Wittenberg

WHEREAS Interest in Talossa is not hereditary, and

WHEREAS The best person to become the next Monarch is usually not going to be the child of the previous one


THEREFORE Article II of the Organic Law is repealed and replaced with the following:

Section 1

QuoteThe Kingdom of Talossa is a constitutional Monarchy with a King (or, if female, Queen) as its head of State.

Section 2

QuoteThe King is the symbolic head of the nation. The nation democratically grants the King certain Royal Powers and duties as described in this Organic Law and in statute law. The Ziu may establish procedures for when the King fails to perform a duty.

Section 3

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.

Section 4

QuoteIn dire circumstances, when the King is judged by competent medical authority to be incapable of executing his duties, or if he is convicted by the Talossan Uppermost Cort of violation of this Organic Law, treason, bribery, nonfeasance endangering the safety, order or good government of the Kingdom, or other high crimes, the nation may remove the King from the Throne. The Cosa shall pronounce by a two-thirds vote, with the approval of the Senäts, that the King is to be removed, and this pronouncement shall immediately be transmitted to the people for their verdict in a referendum. If a two-thirds majority of the people concur, the King is removed.

Section 5

QuoteThe King may, at whim, appoint, replace, or remove a Regent (or a Council of Regency, which is considered equivalent to a Regent), who shall administer the government in the name of the King, and exercise all powers Organically or legally vested in the King, except the power to appoint or replace a Regent. No person not a citizen of Talossa shall be competent to serve as Regent or member of a Council of Regency. The Ziu may by law remove or replace any appointed Regent, and if the Ziu removes a Regent appointed by the King, the King may not reappoint the same person Regent without the prior consent of the Ziu.

Section 6

QuoteThe King may grant titles of nobility and confer awards and decorations.

Ureu q'estadra så:
HM Government, represented by Ian Plätschisch (Distain)

The above is a little hard to digest, so here would be the amended text of Article II:

Section 1

QuoteThe Kingdom of Talossa is a constitutional Monarchy with a King (or, if female, Queen) as its head of State.

Section 2

QuoteThe King is the symbolic head of the nation. The nation democratically grants the King certain Royal Powers and duties as described in this Organic Law and in statute law. The Ziu may establish procedures for when the King fails to perform a duty.

Section 3

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.

Section 4

QuoteIn dire circumstances, when the King is judged by competent medical authority to be incapable of executing his duties, or if he is convicted by the Talossan Uppermost Cort of violation of this Organic Law, treason, bribery, nonfeasance endangering the safety, order or good government of the Kingdom, or other high crimes, the nation may remove the King from the Throne. The Cosa shall pronounce by a two-thirds vote, with the approval of the Senäts, that the King is to be removed, and this pronouncement shall immediately be transmitted to the people for their verdict in a referendum. If a two-thirds majority of the people concur, the King is removed.

Section 5

QuoteThe King may, at whim, appoint, replace, or remove a Regent (or a Council of Regency, which is considered equivalent to a Regent), who shall administer the government in the name of the King, and exercise all powers Organically or legally vested in the King, except the power to appoint or replace a Regent. No person not a citizen of Talossa shall be competent to serve as Regent or member of a Council of Regency. The Ziu may by law remove or replace any appointed Regent, and if the Ziu removes a Regent appointed by the King, the King may not reappoint the same person Regent without the prior consent of the Ziu.

Section 6

QuoteThe King may grant titles of nobility and confer awards and decorations.

Also note that this amendment would amend the new version of the Organic Law

I wonder whether electing a Monarch should really be a "Ziu → Ratification"-style process.

Might we want to involve the knighthood? Maybe they come together to choose a new King that has to be ratified by the populace? Or something?

Quote from: Magniloqueu Épiqeu Ac'hlerglünä da Lhiun on December 16, 2019, 04:48:31 PM
I wonder whether electing a Monarch should really be a "Ziu → Ratification"-style process.

Might we want to involve the knighthood? Maybe they come together to choose a new King that has to be ratified by the populace? Or something?

Interesting to consider (Right now, this amendment keeps everything else status quo)

What do people think of this?

Well, I'm totally opposed to giving "the Knighthood" any extra votes. That just gives the King the ability to choose his own electorate.

It would be interesting if we had our own Conclave-style process, separate from the Ziu, which could elect a King with a 2/3 vote or something similar (maybe 3/5 and then 1/2 after a number of ballots).

Not sure how we would elect such a body, though, so here's some ideas:

1. By seniority groups: we divide up the population into N equal groups based on date of citizenship, and each group elects X representatives to the Conclave (example N=4 and X=5, we have 20 representatives and roughly 38 electors per group);

2. 8 MCs (proportional-ish between parties) + 8 Senators + 5 Justices + SoS + 2 other senior positions = 24 electors

I'm indifferent enough on the Conclave "electing" or "nominating for approval" the future King. Either works for me I think.

The simplistic answer would be: the Ziu on a one-individual-one-vote basis.

A more complex answer would be the Ziu + provincial delegates, on a one-individual-one-vote basis.

Final decision would have to be approved by the nation by 2/3 in referendum.

I'm really not convinced this is a good idea at all.

But if we absolutely have to, I think we should avoid any of the following:

- Anything that results in citizens joining thinking that they might one day become King.
- Anyone campaigning to become King.
- Anyone taking up civil service duties because it might make them King someday.
- Any parties campaigning to make their members King.
- Electing anyone we are not sure will be around for a long time (I can honestly think of very few Talossans who have been as consistently present for such a long time as King John). The best way to ensure this also means not...
- Electing anyone who hasn't already been around for a long time.
- A method that is so straightforward (or I guess simplistic) that it essentially turns the King into just another elected office.
- A method that results in someone being elected based on the hype of the day rather than long term appreciation (remember this is supposed to be an appointment for life.)

I very much support this amendment, though Glüc has a point that the throne, while we have it, should not be politicized.

Perhaps we could amend this amendment so that the Ziu cannot choose a successor who has not been a citizen for X years? That alone should prevent phonies. 5 years? 7 years?

Let us not live in a fantasy: the ascension of John to the throne was political, insofar as any decision to elevate someone to a lifetime role is inherently political. It's not practicable to try to prevent "someone being elected based on the hype of the day rather than a long-term appreciation"; that's just the nature of the beast.

The risk of a bad ascension to the throne is worth removing the hereditary status of the King.

Quote from: Glüc on February 15, 2020, 11:01:50 AM
I think we should avoid any of the following:

- Anything that results in citizens joining thinking that they might one day become King.
- Anyone campaigning to become King.
- Anyone taking up civil service duties because it might make them King someday.
- Any parties campaigning to make their members King.

Agreed.

Quote- Electing anyone we are not sure will be around for a long time (I can honestly think of very few Talossans who have been as consistently present for such a long time as King John). The best way to ensure this also means not...
- Electing anyone who hasn't already been around for a long time.

John had been a Talossan for 2-3 years before he became King. This was one of the main reasons why the Republic were aghast to find out that he was being proposed for the Slightly Battered Throne, despite his obvious qualities, considering he was a newcomer compared to the people who founded the Republic.

Quote
- A method that results in someone being elected based on the hype of the day rather than long term appreciation (remember this is supposed to be an appointment for life.)

See above. Many of the things you're complaining about are how the incumbent got there.

Quote from: Glüc on February 15, 2020, 11:01:50 AM
I'm really not convinced this is a good idea at all.

But if we absolutely have to, I think we should avoid any of the following:

- Anything that results in citizens joining thinking that they might one day become King.
- Anyone campaigning to become King.
- Anyone taking up civil service duties because it might make them King someday.
- Any parties campaigning to make their members King.
- Electing anyone we are not sure will be around for a long time (I can honestly think of very few Talossans who have been as consistently present for such a long time as King John). The best way to ensure this also means not...
- Electing anyone who hasn't already been around for a long time.
- A method that is so straightforward (or I guess simplistic) that it essentially turns the King into just another elected office.
- A method that results in someone being elected based on the hype of the day rather than long term appreciation (remember this is supposed to be an appointment for life.)

I agree that if any of this happened it would not be great, but it would still be better than the current situation, which is a Prince of Prospect who has not demonstrated one iota of interest in Talossa for years.

Are all of the proposals for more complex election processes more along the lines of "woah dude, what if we..." or should I actually incorporate them into the amendment.

I kept the election process the same in order to avoid making a huge omnibus change.

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on February 21, 2020, 04:02:21 PM
Are all of the proposals for more complex election processes more along the lines of "woah dude, what if we..." or should I actually incorporate them into the amendment.

I kept the election process the same in order to avoid making a huge omnibus change.

This is gonna be a huge change regardless.

I would seriously consider actually incorporating some of the ideas that have been raised here and some others that have not yet been raised as well.

Really disappointing that we're going for possibly the worst option when a lot of the alternatives haven't really been thought out.

Quote from: Miestrâ Schiva, UrN on February 16, 2020, 04:16:58 PM
Agreed.

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on February 21, 2020, 04:00:46 PM

I agree that if any of this happened it would not be great,

So any thoughts on amending this proposal to minimise these risks?

One possible alternative could be to have the general electorate vote on candidates one at the time where the first candidate is the person who is closest to being a citizen for 30 years. (wanted to say 59 but that may be a bit long)

Or we could institute some kind of electoral college where the members are selected separately over a longer period.

With due respect, this amendment had been Hoppered since December and has generated little discussion.

I am sympathetic to calls to delay Clarking a bill while discussion is ongoing (my opposition to Clarking the Electoral Roll stuff is what got the rest of the Government to lay off) but that isn't what happened here.

A 2/3 bar in both the Ziu and the populace is a pretty high bar, but I agree there could be a better system. However, developing such a system could take years and this is a step in the right direction.

I see that this did not make it to the most present Clark. In which case, may I offer two changes?

First, that the Ziu may not elevate to the throne any person who has not been a citizen of Talossa for 6 consecutive years at least.

Second, that such choice be ratified by the nation in referendum, but by three fifths of those voting (instead of a mere majority).

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on February 29, 2020, 08:35:52 PM
With due respect, this amendment had been Hoppered since December and has generated little discussion.

I am sympathetic to calls to delay Clarking a bill while discussion is ongoing (my opposition to Clarking the Electoral Roll stuff is what got the rest of the Government to lay off) but that isn't what happened here.

A 2/3 bar in both the Ziu and the populace is a pretty high bar, but I agree there could be a better system. However, developing such a system could take years and this is a step in the right direction.

Hard disagree.

1. I'm not sure that developing a more complex system would take multiple years. It depends on how much effort supporters of the change want to put in it. Alternatively, we could probably come up with a bill that creates some extra barriers or an electoral college right now. Of course there's not much reason to assume any quick solution would be the best or even a good solution, but that's not the case for this proposal either. (Actually there seems to be pretty much a consensus that this bill would not be the best solution.)

2. Taking some time to do this is not at all a bad thing either. It's a pretty big change. At the moment, the pace of change in Talossa is leaving people behind. Activity on new witt hasn't been particularly high. Many will not even have seen this amendment yet. Of course, the government is correct that they have the right everything they've got a majority for at the rate they please, but that doesn't mean it might not be wise to take some time to do it right, and maybe take some more people along as well.

3. tbd

4. tbd

5. tbd

6 tbd

Quote from: Glüc on March 21, 2020, 05:49:49 AMAt the moment, the pace of change in Talossa is leaving people behind.

More anecdotal evidence that the ex-ModRads are becoming Talossa's "new conservative party", in the absence of the RUMP or the ZRT.

Who exactly are these people who are being "left behind"? Should they have a veto over reforms that the centre-Left government have been fighting for for years, and have succeed in getting a Cosa supermajority for?

Quote from: Miestrâ Schiva, UrN on March 21, 2020, 05:42:51 PM
Should they have a veto over reforms that the centre-Left government have been fighting for for years, and have succeed in getting a Cosa supermajority for?

No. Nobody is arguing for that. In this particular case, my main point isn't even about keeping the hereditary monarchy. Personally I have doubts about replacing it, but if a majority wants to get rid of it, it is what it is (though I wish an even larger part of that had been new or old citizens being convinced and a smaller part had been monarchists leaving).
Just suggesting that taking some time to implement the best version of a suggested change and get some broader support isn't such a bad thing. Again, you are free to ignore that. I don't think it'd be very wise.

Please stop with the strawman arguments though.

The thing is in Talossa that "taking things slowly" often leads to a total dead stop.

The Mençéi has made a good point that the Senäts is fulfilling a duty to be a "brake" on the legislative majority's agenda, though as I say I think they could be more constructive and less obstructive (and the election of the Camerâ pü Înalt should be revised). But asking for the Government to start "self-denying" or even self-censoring - to stop moving forward on our agenda of our own will - is a recipe for Talossa to grind to a total halt.

I fully believe, there, that the Government has a duty to continue pushing forward on its agenda, because if we stop, nothing happens. But to some degree it's a "can't win" situation, because if we did "slow down", some people the same people who are accusing us of driving a legislative steamroller would start calling us do-nothing. Some people (among whom I do not include Lüc or Glüc) aren't happy except when they're using Talossa to ruin other's fun.

In any case, given the schedule of referendums, there is no need for any of these reforms to be finalised before the final Clark. But I honestly think it's good to get a vote on them and let any "surprise" Royal vetos come out in good time to deal with them before that happens.

I am starting to think we are doing this all wrong.

What if we just added a section of the Organic Law that said:

QuoteThe King is [insert King's name here]. If he abdicates, renounces his citizenship, or dies, the Uppermost Cort shall form a Council of Regency.

Then selecting a new King (or replacing the current King with someone else) is akin to every other major change in Government; amending the OrgLaw.

I approve of minimalist solutions in principle

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on March 22, 2020, 05:25:17 PM
I am starting to think we are doing this all wrong.

What if we just added a section of the Organic Law that said:

QuoteThe King is [insert King's name here]. If he abdicates, renounces his citizenship, or dies, the Uppermost Cort shall form a Council of Regency.

Then selecting a new King (or replacing the current King with someone else) is akin to every other major change in Government; amending the OrgLaw.

I like the idea in principle, but I suspect it won't be so straightforward when the time comes. For example, if we are presented with the possibility of a protracted Regency, then even if evidently the powers of the council are the same as the powers of the King, we might want to define how the council should behave internally (eg. require unanimous decisions on important matters? potentially allowing just one member to okay less important stuff? some sort of accountability/transparency clauses?).

I would like to point out that a long Regency is a perfectly possible situation: I myself would be staunchly opposed to electing a King when there are no obvious candidates; and let's be honest, I don't currently see any present citizen that might fill such a role. In that case, I would much rather keep the Regency going as long as necessary than just place on the throne an underqualified candidate.

Apologies for being late to the party here.  I would like to note that, barring abolition of the Monarchy as a whole, the NPW supports the divorce of the monarchy from a hereditary structure.

However, as opposed to wedding ourselves to a specific methodology of replacement in the Orglaw, might I suggest something along the lines of the following:

"The monarch can be replaced by a Conclave, the makeup of which must be approved by 2/3rd assent of both Halls of the Ziu, as well as 3/4 of the populace in a referendum.  All decisions of this Conclave must be verified by a 2/3rd assent of the People in a referendum."

Honestly, the vetting of any future monarch must be done with the utmost care.  That also means choosing the body to DO the vetting with the same utmost care and responsiveness to the state of the nation.

OK, how about this as a starting point for discussion

-Nominations are put forward by a committee composed of all Talossans who have been a citizen for longer than 7 years.
-Nominations must be approved by 2/3 of both houses
-Confirmation in a referendum

In particular tagging @Glüc da Dhi S.H.

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on April 14, 2020, 03:58:59 PM

-Nominations are put forward by a committee composed of all Talossans who have been a citizen for longer than 7 years.

Is your idea that the committee as a whole (by majority vote or some other method) must approve of a nomination, or that any member of this committee could nominate someone?

Quote from: Glüc da Dhi S.H. on April 15, 2020, 05:10:36 AM

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on April 14, 2020, 03:58:59 PM

-Nominations are put forward by a committee composed of all Talossans who have been a citizen for longer than 7 years.

Is your idea that the committee as a whole (by majority vote or some other method) must approve of a nomination, or that any member of this committee could nominate someone?

I was thinking the whole committee (but only those who indicated they were present in some way) would vote to make a nomination.

Personally, I think that the members of the "nominating conclave" should also be very carefully chosen.  As opposed to a blanket over "everyone above 7 years," lets make that the floor to be considered.  Then membership in the body needs to be approved by 2/3 of each house of the Ziu.

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on April 14, 2020, 03:58:59 PM
OK, how about this as a starting point for discussion

-Nominations are put forward by a committee composed of all Talossans who have been a citizen for longer than 7 years.
-Nominations must be approved by 2/3 of both houses
-Confirmation in a referendum

In particular tagging @Glüc da Dhi S.H.

I like the general direction of this idea.

One thought I have is whether it might be worth to somehow make the citizenship threshold more flexible, for example depending on population size. For example in a situation like in 2005 where we simply don't have a lot of long-time citizens it might be wiser to have a slightly more lenient threshold, whereas if we ever get thousands of citizens it might be worth having a more strict threshold to prevent the nominating committee from becoming unwieldy due to its size.

I can also see the case for additional criteria or procedures to determine the membership, but I don't like the suggestion of letting the Ziu pick the members. My worry is that the Ziu might then pick the members with the intent of steering the committee to a certain outcome. This would be unneccesary anyway as the Ziu already has to approve of the proposed candidate anyway so there is no risk of the Ziu not having enough influence on the outcome.

Finally I think it would also be good to have a clear procedure and timeline established for the committee nominating a candidate. Some procedure vaguelly inspired by papal conclaves seems like an obvious choice here (as others have already hinted at).

I cannot help but feel that having a well-trodden path for the replacement of the monarch might not be the best idea, lest it lead to choosing a replacement too easily. 

Quote from: Eiric S. Bornatfiglheu on April 15, 2020, 02:31:52 PM
Personally, I think that the members of the "nominating conclave" should also be very carefully chosen.  As opposed to a blanket over "everyone above 7 years," lets make that the floor to be considered.  Then membership in the body needs to be approved by 2/3 of each house of the Ziu.

I don't see what the point of this would be given that the Ziu would need to approve of the committee's nominee. The point of this provision was to ensure that whoever is chosen is approved by Talossa's "senior" citizens.

Quote from: Açafat del Val on March 02, 2020, 03:07:17 PM
I see that this did not make it to the most present Clark. In which case, may I offer two changes?

First, that the Ziu may not elevate to the throne any person who has not been a citizen of Talossa for 6 consecutive years at least.

Second, that such choice be ratified by the nation in referendum, but by three fifths of those voting (instead of a mere majority).

I'd like to ask these questions again. The current bill as it was proposed in the first post of this thread + the two suggestions above = success ???

Glüc and I had a conversation about this on the video chat a few weeks ago, and he convinced me that having a more established process for selecting a new monarch would give the office more prestige.

"A more established process", such as?

Quote from: Açafat del Val on April 19, 2020, 09:27:07 PM
"A more established process", such as?

The one I currently propose

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on April 14, 2020, 03:58:59 PM
OK, how about this as a starting point for discussion

-Nominations are put forward by a committee composed of all Talossans who have been a citizen for longer than 7 years.
-Nominations must be approved by 2/3 of both houses
-Confirmation in a referendum

In particular tagging @Glüc da Dhi S.H.

This proposal specifically? Okay. So what do you have against changing 7 years to 6, and modifying the referendum to require 3/5 approval instead of a simple majority?

For what it's worth (and I did read the reasons why), I also don't think that a 'committee' would work very well. Who selects the committee? And wouldn't that process be as political if not more political than merely leaving the choice to the Ziu? Perhaps the committee could be comprised of certain officials (the Senior Judge, the Mencei, etc.), but then everyone else would feel left out.

The Cosa is accessible to everyday Talossans. If someone wants a voice in choosing the next King, they simply can become an MC. Plus the fact that the choice is ultimately approved (or rejected) by a referendum anyways.

It would seem so much better to just leave the nominations to the Ziu, i.e. members of the Cosa and Senate, rather than mire the process under more bureaucracy under the guise of 'fairness' or 'inclusivity'.

I'm not sure that having such a low bar adds any prestige to the office of the Monarchy.  If prestige is desired, then even potential nominators should be strongly vetted.

I would like to reaffirm, as a constitutional minimalist, that I would like to simply have something in there saying "John I of House Lupúl is King of Talossa, and if he dies or abdicates or loses citizenship there will be a Council of Regency". Then we can set up a process *at the time*, via OrgLaw amendment, to appoint a successor, which I think would be more appropriate than to try to imagine one in advance.

Quote from: Açafat del Val on April 20, 2020, 03:23:43 PM

The Cosa is accessible to everyday Talossans. If someone wants a voice in choosing the next King, they simply can become an MC.

Except nobody runs for Ziu or votes a certain way just to elect a King. Most likely when we vote in the GE we won't even know a King will be elected that term.

The Ziu (maybe, hopefully) represents the political views and general policy direction Talossans wants to take. In many other aspects it might not be representative of Talossa at all (for one thing, it is comprised entirely out of people with an interest in Talossan politics).

Ultimately when it comes to the direction of this country the power of the King is very limited. The people, both directly and through representation by the Ziu decide what the future of this country looks like, which is inclusive and democratic and overall a good thing.

But what use is there for a King then, if they are just an extension of the political hype of the day, like most other institutions already are. I'd much prefer it if our King were an extension of our long term history and culture. The long and real history of Talossa is what separates from most other micronations and what makes Talossa far more appealing. I think the selection process proposed by Ian reflects that much more than just letting the Ziu decide.

Quote from: Açafat del Val on April 20, 2020, 03:23:43 PM

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on April 14, 2020, 03:58:59 PM
OK, how about this as a starting point for discussion

-Nominations are put forward by a committee composed of all Talossans who have been a citizen for longer than 7 years.
-Nominations must be approved by 2/3 of both houses
-Confirmation in a referendum

In particular tagging @Glüc da Dhi S.H.

This proposal specifically? Okay. So what do you have against changing 7 years to 6, and modifying the referendum to require 3/5 approval instead of a simple majority?

For what it's worth (and I did read the reasons why), I also don't think that a 'committee' would work very well. Who selects the committee? And wouldn't that process be as political if not more political than merely leaving the choice to the Ziu? Perhaps the committee could be comprised of certain officials (the Senior Judge, the Mencei, etc.), but then everyone else would feel left out.

The Cosa is accessible to everyday Talossans. If someone wants a voice in choosing the next King, they simply can become an MC. Plus the fact that the choice is ultimately approved (or rejected) by a referendum anyways.

It would seem so much better to just leave the nominations to the Ziu, i.e. members of the Cosa and Senate, rather than mire the process under more bureaucracy under the guise of 'fairness' or 'inclusivity'.

Any particular reason for having it be six years rather than seven?

The Committee is just anyone who has been a citizen for that long; it would not need to be selected by anyone.

Quote from: Eiric S. Bornatfiglheu on April 20, 2020, 05:58:19 PM
I'm not sure that having such a low bar adds any prestige to the office of the Monarchy.  If prestige is desired, then even potential nominators should be strongly vetted.

It would not be a low bar to be nominated by Talossa's oldest citizens.

7 years means 114 of 187 total citizens would be the committee.  6 makes it a 122-person committee instead.  I love the idea of a committee composed of 61% (or 65%) of the whole.

Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on April 26, 2020, 10:48:11 PM
7 years means 114 of 187 total citizens would be the committee.  6 makes it a 122-person committee instead.  I love the idea of a committee composed of 61% (or 65%) of the whole.

Very fair point, although I suspect not everyone who was eligible would be involved.

You know I am a sucker for graphs, so, given this graph, where would you make the cut off?
(https://i.imgur.com/Bt75dun.png)

Alternatively, we could instead say the committee is made up of "the X citizens with the longest tenure"

And then we'd be into the weeds of "does citizenship in the Republic count" or "should periods of renunciation be subtracted".

Look guys: go for the minimalist solution or there will be no solution. The continuing belief that we can design important constitutional amendments "by committee" is why it took 22 years to reform the OrgLaw.

Honestly, the more I think about it.  I think this is a nonstarter, and that Miestra is correct in constitutional minimalism.  Quite simply, the Orglaw stipulates that John is King.  We'll have to amend the Orglaw regardless. 

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on April 27, 2020, 09:51:47 AM
You know I am a sucker for graphs, so, given this graph, where would you make the cut off?

Well, I'd be tempted to use a fixed cutoff date of February 22, 1998.

Alright, looks like this wouldn't work in practice.

OK, the text in the first post is what I intend to Clark. Please make sure it does not have any fatal errors.

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on April 27, 2020, 09:51:15 PM
Alright, looks like this wouldn't work in practice.

Why? Because there are some unresolved issues? I don't see why these cannot be resolved... Obviously no proposal is going to make everyone equally happy, but even this unfinished proposal is already many times better than the current text, which to me removes basically any value the monarchy still has.

What even remains the incentive to wait for a King to retire, when the procedure for changing King every other cosa term is the same as waiting for there to be a vacancy?

Also, why not just call it a republic then?

Quote from: Miestrâ Schiva, UrN on April 27, 2020, 04:42:05 PM
And then we'd be into the weeds of "does citizenship in the Republic count"

I would expect yes, considering the database already counts that way, though if we want to be sure I guess we could specify it in the Lexhatx somewhere. (Then again, if we go with the seven year plan it wouldn't be needed, because reunision happened more than seven years ago).

Quoteor "should periods of renunciation be subtracted".

I imagine the default would be no, though personally I'd prefer to completely reset the clock when someone renounces. While I'm always happy to welcome back someone who renounced, I also don't think it would be unfair to get a citizenship bonus for not doing the renouncing and coming back routine.

QuoteLook guys: go for the minimalist solution or there will be no solution.

Why? It seemed like we were working towards a solution. (And personally I think the having a minimalist monarchy defeats the purpose and isn't really a solution at all).

Quote
The continuing belief that we can design important constitutional amendments "by committee" is why it took 22 years to reform the OrgLaw.

That's the lesson you got from that? Discussing bills is what the Ziu is supposed to do. I think the idea that whoever is in power should just push through the first idea that comes to mind without consideration or compromise is incredibly destructive.

Anyway, regarding the earlier discussion, Sir AD made a good point. I keep forgetting how few lasting citizens we have added in recent years.

On the one hand you could argue that with seven years a citizen will have enough sense of Talossan culture and history to make a sensible decision. If that means we end up with a very large group of electors then so be it.

On the other hand a committee of over a 100 might be somewhat unwieldy.

I think that if we do something like send out an email when the King position becomes vacant and only admit to the committee everyone who declares their presence within a week, we probably reduce the group by a significant amount. That way we have both a longevity and an activity threshold.

Though I also like the X citizens with the longest tenure proposal. Perhaps the best solution is a combination.

For example

We contact anyone who has been a citizen for more than x years. Anyone who responds within y time is selected. However, if this results in more than z members only the z members with the longest tenure are selected.

We could even consider additional criteria. For example, members of the Ziu could be ruled out since they already have the right to approve/reject the nominee.

Quote from: Glüc da Dhi S.H. on April 28, 2020, 03:02:11 AM

Quote from: Miestrâ Schiva, UrN on April 27, 2020, 04:42:05 PM

The continuing belief that we can design important constitutional amendments "by committee" is why it took 22 years to reform the OrgLaw.

That's the lesson you got from that? Discussing bills is what the Ziu is supposed to do. I think the idea that whoever is in power should just push through the first idea that comes to mind without consideration or compromise is incredibly destructive.

I am mainly thinking now about that version of the Judicial Amendment that V drew up to attempt to satisfy the objections of AD. It was incredibly complex and convoluted to the point where I couldn't even understand it myself, and it got voted down anyway.

The problem I have here is not with "discussing bills" or whether people can offer amendments to Government bills. It is a process where an attempt to satisfy all suggestions leads to a Frankenstein's monster, where IMHO this was heading.

Quote from: Glüc da Dhi S.H. on April 28, 2020, 03:02:11 AM
While I'm always happy to welcome back someone who renounced, I also don't think it would be unfair to get a citizenship bonus for not doing the renouncing and coming back routine.

I'm awfully confused about the meaning of this triple negative!... don't think... unfair... not doing.... ??? ???

It's not so much that any particular issue would be impossible to deal with, it's that I realized there are likely to be many other issues and dealing with them all would probably not be practical.

When the need to replace a King arises, the Ziu could set out any procedure they want; implementing a procedure then would still lend prestige to the office.

Also, I need the support of the other parties to pass this bill, and they have made up their mind on what they will accept.

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on April 30, 2020, 07:43:50 AM
It's not so much that any particular issue would be impossible to deal with, it's that I realized there are likely to be many other issues and dealing with them all would probably not be practical.

And there won't be any issues with not having a procedure in place? Also, why would dealing with them now not be practical?

Quote
When the need to replace a King arises, the Ziu could set out any procedure they want; implementing a procedure then would still lend prestige to the office.

Highly doubt it. Based on recent political history, my best guess would be the government deciding on a candidate internally and the Ziu just basically accepting that.

(Also, again, why would we even wait until the need to replace a King arises. A formal removal procedure won't be needed since the procedure for picking a new one is the same with or without a vacancy. How long until people decide to replace the King because they disagree with some opinion or veto? )

QuoteAlso, I need the support of the other parties to pass this bill, and they have made up their mind on what they will accept.

...