and trying to work through things. Which i have been completely open about. If i was more able to, I would have been a lot more active. Also the number that you quoted about my activity, wasn't done in one year but since I've been a Talossan (since 2012ish).
Like I said, there's lots of reasons why you might not be active, but you're not the only one. And I might be mistaken about your posting, but I had thought that you had two accounts on the old Witt, and the most recent one was only used for about a year and accumulated that many posts. But the details about your specific case don't matter -- I just was struck by your post count and thought it was a pretty good illustration of our straits.
Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on July 18, 2020, 01:05:33 AMAlso from what I can tell, a lot of the people who have become inactive over the years since I've been a citizen are disenfranchised supporters of the old RUMP party, and conservatives in Talossa, who from what i can tell, instead of staying to defend their position and keep an opposition going, they decided to give up. With limited numbers choosing to remain. I may have missed some things over the years, but from what i can see, thats what happened.
As ESB noted recently, activity and interest are down across the board, not just with conservatives. It would be convenient if it were just one segment of our populace, because then we could target a response -- and it would also mean that nothing about the direction of our country needed to change. It's just the fault of those nasty conservatives!
But I think anyone honestly campaigning for the Government needs to grapple with what the evidence before their lyin' eyes. We have problems. We can't pretend they don't exist, just because it makes the Government look bad.
Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on July 18, 2020, 01:05:33 AMAlso you paint all of those who have declined activity with one brush, not acknowledging that there may be a range of issues that have prevented people from taking part more.
You need to decide if there's a "range of issues" (like I believe and explicitly said) or if "the people who have become inactive are disenfranchised supporters of the old RUMP party, and conservatives in Talossa."
Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on July 18, 2020, 01:05:33 AM
Things in Talossa have improved and progress over the last few Cosas has been great
Activity level and interest are down across the board. There are fewer active Talossans and they are less active than they used to be. The only Talossan media is created by the Government. Voter turnout has been down election after election.
Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on July 18, 2020, 01:05:33 AMI do apologise if you don't like the direction, but instead of complaining about things and pointing out what you perceive as flaws in the Government, you could try to build an effective opposition, and have counter proposals, and engage in meaningful debates, which will bring more life into Talossa, that just criticising people you don't agree with.
I know this is a popular argument, but I reject the idea that I'm only permitted to criticize the Government if I am a politician.
Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on July 18, 2020, 01:05:33 AM
It is not for the FreeDems to change out approach, but for those who disagree to provide credible plans to put to the Government through their terms and the People in elections, and show that you have a vision for the future and make people believe in you. Which is the heart of what a democracy is, a healthy exchange of policy ideas and allowing the people to decide where they want the country to go, no matter whether you agree with the outcome or not. And it is those democratic principles that we need to protect.
This does indeed seem to be the Free Democrat philosophy: "We'll make Talossa into what we want, and damn the consequences."
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on July 18, 2020, 07:20:48 AM
Quote from: Viteu on July 18, 2020, 12:30:06 AM
Like that time I had to get a court order to fulfill my role as a Senator because the King, in a Talossan way, essentially locked me out of the Ziu ? Seriously, he can't curtail rights because than we can just leave Talossa? For this one post I'm stepping out of my apolitical retirement to say, Ian, your post is utter nonsense and an insult to your intelligence. With that, I'm back to being apolitical.
Any Witt admin could have done that to you; the fact that is was the King doesn't mean it's an abuse unique to the Monarchy.
Of course the King can do bad stuff, but unless he gets his authority to do the bad stuff because he is the King, rather than due to some other source of power that others also have, the problem is not the Monarchy.
OK, so I reflected some more on this and have some more to say.
When I said that the King could not infringe on people's rights, because they could easily leave, I was thinking of the rights people have in their offline lives; these are generally the rights that "real" democracies are most concerned with protecting (which is why I was thinking of them, because the original post was comparing Talossa to these countries). I still believe a Monarchy has no effect on whether Talossans can invade these rights. Both because of what I said earlier, and because even R. Ben Madison had no Organic right to do that; he did not rely on his Royal power to do it, and other citizens (to a lesser extent) have done the same since (like when someone called up the employers of Admiral Tim and Sir AD during Canungate).
However, it should have obvious to me that the right of citizens to post what they want on Witt is also very important, and that I overlooked this is indeed quite idiotic. I agree that in theory it is totally possible for the Monarch to infringe on these.
In practice though, I stand by what I said earlier; the only way the current King has infringed on the rights of people on Witt is by exercising powers that other people also have (such as the previous example, Witt admin privileges) and which would have to exist even if Talossa had no Monarch or a ceremonial Monarch. The King enjoys no special privilege in this regard, nor should he of course.
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on July 18, 2020, 07:40:16 AM
"Yes, the house is on fire, but now we're really going to pour on the gasoline. We'll drown the blaze, don't worry."
(https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=367.0;attach=102)
Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on July 18, 2020, 02:15:12 AM
I'm not arguing that Talossa is like other countries, however, I am arguing that principles that are ingrained in what is meant by a Constitutional monarchy, have existed and predates Talossa, and is generally accepted Apolitcial Monarchy, which is the case for all the constitutional monarchies I have come across, and from what I can tell, is a KEY part of what constitutes a constitutional monarchy. Due to that being how a constitutional monarchy survives.
Also you argue that there is no way that the monarch can infringe upon the rights of its Citizens? By virtue of vetoing a bill, the Monarchy is slapping down the rights of the people who sent MCs and Senators to the Ziu, even if temporarily, and infringing upon the political fray with voicing their political opinions on something. Whether or not the Ziu can override a veto is irrelevant. The act of the Monarch not adhering to the democratically ELECTED government of Talossa, and stating an opinion publicly against this, is undermining the principles which are at the heart of what a democracy is.
Also I find it hilarious that you don't equate a figurehead monarchy and a constitutional monarchy AS THE SAME THING, as that's what they are. The same thing.
No, the definition of "constitutional monarchy" is not that the Monarch has nothing but ceremonial power. It is only, according to Wikipedia, "a form of monarchy in which the sovereign exercises authority in accordance with a written or unwritten constitution," which is exactly has Talossa has.
Also, again, I don't see a problem with a group of people in (for all practical purposes) a voluntary association deciding that they want a Monarch with some power. You may want a different form of government, but that would be a disagreement over preference, rather than a disagreement over whether we have enough democracy.
It's true the Monarchy would work better if His Majesty didn't make people angry a lot, but most of the anger directed at him is due to how he goes about exercising his power (such as vetoing at the last second), rather than the object of that exercise (ie, the concept of a Royal veto).
Quote
There are options to wat we can choose going forward, you are right, and I expect those debates to come. And you are right in so far that we do need to have these debates. However from what I can tell, although yes the FreeDems in the majority of its members are in favour of Abolishing the monarchy, that is not what is in the party platform, as what is being proposed in our platform is "a ranked choice referendum on the powers of the King: choosing between the status quo, a Monarchy with only emergency powers, and an elected Head of State."
So what actions we do take will be on the democratic will of the people, not based on purely driving our political agenda. As it would be political suicide to peruse something which the majority of the population opposed. Whether they place us in power or not. Yes, our ultimate goal is a republic (which I have been coming evermore in favour of for Talossa), it is not something we can achieve without the country behind us. So we have been and will continue to argue our case. (I apologise to Miestră if I'm assuming to much in speaking this in the way I have)
If the position of most FreeDems is and will continue to be that Talossa should be a Republic (or that the Monarch should only have ceremonial power), what is the point of the referendum? If the point is to get a mandate for the something the party wants to do anyway, it seems likely to me that the FreeDems will keep proposing to have referenda until they get the outcome they want. What would be the point of that, given the FreeDems could just pass the Organic amendment they wanted and have the referendum on the actual amendment?
Quote
Also my final points will be to say, that I never said, or implied that being a monarchist party automatically means you are "stagnant" I was merely pointing out that the opposition parties have the characteristics of also being politically stagnant, with little to no meaningful policy platforms that I have seen.
Well, so far the CCL is the most vibrant Monarchist movement Talossa has seen for a while.
Quote
As the values and principles in a democracy, and a democratic society, leave no place for dangerous intervention by a Monarch, as that could be seen as a slow erosion of democratic principles, leading ever so slightly closer to an absolute monarchy, if these what you might call "small" uses of veto powers remain unchecked.
It seems nonsensical to me to suggest that Talossa could be headed back toward absolute Monarchy, given the most prominent Monarchist politician right now (me) has spent his entire career making sure the Monarchy is not absolute.
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on July 19, 2020, 01:01:49 PM
If the position of most FreeDems is and will continue to be that Talossa should be a Republic (or that the Monarch should only have ceremonial power), what is the point of the referendum?
To see which (if either) of those options is accepted by the general public, before going to the trouble of writing the appropriate OrgLaw amendment. What exactly are you scared of? If the broad masses like the status quo, then the Free Democrats will not seek to change the status quo.
It's almost like you're afraid there
is a majority out there for an end to a powerful Monarchy...
In fact, let me put it like this: it is perfectly safe for a Talossan who supports both the monarchical status quo, and the Free Democrat programme of Government activity, to vote for us. There will be no major reforms to Royal powers without a prior majority in the Rank Choice Referendum.
woosh, talossa during elections is like a desert after rain, few days out and suddenly tons of contributions ;D
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on July 19, 2020, 10:14:23 PM
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on July 19, 2020, 01:01:49 PM
If the position of most FreeDems is and will continue to be that Talossa should be a Republic (or that the Monarch should only have ceremonial power), what is the point of the referendum?
To see which (if either) of those options is accepted by the general public, before going to the trouble of writing the appropriate OrgLaw amendment. What exactly are you scared of? If the broad masses like the status quo, then the Free Democrats will not seek to change the status quo.
It's almost like you're afraid there is a majority out there for an end to a powerful Monarchy...
Well, ask the same question every other year, and eventually circumstances will change enough that the ~30-40% support that it has mustered will crest to 50% -- especially as the ranks of active citizens shrink. It was asked as a regular referendum during an election and failed. Okay, so then it was asked as a special referendum outside of the general election and failed. Now it's been a bit and there are fewer Talossans, so maybe it will pass, especially if it's structured as an IRV (which will allow multiple paths to "success"). If this fails, then I imagine next year we'll see a special referendum of a different sort or with different phrasing.
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on July 20, 2020, 12:30:16 PM
Well, ask the same question every other year, and eventually circumstances will change enough that the ~30-40% support that it has mustered will crest to 50%
Really? I'll keep going, then. We're playing the long game.
(Your innuendo that keeping the constitutional issue alive represses turnout is simply unfounded.)
I wasn't insinuating that. It wouldn't even make sense. If someone's whittling a stick of wood so they can fit it in their pocket, I don't think it makes any sense to say that it's the pocket causing the stick to get smaller.
The point of the metaphor seems to be that I'm deliberately driving Royalists away so I can totally dominate Talossa. What a cruel thing to insinuate.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on July 19, 2020, 10:14:23 PM
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on July 19, 2020, 01:01:49 PM
If the position of most FreeDems is and will continue to be that Talossa should be a Republic (or that the Monarch should only have ceremonial power), what is the point of the referendum?
To see which (if either) of those options is accepted by the general public, before going to the trouble of writing the appropriate OrgLaw amendment. What exactly are you scared of? If the broad masses like the status quo, then the Free Democrats will not seek to change the status quo.
It's almost like you're afraid there is a majority out there for an end to a powerful Monarchy...
I'm not afraid of that, because in the last referendum a few years ago, in which we gave the exact three options (the referendum included two questions, one asking if the voter wanted a Monarchy and the other asking if the voter wanted a Monarchy with some power), the Monarchists won by a respectable margin on both counts.
You say you don't want to go through the trouble of writing the amendment if there isn't the support for it, but conducting and contesting a referendum is not a trivial task either, especially given we would have to hash out the exact same issues again when the amendment is actually proposed. It just does not seem like a good use of time and energy.
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on July 20, 2020, 07:53:49 PM
You say you don't want to go through the trouble of writing the amendment if there isn't the support for it, but conducting and contesting a referendum is not a trivial task either,
As Ian Txáglh says above, Talossa springs into life in election season. In referendum season, too! Some work will need to be done but it will promote activity.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on July 20, 2020, 04:10:45 PM
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on July 20, 2020, 12:30:16 PM
Well, ask the same question every other year, and eventually circumstances will change enough that the ~30-40% support that it has mustered will crest to 50%
Really? I'll keep going, then. We're playing the long game.
(Your innuendo that keeping the constitutional issue alive represses turnout is simply unfounded.)
If your plan is to keep asking the same question over and over until you get the result you want, why even ask it?
Also, I think there is something to the suggestion of voter fatigue. I can easily see how voters who are just voting to maintain the status quo on a particular issue would not be as motivated to vote in an ongoing series of referendums as those who are actually trying to make the change.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on July 20, 2020, 07:55:47 PM
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on July 20, 2020, 07:53:49 PM
You say you don't want to go through the trouble of writing the amendment if there isn't the support for it, but conducting and contesting a referendum is not a trivial task either,
As Ian Txáglh says above, Talossa springs into life in election season. In referendum season, too! Some work will need to be done but it will promote activity.
The kind of activity in which people debate the same question repeatedly would get old fast, I bet.
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on July 20, 2020, 07:58:05 PM
The kind of activity in which people debate the same question repeatedly would get old fast, I bet.
Though it really does seem that Talossa is never more vibrant than when there is a debate as to what it will be.
Sincerely, the point of the referendum is to find out whether either of the major options for constitutional reform has majority support right now. Admittedly this is so we can choose the option which will have the best chance of success. But this stuff about "referendums too often drive people away / are illegitimate" seems to just be trying to tip debate towards the status quo.
Are you suggesting a law which forbids this question to be asked too often? I believe there's one in Northern Ireland, i.e. they can have a referendum on abolishing the jurisdiction but only one every 10/20 years or something. But why is it worse than - for example - if we presented a New Talossan Republic Amendment or a King's Job Is Now Opening Shopping Malls, Nothing Else Amendment every single Cosa?
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on July 20, 2020, 08:04:33 PM
Sincerely, the point of the referendum is to find out whether either of the major options for constitutional reform has majority support right now. Admittedly this is so we can choose the option which will have the best chance of success. But this stuff about "referendums too often drive people away / are illegitimate" seems to just be trying to tip debate towards the status quo.
Are you suggesting a law which forbids this question to be asked too often? I believe there's one in Northern Ireland, i.e. they can have a referendum on abolishing the jurisdiction but only one every 10/20 years or something. But why is it worse than - for example - if we presented a New Talossan Republic Amendment or a King's Job Is Now Opening Shopping Malls, Nothing Else Amendment every single Cosa?
OK, I guess the point of the midterm referendum would be the practical consideration that you could not pass both the no-powers-Monarchy and the no-Monarchy amendments in the same term, because they would contradict each other. But if the goal is to see which of these could pass referendum, the RCV method would actually be unhelpful. The correct method would be to, like we did last time, ask two different questions, a yes/no on a figurehead Monarchy and a yes/no on a Republic.
I didn't say any referendum would be illegitimate or drive people away, only that lack of motivation to vote might strike one group of voters harder than others if the same question kept coming up.
Quote from: Eiric S. Bornatfiglheu on July 20, 2020, 08:04:09 PM
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on July 20, 2020, 07:58:05 PM
The kind of activity in which people debate the same question repeatedly would get old fast, I bet.
Though it really does seem that Talossa is never more vibrant than when there is a debate as to what it will be.
Isn't democracy a kind of activity in which people are constantly debating the same questions, like "what is the best way of keeping our community afloat? Do we think that our leaders are doing a good job? Do we need any leaders at all" etc etc.?