Voting is now open (or will be open in a little while) on the referendum. All citizens may vote either on this thread or they may vote using the database at this link: http://www.talossa.ca/files/ranked_vote.php. You will need your PSC which will be emailed to all citizens shortly.
The options are:
- Option 1: the King of Talossa shall be replaced by an elected Head of State.
- Option 2: the King of Talossa shall share power with a periodically elected Co-prince.
- Option 3: the King of Talossa shall continue to have the political powers granted by the current Organic Law.
- Option 4: the King of Talossa shall have no political powers except in cases of emergency or constitutional crisis.
Please rank/vote for at least TWO options. For example: 1st Choice(rank 1) / 2nd Choice(rank 2) / 3rd Choice(rank 3) / 4th Choice(rank 4) edited by the SoS to clarify that one-option votes are completely acceptable.
The 50 word statements are available at http://www.talossa.ca/files/ranked_vote.php.
Original Hopper thread: https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=317.msg1870#msg1870
Voting will close at 19h30 Talossan Time on January 25 2021.
Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on January 10, 2021, 10:36:30 AM
Voting is now open (or will be open in a little while) on the referendum. All citizens may vote either on this thread or they may vote using the database at this link: http://www.talossa.ca/files/ranked_vote.php. You will need your PSC which will be emailed to all citizens shortly.
The options are:
- Option 1: the King of Talossa shall be replaced by an elected Head of State.
- Option 2: the King of Talossa shall share power with a periodically elected Co-prince.
- Option 3: the King of Talossa shall continue to have the political powers granted by the current Organic Law.
- Option 4: the King of Talossa shall have no political powers except in cases of emergency or constitutional crisis.
Please rank/vote for at least TWO options. For example: 1st Choice(rank 1) / 2nd Choice(rank 2) / 3rd Choice(rank 3) / 4th Choice(rank 4)
The 50 word statements are available at http://www.talossa.ca/files/ranked_vote.php.
Original Hopper thread: https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=317.msg1870#msg1870
Voting will close at 19h30 Talossan Time on February 10, 2021.
Why are citizens forced to vote for options they don't support? There is no reason why a person can vote for one option or two or three or four as they wish.
My personal vote is public as always:
Option 3: the King of Talossa shall continue to have the political powers granted by the current Organic Law.
It is the only vote I will make on this issue and I shall not rank any other option nor will anyone do so on my behalf.
Quote from: xpb on January 10, 2021, 11:23:28 AM
Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on January 10, 2021, 10:36:30 AM
Voting is now open (or will be open in a little while) on the referendum. All citizens may vote either on this thread or they may vote using the database at this link: http://www.talossa.ca/files/ranked_vote.php. You will need your PSC which will be emailed to all citizens shortly.
The options are:
- Option 1: the King of Talossa shall be replaced by an elected Head of State.
- Option 2: the King of Talossa shall share power with a periodically elected Co-prince.
- Option 3: the King of Talossa shall continue to have the political powers granted by the current Organic Law.
- Option 4: the King of Talossa shall have no political powers except in cases of emergency or constitutional crisis.
Please rank/vote for at least TWO options. For example: 1st Choice(rank 1) / 2nd Choice(rank 2) / 3rd Choice(rank 3) / 4th Choice(rank 4)
The 50 word statements are available at http://www.talossa.ca/files/ranked_vote.php.
Original Hopper thread: https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=317.msg1870#msg1870
Voting will close at 19h30 Talossan Time on February 10, 2021.
Why are citizens forced to vote for options they don't support? There is no reason why a person can vote for one option or two or three or four as they wish.
My personal vote is public as always:
Option 3: the King of Talossa shall continue to have the political powers granted by the current Organic Law.
It is the only vote I will make on this issue and I shall not rank any other option nor will anyone do so on my behalf.
This does seem to be illegal, since the law clearly states "Ranked Choice Voting shall be conducted in the following manner: ... Voters may rank as many or as few candidates as they please" (Lexh.B.14 and B.14.1). Nothing in the recent referendum bill contradicts that, so it seems like this should still be the clear legal requirement, especially since the author of the referendum bill explicitly stated that the rules were supposed to be identical to how the Senate elections are conducted. This also seems like a pretty big problem, since it's likely to significantly affect the results.
This is ranked choice voting as specified by the law. It is my understanding that voters need to express at least a first choice and a second choice.
I was careful, when writing the legislation for this referendum, to copy/paste the rules from Senäts elections. So the rules should be exactly the same as for Senäts elections.
My apologies. I'm not terribly familiar with ranked choice voting so I worded this thread poorly. Voters may of course rank as few or as many as they wish. One-option votes are completely valid.
Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on January 10, 2021, 01:02:08 PM
My apologies. I'm not terribly familiar with ranked choice voting so I worded this thread poorly. Voters may of course rank as few or as many as they wish. One-option votes are completely valid.
Glad to hear it and that you will be correcting this. Mistakes happen, particularly with complicated things.
While you're here, I noticed that the Seneschal was soliciting 50-word statements. The Distain says that this was on your behalf, if I'm reading his response right. I'd be curious to know more about the coordination taking place behind the scenes, if you wouldn't mind?
Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on January 10, 2021, 01:02:08 PM
My apologies. I'm not terribly familiar with ranked choice voting so I worded this thread poorly. Voters may of course rank as few or as many as they wish. One-option votes are completely valid.
Related question that just occurs to me: did all the ballots go out with these instructions on them, too?
Thanks very much for your prompt attention, esteemed SoS.
Everyone here should chill out and realise that his is Dr Nordselva's first ever public vote and he's flying by the seat of his pants. Administrative errors were inevitable, and they are being fixed. In this situation, the Regent's nasty little innuendos whereby me helping out the various campaigns get their 50 words in becomes a sinister-sounding "co-ordination behind the scenes" are disgraceful and should be withdrawn.
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on January 10, 2021, 01:10:10 PM
Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on January 10, 2021, 01:02:08 PM
My apologies. I'm not terribly familiar with ranked choice voting so I worded this thread poorly. Voters may of course rank as few or as many as they wish. One-option votes are completely valid.
Related question that just occurs to me: did all the ballots go out with these instructions on them, too?
We will be sending out new ballots shortly.
D:na Seneschal: ike I said, mistakes happen. It has been a previous practice to publish election rules ahead of time, and that might be a good thing to start doing again. Elections are really complicated and additional eyes on the process helps.
As to your efforts in helping conduct the referendum, it's pretty unusual. I'm not aware of the Seneschal ever issuing 24-hour demands for statements to put on the ballot. It is actually extremely unusual for the government to involve itself in the administration of an election at all, for extremely obvious reasons. I'm not accusing you or insinuating anything. Because there was no public discussion of this at all, it must have been private. I would like to hear more about this private coordination and what it entailed, because again it's extremely unusual.
Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on January 10, 2021, 01:15:56 PM
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on January 10, 2021, 01:10:10 PM
Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on January 10, 2021, 01:02:08 PM
My apologies. I'm not terribly familiar with ranked choice voting so I worded this thread poorly. Voters may of course rank as few or as many as they wish. One-option votes are completely valid.
Related question that just occurs to me: did all the ballots go out with these instructions on them, too?
We will be sending out new ballots shortly.
Sounds good :-)
For those interested, the discussion re: the 50 word statements went like this:
ME: "Here's the Option 1 50 words. You should put them all on a page on talossa.com."
THE SOS: "I haven't got Option 2 and 3's 50 words."
ME: "FREAKIN' YIPES!"
... and it was all sorted out in less than a day. Amazing enough that me doing my best to make sure the Status Quo and Dual Monarchy options got their statement on the ballot is being spun by the Regent into something shameful and corrupt.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 10, 2021, 01:19:39 PM
For those interested, the discussion re: the 50 word statements went like this:
ME: "Here's the Option 1 50 words. You should put them all on a page on talossa.com."
THE SOS: "I haven't got Option 2 and 3's 50 words."
ME: "FREAKIN' YIPES!"
... and it was all sorted out in less than a day. Amazing enough that me doing my best to make sure the Status Quo and Dual Monarchy options got their statement on the ballot is being spun by the Regent into something shameful and corrupt.
D:na Seneschal, the Government does not conduct elections. It seems deeply problematic for the Government to work in private with the Chancery to coordinate such things. I hope it didn't go any farther and I hope that it doesn't happen again, because it's deeply inappropriate.
I am not insinuating anything: I am saying outright that it is
wrong for the Government to privately coordinate with the Chancery and help administer an election. Txec might be your close friend, and it might be trivial to reach out on Facebook and ask about this, and then help him. And it might seem innocent to you, but it's not. Please don't do it again.
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on January 10, 2021, 01:17:36 PM
D:na Seneschal: ike I said, mistakes happen. It has been a previous practice to publish election rules ahead of time, and that might be a good thing to start doing again. Elections are really complicated and additional eyes on the process helps.
As to your efforts in helping conduct the referendum, it's pretty unusual. I'm not aware of the Seneschal ever issuing 24-hour demands for statements to put on the ballot. It is actually extremely unusual for the government to involve itself in the administration of an election at all, for extremely obvious reasons. I'm not accusing you or insinuating anything. Because there was no public discussion of this at all, it must have been private. I would like to hear more about this private coordination and what it entailed, because again it's extremely unusual.
There were a couple failures on my part. First, I didn't get started on this as soon as I should have owing to being on vacation the past 3 weeks and focusing on that instead of Talossa. Second, I also didn't realize until literally the last moment that only 1 of the 50 word statements were ready so while I was focusing on working with MPF on getting this up and running, Miestra asked for the remaining 50 word statements. We already had started this election late because neither myself nor MPF realized we had to create it from scratch owing to the way the database is set up. That is it. No collusion. Thanks for assuming I'm doing things under-handed.
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on January 10, 2021, 01:26:58 PM
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 10, 2021, 01:19:39 PM
For those interested, the discussion re: the 50 word statements went like this:
ME: "Here's the Option 1 50 words. You should put them all on a page on talossa.com."
THE SOS: "I haven't got Option 2 and 3's 50 words."
ME: "FREAKIN' YIPES!"
... and it was all sorted out in less than a day. Amazing enough that me doing my best to make sure the Status Quo and Dual Monarchy options got their statement on the ballot is being spun by the Regent into something shameful and corrupt.
D:na Seneschal, the Government does not conduct elections. It seems deeply problematic for the Government to work in private with the Chancery to coordinate such things. I hope it didn't go any farther and I hope that it doesn't happen again, because it's deeply inappropriate.
I am not insinuating anything: I am saying outright that it is wrong for the Government to privately coordinate with the Chancery and help administer an election. Txec might be your close friend, and it might be trivial to reach out on Facebook and ask about this, and then help him. And it might seem innocent to you, but it's not. Please don't do it again.
You're right. The government is not conducting this election. I am and I own the mistakes made. My next election will go smoother as there is far more precedent for a normal Cosa election than a referendum mid-Cosa.
Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on January 10, 2021, 01:31:36 PM
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on January 10, 2021, 01:17:36 PM
D:na Seneschal: ike I said, mistakes happen. It has been a previous practice to publish election rules ahead of time, and that might be a good thing to start doing again. Elections are really complicated and additional eyes on the process helps.
As to your efforts in helping conduct the referendum, it's pretty unusual. I'm not aware of the Seneschal ever issuing 24-hour demands for statements to put on the ballot. It is actually extremely unusual for the government to involve itself in the administration of an election at all, for extremely obvious reasons. I'm not accusing you or insinuating anything. Because there was no public discussion of this at all, it must have been private. I would like to hear more about this private coordination and what it entailed, because again it's extremely unusual.
There were a couple failures on my part. First, I didn't get started on this as soon as I should have owing to being on vacation the past 3 weeks and focusing on that instead of Talossa. Second, I also didn't realize until literally the last moment that only 1 of the 50 word statements were ready so while I was focusing on working with MPF on getting this up and running, Miestra asked for the remaining 50 word statements. We already had started this election late because neither myself nor MPF realized we had to create it from scratch owing to the way the database is set up. That is it. No collusion. Thanks for assuming I'm doing things under-handed.
I'm not assuming anything. The Seneschal has confirmed that she privately reached out to you to assist in administering the election by soliciting and passing on 50 word statements. That is a known fact. I am saying that it is wrong and should not happen again, especially not in private. It sounds like it was pretty minor and not at all corrupt, which is good, but that doesn't make it a good idea. I just want to confirm explicitly that this was the exclusive extent of the coordination between your office and hers?
I utterly disagree with the Regent's political theory that there must be a Chinese Wall between the Government and the Chancery, and I challenge him to provide any law or precedent saying there must be so. If he's accusing me of "rigging it" in some way, let him come out and say so.
By the way, the Ministry of STUFF is working very closely with the Chancery on the question of integrating the Database, Wittenberg and talossa.com. I'll leave it to Senator Grischün to add the details, but if the Regent is going to set his hair on fire and declare it illegal and/or corrupt, then we should find out now.
---
On another issue, I must take some kind of blame for the confusion re: this referendum. My bill establishing the referendum left a lot of details out of the law, because - when written - I assumed the SoS would "fill in the gaps" with established practice. It was my failing to understand that the SoS, being brand new to the job, would not know what established practice was, and "guess" to some degree. One of those holes was exactly who was to provide the 50 word statements for each option - which ended up being entirely improvised. So I dropped Dr Nordselva in it, to some extent, and I want to apologise fro that.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 10, 2021, 01:35:36 PM
I utterly disagree with the Regent's political theory that there must be a Chinese Wall between the Government and the Chancery, and I challenge him to provide any law or precedent saying there must be so. If he's accusing me of "rigging it" in some way, let him come out and say so.
The law says pretty clearly that the Chancery conducts elections. I guess I can look up the citations if you want?
It's surprising that you're apparently eager to defend the idea that you have the legal authority to help conduct elections.
For heavens sake. The ONLY person running this election is myself, with the help of my duly appointed deputy MPF. The Seneschal reminded me of it. She has no access to anything else. Hell, even I don't have full access to the database and I am the Secretary of State. We should move on.
If there's a legal theory that there are laws restricting who the Secretary of State can appoint to Chancery roles or reach out to for informal assistance, I think we should hear it now
Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on January 10, 2021, 01:44:55 PM
For heavens sake. The ONLY person running this election is myself, with the help of my duly appointed deputy MPF. The Seneschal reminded me of it. She has no access to anything else. Hell, even I don't have full access to the database and I am the Secretary of State. We should move on.
The principle involved is pretty important, right?
Honestly, I think that this should have just been another pretty minor, "Whoops, you're right, another little mistake" moment. But the Seneschal's desire to defend it makes me worried that we're setting a bad precedent where the Seneschal does help run elections in the future.
So just to be clear (you know what a constitutional worrywart I am): the exchange above was the sum of it, and it won't happen again, right?
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 10, 2021, 01:52:29 PM
If there's a legal theory that there are laws restricting who the Secretary of State can appoint to Chancery roles or reach out to for informal assistance, I think we should hear it now
Sorry, is that what happened? This is interesting -- are you now saying that the Secretary of State appointed you to do this?
I'm not sure why this whole discussion is so evasive... can people please just say what they mean?
No, the SoS didn't appoint me to anything. I offered informal assistance. And I will do so again, as and when it is necessary or useful to do so, as long as there is no law against it; and if the Regent doesn't like it, I suppose he has certain options, one of them being "lumping it".
However, I should emphasise that this was a very special case. I recognized that one reason preparations for the referendum were not going smoothly was that the SoS really didn't know what to do; I expected him to fill the gaps with traditional practice, but that was possibly foolish. So this was a case of me cleaning up my own mess. I refuse any suggestion that there was anything improper about it; but it shouldn't happen on a regular basis, certainly not in general elections, and I am considering legislation which would regularise the conduct of occasional referendums.
From my point of view, the Seneschal mentioned that the 50 word statement for Diarchy had not been received. So I shot it over so it could be included. Easy peasy lemon-squeezy.
I'm sorry, but the Regent's slimy insinuations and general mieda are one of the major reasons I'd rather do just about anything than check Witt. This is the same Regent, I may add, that went behind the Seneschal's back to coordinate activities with my own Ministry. There was grace then when sorting things out, but evidently it all got used up.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 10, 2021, 01:58:02 PM
No, the SoS didn't appoint me to anything. I offered informal assistance. And I will do so again, as and when it is necessary or useful to do so, as long as there is no law against it; and if the Regent doesn't like it, I suppose he has certain options, one of them being "lumping it".
However, I should emphasise that this was a very special case. I recognized that one reason preparations for the referendum were not going smoothly was that the SoS really didn't know what to do; I expected him to fill the gaps with traditional practice, but that was possibly foolish. So this was a case of me cleaning up my own mess. I refuse any suggestion that there was anything improper about it; but it shouldn't happen on a regular basis, certainly not in general elections, and I am considering legislation which would regularise the conduct of occasional referendums.
I'm glad to hear you recognize the impropriety of this activity, generally, even if this instance was innocent. Thank you very much.
And just to confirm, this was the extent of it entirely in this referendum?
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 10, 2021, 01:35:36 PM
By the way, the Ministry of STUFF is working very closely with the Chancery on the question of integrating the Database, Wittenberg and talossa.com. I'll leave it to Senator Grischün to add the details, but if the Regent is going to set his hair on fire and declare it illegal and/or corrupt, then we should find out now.
I'll do so in a different thread so that the different discussions don't get confused with each other. All I'll say on it in this thread is that the work being done is strictly technical and IT related. Further, I have been appointed to serve as a Deputy in the Chancery for this explicit purpose so that I can legally perform tasks on the Wittenberg backend, such as coding. There is zero reason anybody, including the Regent, should get upset at what we are doing.
Quote from: Eðo Grischun on January 10, 2021, 02:08:59 PM
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 10, 2021, 01:35:36 PM
By the way, the Ministry of STUFF is working very closely with the Chancery on the question of integrating the Database, Wittenberg and talossa.com. I'll leave it to Senator Grischün to add the details, but if the Regent is going to set his hair on fire and declare it illegal and/or corrupt, then we should find out now.
I'll do so in a different thread so that the different discussions don't get confused with each other. All I'll say on it in this thread is that the work being done is strictly technical and IT related. Further, I have been appointed to serve as a Deputy in the Chancery for this explicit purpose so that I can legally perform tasks on the Wittenberg backend, such as coding. There is zero reason anybody, including the Regent, should get upset at what we are doing.
I agree. You were legally appointed to the office in public, and you don't seem to be doing anything that would be problematic from the perspective of a separation of powers. I don't believe I raised any concerns about this?
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on January 10, 2021, 01:53:44 PM
Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on January 10, 2021, 01:44:55 PM
For heavens sake. The ONLY person running this election is myself, with the help of my duly appointed deputy MPF. The Seneschal reminded me of it. She has no access to anything else. Hell, even I don't have full access to the database and I am the Secretary of State. We should move on.
The principle involved is pretty important, right?
Honestly, I think that this should have just been another pretty minor, "Whoops, you're right, another little mistake" moment. But the Seneschal's desire to defend it makes me worried that we're setting a bad precedent where the Seneschal does help run elections in the future.
So just to be clear (you know what a constitutional worrywart I am): the exchange above was the sum of it, and it won't happen again, right?
Respectfully, the only person making this any kind of a deal at all is The Regent. I also cannot say if I will ever be reminded of a duty again by anyone outside the Chancery as I cannot pretend to foretell the future. There are lots of duties the Chancery undertakes and being that I've not been in the job long I am still learning.
Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on January 10, 2021, 02:12:52 PM
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on January 10, 2021, 01:53:44 PM
Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on January 10, 2021, 01:44:55 PM
For heavens sake. The ONLY person running this election is myself, with the help of my duly appointed deputy MPF. The Seneschal reminded me of it. She has no access to anything else. Hell, even I don't have full access to the database and I am the Secretary of State. We should move on.
The principle involved is pretty important, right?
Honestly, I think that this should have just been another pretty minor, "Whoops, you're right, another little mistake" moment. But the Seneschal's desire to defend it makes me worried that we're setting a bad precedent where the Seneschal does help run elections in the future.
So just to be clear (you know what a constitutional worrywart I am): the exchange above was the sum of it, and it won't happen again, right?
Respectfully, the only person making this any kind of a deal at all is The Regent. I also cannot say if I will ever be reminded of a duty again by anyone outside the Chancery as I cannot pretend to foretell the future. There are lots of duties the Chancery undertakes and being that I've not been in the job long I am still learning.
I agree that I am the only one raising any objections to this ;)
I also 100% agree that someone just reminding you to do something isn't a problem. If that was the extent of what happened here, it doesn't seem like it would be an issue at all.
And just to confirm, since no one seems to be answering this question despite asking it multiple times: this was the extent of the Seneschal's private coordination with you about this referendum, right?
I reached out to the Chancery over the last week on the following issues:
1) questioning when the referendum would start, since it had to be during this Clark.
2) the aforementioned discussion of 50 word statements.
3) in the last few hours I offered my opinion that Sir Pol and the Regent were right and 1-option ballots were perfectly legal, and thus the ballots should be resent.
That's it.
Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on January 10, 2021, 01:02:08 PM
My apologies. I'm not terribly familiar with ranked choice voting so I worded this thread poorly. Voters may of course rank as few or as many as they wish. One-option votes are completely valid.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 10, 2021, 02:35:34 PM
I reached out to the Chancery over the last week on the following issues:
1) questioning when the referendum would start, since it had to be during this Clark.
2) the aforementioned discussion of 50 word statements.
3) in the last few hours I offered my opinion that Sir Pol and the Regent were right and 1-option ballots were perfectly legal, and thus the ballots should be resent.
That's it.
Thank you very much for this clear and complete response to my question.
Quote from: xpb on January 10, 2021, 02:37:37 PM
Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on January 10, 2021, 01:02:08 PM
My apologies. I'm not terribly familiar with ranked choice voting so I worded this thread poorly. Voters may of course rank as few or as many as they wish. One-option votes are completely valid.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Your vote has been processed. Thank you.
Do the campaigns get to send out emails?
I never received a new ballot by email, though I did receive an email stating I would be receiving a new ballot. I did vote my original ballot by ranking second and third options that I would not have chosen had I not been required to choose multiple options.
I would like to cast my only vote as follows:
Rank 1: Option 3: the King of Talossa shall continue to have the political powers granted by the current Organic Law.
(My personal preference would actually strike the words "the current", and revert to a previous iteration of Organic Law as it pertains to the powers of the King, but unfortunately I wasn't around to lobby for a fifth option when this bill was Hoppered.)
Thanks for the info. I have updated your vote.
Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on January 11, 2021, 09:39:08 AM
Thanks for the info. I have updated your vote.
Your service to the realm is very much appreciated - yours is a complex and administratively difficult task but all citizens respect your work.
Thanks Sir Pol.
Option #3.
C'e cün grült fiirtà q'éu votarhéu per opziun 1: 'n cäps electat d'estat. Q'ár democraçù estadra sublatada!
Pirmalaiset çoiçéu: opziun 1
Secund çoiçéu: opziun 4
I cast my vote in the following way:
3
2
4
Quote from: Iac Marscheir on January 18, 2021, 11:28:38 PM
C'e cün grült fiirtà q'éu votarhéu per opziun 1: 'n cäps electat d'estat. Q'ár democraçù estadra sublatada!
Pirmalaiset çoiçéu: opziun 1
Secund çoiçéu: opziun 4
With apologies, I don't speak Talossan fluently. Could you please restate this in English? Thank you.
Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on January 19, 2021, 02:16:51 PM
With apologies, I don't speak Talossan fluently. Could you please restate this in English? Thank you.
As Ladintsch Naziunál, I believe it's my job to make translations when citizens use the national language.
Quote from: Iac Marscheir on January 18, 2021, 11:28:38 PM
C'e cün grült fiirtà q'éu votarhéu per opziun 1: 'n cäps electat d'estat. Q'ár democraçù estadra sublatada!
Pirmalaiset çoiçéu: opziun 1
Secund çoiçéu: opziun 4
It is with great pride that I vote for option 1: an elected head of state. May our democracy be elevated!
First choice: option 1
Second choice: option 4
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 19, 2021, 02:48:47 PM
Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on January 19, 2021, 02:16:51 PM
With apologies, I don't speak Talossan fluently. Could you please restate this in English? Thank you.
As Ladintsch Naziunál, I believe it's my job to make translations when citizens use the national language.
Quote from: Iac Marscheir on January 18, 2021, 11:28:38 PM
C'e cün grült fiirtà q'éu votarhéu per opziun 1: 'n cäps electat d'estat. Q'ár democraçù estadra sublatada!
Pirmalaiset çoiçéu: opziun 1
Secund çoiçéu: opziun 4
It is with great pride that I vote for option 1: an elected head of state. May our democracy be elevated!
First choice: option 1
Second choice: option 4
Thank you. The vote has been recorded.
I vote as follows:
1: Option 3
2: Option 4
3: Option 2
Quote from: owenedwards on January 21, 2021, 09:23:03 AM
I vote as follows:
1: Option 3
2: Option 4
3: Option 2
Vote recorded. Thank you.
I vote as follows
3
2
4
I vote as follows:
1: Option 3
2: Option 4
3: Option 2
Quote from: C. M. Siervicül on January 25, 2021, 06:33:08 PM
I vote as follows:
1: Option 3
2: Option 4
3: Option 2
Thanks. Vote recorded.
Voting has now closed on the referendum. The results are as follows:
(http://wiki.talossa.com/images/e/e2/Referendum_Results.png)
Option 1 - an elected head of state wins the referendum.
(http://heraldry.talossa.com/LesserStateSeal.gif)
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă,
Secretary of State
Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on January 25, 2021, 07:53:20 PM
Option 1 - an elected head of state wins the referendum.
¡Miéida sant! This I honestly did not expect.
My immediate reaction is that this result shows that our nation is profoundly polarized on the question of constitutional reform. That is, a compromise, such as a fully ceremonial monarchy, will satisfy hardly anyone. The recent experience of the United Kingdom shows that a close referendum on a fundamental issue might cause more problems than it solves, if the winning side takes it as an excuse for IN YOUR FACE ultimatums. I have no intention to plunge Talossa into a new National Schism.
Section 4 of the Act which set up this Referendum reads as follows:
QuoteIf an option involving a change in the Organic Law wins this referendum, the Government shall introduce an Organic Law amendment to that effect within the lifetime of the 55th Cosă.
The Government will certainly do this, but of course no such bill has a hope in hell of passing unless we take into account the views of the monarchist opposition. We shall all see where this leads.
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on January 10, 2021, 01:26:58 PM
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 10, 2021, 01:19:39 PM
For those interested, the discussion re: the 50 word statements went like this:
ME: "Here's the Option 1 50 words. You should put them all on a page on talossa.com."
THE SOS: "I haven't got Option 2 and 3's 50 words."
ME: "FREAKIN' YIPES!"
... and it was all sorted out in less than a day. Amazing enough that me doing my best to make sure the Status Quo and Dual Monarchy options got their statement on the ballot is being spun by the Regent into something shameful and corrupt.
D:na Seneschal, the Government does not conduct elections. It seems deeply problematic for the Government to work in private with the Chancery to coordinate such things. I hope it didn't go any farther and I hope that it doesn't happen again, because it's deeply inappropriate.
I am not insinuating anything: I am saying outright that it is wrong for the Government to privately coordinate with the Chancery and help administer an election. Txec might be your close friend, and it might be trivial to reach out on Facebook and ask about this, and then help him. And it might seem innocent to you, but it's not. Please don't do it again.
Had the government not intervened as it did, making very sure the most monarchist and conservative options were appropriately represented, I'm curious: what would have happened with the vote and the ballot?
Where in talossa.ca is this result? Unless this wiki data is the primary source? No matter how the vote turned out, thank you Dr. Nordselva, for a job well-done on this, your first non-Clark public vote.
GV, RArchivist
Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on January 25, 2021, 07:53:20 PM
Voting has now closed on the referendum. The results are as follows:
(http://wiki.talossa.com/images/e/e2/Referendum_Results.png)
Option 1 - an elected head of state wins the referendum.
(http://heraldry.talossa.com/LesserStateSeal.gif)
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă,
Secretary of State
Quote from: GV on January 25, 2021, 10:21:24 PM
Where in talossa.ca is this result?
On the Referendum ballot page. (http://www.talossa.ca/files/ranked_vote.php) I've double-checked the SoS's calculations and they seem accurate.
I merely uploaded the image of a spreadsheet I created to help me to the wiki. The actual data is on the database.
The tiresome legerdemain of the referendum was predictable. A simple vote on "Do You Want A King" Per/Non would result in a King.
http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~unger/articles/irv.html
Quote from: xpb on January 26, 2021, 08:35:58 AM
The tiresome legerdemain of the referendum was predictable. A simple vote on "Do You Want A King" Per/Non would result in a King.
http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~unger/articles/irv.html
1) Why was this only brought up after the results were announced?
2) How can you say that for certain? Wouldnt that depend on how the role of the King would be defined?
EDIT: As an example:
-- "Do you want to continue the Status Quo?" wouldve been rejected 23 - 49.
-- A vote between an Elected Head of State vs a Status Quo King as the only two options wouldve resulted in a win for the first option by 34 - 32.
-- Only if you phrase the question as "Do you want one or more Kings who may or may not hold that office for life, may or may not be subject to term limits and may or may not have the political powers granted by the current Organic Law?" the vote wouldve yielded a Per majority of at least 42 - 34. I say at least because that question wouldve included people who want a future elected Head of State to retain the title of King among the Per voters.
Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on January 26, 2021, 09:00:02 AM
Quote from: xpb on January 26, 2021, 08:35:58 AM
The tiresome legerdemain of the referendum was predictable. A simple vote on "Do You Want A King" Per/Non would result in a King.
http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~unger/articles/irv.html
1) Why was this only brought up after the results were announced?
2) How can you say that for certain? Wouldnt that depend on how the role of the King would be defined?
1. I sent my opinions via private messages to elected officials. I was not selected to the governing body that proposed the legislation.
2. I cannot say for certain, it is only my opinion that the referendum set out to clone options rather than having a clear per/non choice. One potential purpose of that is to obfuscate by stringing out the options simultaneously, rather than having binary decisions for various powers.
Quote from: xpb on January 26, 2021, 08:35:58 AM
The tiresome legerdemain of the referendum was predictable. A simple vote on "Do You Want A King" Per/Non would result in a King.
http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~unger/articles/irv.html
Honestly, I'm not so sure that it would. There are a lot of Peculiarists with a Republican stripe, and if they'd coalesced around an elected head of state, then the results could've been a larger margin for elected head of state.
Quote from: xpb on January 26, 2021, 08:35:58 AM
The tiresome legerdemain of the referendum was predictable. A simple vote on "Do You Want A King" Per/Non would result in a King.
http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~unger/articles/irv.html
Let's not be sore losers. I highly doubt anyone was so confused by the ballot that they didn't vote, and (as demonstrated above) this referendum was not subject to any of the criticisms in the article you cited.
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on January 26, 2021, 10:37:59 AM
Quote from: xpb on January 26, 2021, 08:35:58 AM
The tiresome legerdemain of the referendum was predictable. A simple vote on "Do You Want A King" Per/Non would result in a King.
http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~unger/articles/irv.html
Let's not be sore losers. I highly doubt anyone was so confused by the ballot that they didn't vote, and (as demonstrated above) this referendum was not subject to any of the criticisms in the article you cited.
and
Quote from: Eiric S. Bornatfiglheu on January 26, 2021, 09:49:48 AM
Quote from: xpb on January 26, 2021, 08:35:58 AM
The tiresome legerdemain of the referendum was predictable. A simple vote on "Do You Want A King" Per/Non would result in a King.
http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~unger/articles/irv.html
Honestly, I'm not so sure that it would. There are a lot of Peculiarists with a Republican stripe, and if they'd coalesced around an elected head of state, then the results could've been a larger margin for elected head of state.
Both of those are certainly valid opinions, but do little to modify my stance which I have stated more clearly in Potential for a constitutional amendment referendum to the citizens of Cézembre (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=680.0). It is entirely possible my opinion will also be repudiated at the local level, but until such time as I am replaced, I shall continue to support the Monarchy as my elected powers provide.
Quote from: xpb on January 26, 2021, 10:57:46 AM
Both of those are certainly valid opinions, but do little to modify my stance which I have stated more clearly in Potential for a constitutional amendment referendum to the citizens of Cézembre (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=680.0). It is entirely possible my opinion will also be repudiated at the local level, but until such time as I am replaced, I shall continue to support the Monarchy as my elected powers provide.
Whats interesting here is that, since its not specified anywhere in the Cézembrean constitution who the King is, or that the King must hold that office for life in order to be legitimate, there would be no need to change the Cézembrean constitution if the future elected Head of State retains the title of King and the country continues to call itself the Kingdom of Talossa, assuming the referendum results actually lead to any changes to the Organic Law of course.
I cant help but feel like youre being overly hasty here.
Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on January 26, 2021, 11:08:31 AM
Quote from: xpb on January 26, 2021, 10:57:46 AM
Both of those are certainly valid opinions, but do little to modify my stance which I have stated more clearly in Potential for a constitutional amendment referendum to the citizens of Cézembre (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=680.0). It is entirely possible my opinion will also be repudiated at the local level, but until such time as I am replaced, I shall continue to support the Monarchy as my elected powers provide.
Whats interesting here is that, since its not specified anywhere in the Cézembrean constitution who the King is, or that the King must hold that office for life in order to be legitimate, there would be no need to change the Cézembrean constitution if the future elected Head of State retains the title of King and the country continues to call itself the Kingdom of Talossa, assuming the referendum results actually lead to any changes to the Organic Law of course.
I cant help but feel like youre being overly hasty here.
You are correct that a Head of State could be declared King or Queen (there could be an introduction into the CAG that the gender should be flexible for Kingdom or Queendom). There was an election back in the day for King John, but only after there was an abdication. I believe in the current thought process is that the Head of State would be elected on a periodic basis, rather than holding the title until abdication or death.
Quote from: xpb on January 26, 2021, 12:03:16 PM
You are correct that a Head of State could be declared King or Queen (there could be an introduction into the CAG that the gender should be flexible for Kingdom or Queendom). There was an election back in the day for King John, but only after there was an abdication. I believe in the current thought process is that the Head of State would be elected on a periodic basis, rather than holding the title until abdication or death.
My idea for an elected Head of State without breaking too many other things was to basically automatically force the King to abdicate after a certain number of years (I believe it was five or so) and trigger a new election that way. Everything else would stay the same.
As for making the name of the country gender-dependent (Kingdom vs Queendom), I believe that this is unnecessary. Not just because no Romance language that I know of has a separate word for "queendom" so coining one in Talossan would be extra unnatural, but because theres a historical precedent for calling the Talossan monarch "King" regardless of gender.
Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on January 26, 2021, 12:38:36 PM
Quote from: xpb on January 26, 2021, 12:03:16 PM
You are correct that a Head of State could be declared King or Queen (there could be an introduction into the CAG that the gender should be flexible for Kingdom or Queendom). There was an election back in the day for King John, but only after there was an abdication. I believe in the current thought process is that the Head of State would be elected on a periodic basis, rather than holding the title until abdication or death.
My idea for an elected Head of State without breaking too many other things was to basically automatically force the King to abdicate after a certain number of years (I believe it was five or so) and trigger a new election that way. Everything else would stay the same.
As for making the name of the country gender-dependent (Kingdom vs Queendom), I believe that this is unnecessary. Not just because no Romance language that I know of has a separate word for "queendom" so coining one in Talossan would be extra unnatural, but because theres a historical precedent for calling the Talossan monarch "King" regardless of gender.
From https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/queendom
queen·dom | \ ˈkwēndəm \
plural -s
Definition of queendom
1: the state or territory ruled by a queen
2: the position of a queen
Y-yeah, I know what it means, I'm just saying it doesnt fit the Talossan language aesthetically or pragmatically.
Quote from: xpb on January 26, 2021, 12:51:52 PM
Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on January 26, 2021, 12:38:36 PM
Quote from: xpb on January 26, 2021, 12:03:16 PM
You are correct that a Head of State could be declared King or Queen (there could be an introduction into the CAG that the gender should be flexible for Kingdom or Queendom). There was an election back in the day for King John, but only after there was an abdication. I believe in the current thought process is that the Head of State would be elected on a periodic basis, rather than holding the title until abdication or death.
My idea for an elected Head of State without breaking too many other things was to basically automatically force the King to abdicate after a certain number of years (I believe it was five or so) and trigger a new election that way. Everything else would stay the same.
As for making the name of the country gender-dependent (Kingdom vs Queendom), I believe that this is unnecessary. Not just because no Romance language that I know of has a separate word for "queendom" so coining one in Talossan would be extra unnatural, but because theres a historical precedent for calling the Talossan monarch "King" regardless of gender.
From https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/queendom
queen·dom | \ ˈkwēndəm \
plural -s
Definition of queendom
1: the state or territory ruled by a queen
2: the position of a queen
While used in a different context, as recently as 22 January 2021 France TV has used the term Queendom https://www.france.tv/slash/queendom/
My apologies for taking this on too much of a tangent - I will confine my futher comments on the matter to threads within Cézembre.
Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on January 26, 2021, 12:38:36 PM
My idea for an elected Head of State without breaking too many other things was to basically automatically force the King to abdicate after a certain number of years (I believe it was five or so) and trigger a new election that way. Everything else would stay the same.
This is my personal preferred option as most likely to get moderate monarchist support; although 7 years would also be good. I have been persuaded over the years that Talossa's identity as a Kingdom is a valuable cultural tradition and point of attraction for new citizens. But this is not incompatible with the principle of periodic election.
This
minimalist option for an elected Head of State would then have to discuss:
- how is a new King chosen? Again, the "minimalist" option would simply be by Organic Law reform process (which is I believe how John I Lupúl was chosen), but I think we can do better than that.
- what are the qualifications to become King of Talossa? Length of citizenship?
- can a King serve more than one term, consecutive or otherwise?
All this would have to be very careful to make sure that the role of King does not become an object of partisan competition.
On the subject of Cézembre:
1) when Australia was debating becoming a republic, there was debate on what would happen if individual States insisted on remaining monarchic.
2) what happens if Cézembre pledges allegiance to a different King than that chosen by the nation as a whole?
3) would the Sénéchal of Cézembre be pledging eternal allegiance to John I, even if John I were removed by Organic Law amendment without bringing in the "limited term" - i.e. if he were replaced by another Monarch for Life?
Quote from: xpb on January 26, 2021, 01:08:44 PM
While used in a different context, as recently as 22 January 2021 France TV has used the term Queendom https://www.france.tv/slash/queendom/
"Queendom" is a term that appears to exist solely in English, with the exception of an outdated French term "reinaume" for which there is not a way to make a Talossan equivalent.
Hypothetically, but not realistically or desirably, "Queendom of Talossa" would be something like
Rexheiçăpäts Talossan. However, Talossan nouns don't work like that.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 26, 2021, 02:30:31 PM
3) would the Sénéchal of Cézembre be pledging eternal allegiance to John I, even if John I were removed by Organic Law amendment without bringing in the "limited term" - i.e. if he were replaced by another Monarch for Life?
I suppose a compromise could be achieved by a post-abdication or removal Ián Lupúl being nominated as Constable/Governor-General of Cézembre.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 25, 2021, 10:26:43 PM
Quote from: GV on January 25, 2021, 10:21:24 PM
Where in talossa.ca is this result?
On the Referendum ballot page. (http://www.talossa.ca/files/ranked_vote.php) I've double-checked the SoS's calculations and they seem accurate.
Thank you. My bad for not finding it.
I do not question the SoS' calculations. When an SoS calls a result 'provisional', I take it as such until a final result is published.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 26, 2021, 03:50:33 PM
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 26, 2021, 02:30:31 PM
3) would the Sénéchal of Cézembre be pledging eternal allegiance to John I, even if John I were removed by Organic Law amendment without bringing in the "limited term" - i.e. if he were replaced by another Monarch for Life?
I suppose a compromise could be achieved by a post-abdication or removal Ián Lupúl being nominated as Constable/Governor-General of Cézembre.
That could be an additional title I suppose. Ián Lupúl is already King of Cézembre.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 26, 2021, 02:30:31 PM
On the subject of Cézembre:
1) when Australia was debating becoming a republic, there was debate on what would happen if individual States insisted on remaining monarchic.
2) what happens if Cézembre pledges allegiance to a different King than that chosen by the nation as a whole?
3) would the Sénéchal of Cézembre be pledging eternal allegiance to John I, even if John I were removed by Organic Law amendment without bringing in the "limited term" - i.e. if he were replaced by another Monarch for Life?
Sorry caught this comment in reverse order.
1) I will need to read up on the Australian debate. Within the Commonwealth of Nations, Queen Elizabeth II is the head of state of 16 member states, known as the Commonwealth realms, while 33 other members are republics and 5 others have different monarchs.
2) As an example, there are at least a couple of different Popes if one refers to the the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople by that title. Hong Kong and Taiwan have different economic models than China but are claimed by some to be one county two systems.
3) King John, in my opinion, which can be overridden by a majority of Cézembreans that would choose to remove me from office, continues to be King of Cézembre until such time as he of his own volition abdicates or passes away.
Typing on my phone while on patrol sorry for any typos.
Quote from: xpb on January 26, 2021, 06:21:24 PM
3) King John, in my opinion, which can be overridden by a majority of Cézembreans that would choose to remove me from office, continues to be King of Cézembre until such time as he of his own volition abdicates or passes away.
I realise that this has nothing to do with the referendum result anymore, but are the titles of King of Talossa and King of Cézembre separate or is the King of Talossa automatically King of Cézembre ex officio? Was this ever brought up somewhere? In case that King John is forced to abdicate the Talossan throne, would the Cézembrean government then recognise two Kings (???) or would that violate the pledge of eternal allegiance to the Regipäts Talossan? But then again, would not doing so violate the pledge of eternal allegiance to the King?
...sorry for these wild tangents, everyone.
Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on January 26, 2021, 06:40:03 PM
Quote from: xpb on January 26, 2021, 06:21:24 PM
3) King John, in my opinion, which can be overridden by a majority of Cézembreans that would choose to remove me from office, continues to be King of Cézembre until such time as he of his own volition abdicates or passes away.
I realise that this has nothing to do with the referendum result anymore, but are the titles of King of Talossa and King of Cézembre separate or is the King of Talossa automatically King of Cézembre ex officio? Was this ever brought up somewhere? In case that King John is forced to abdicate the Talossan throne, would the Cézembrean government then recognise two Kings (???) or would that violate the pledge of eternal allegiance to the Regipäts Talossan? But then again, would not doing so violate the pledge of eternal allegiance to the King?
...sorry for these wild tangents, everyone.
My apologies as well as I should not continue to respond in this thread, even as it is tantalizing.
Quote from: GV on January 26, 2021, 05:44:38 PM
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 25, 2021, 10:26:43 PM
Quote from: GV on January 25, 2021, 10:21:24 PM
Where in talossa.ca is this result?
On the Referendum ballot page. (http://www.talossa.ca/files/ranked_vote.php) I've double-checked the SoS's calculations and they seem accurate.
Thank you. My bad for not finding it.
I do not question the SoS' calculations. When an SoS calls a result 'provisional', I take it as such until a final result is published.
I don't see anywhere where I declared the results provisional.
Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on January 26, 2021, 06:40:03 PM
Quote from: xpb on January 26, 2021, 06:21:24 PM
3) King John, in my opinion, which can be overridden by a majority of Cézembreans that would choose to remove me from office, continues to be King of Cézembre until such time as he of his own volition abdicates or passes away.
I realise that this has nothing to do with the referendum result anymore, but are the titles of King of Talossa and King of Cézembre separate or is the King of Talossa automatically King of Cézembre ex officio? Was this ever brought up somewhere? In case that King John is forced to abdicate the Talossan throne, would the Cézembrean government then recognise two Kings (???) or would that violate the pledge of eternal allegiance to the Regipäts Talossan? But then again, would not doing so violate the pledge of eternal allegiance to the King?
...sorry for these wild tangents, everyone.
A referendum of this magnitude should have ideally been carried out during the general election for greater participation and not immediately post the holiday season. One cannot deny that the participation was way lesser than the voter turnout than what was at the last few general elections. Anyone who is surprised by the result, shouldn't be. It serves us right for not being attentive to Talossan affairs.
The King of Cezembre is the King in the North ( ;) )... who also may/ may not be the King of the Regions (substituting 7 Kingdoms) sitting on the Iron Throne.
Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on January 25, 2021, 07:53:20 PM
Voting has now closed on the referendum. The results are as follows:
(http://wiki.talossa.com/images/e/e2/Referendum_Results.png)
Option 1 - an elected head of state wins the referendum.
(http://heraldry.talossa.com/LesserStateSeal.gif)
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă,
Secretary of State
(https://i.imgur.com/rALrT2a.png)
Acting on behalf of the crown, I wish to formally thank the Secretary of State in the name of King John for his efforts in conducting an election in the middle of the Cosa, which is often a tricky affair and which requires navigating some of the most complex aspects of our laws and traditions. No one can fault any minor hiccups, particularly not when conducted in good faith and resolved with his usual alacrity. Secretary of State Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM should have all of our gratitude for these efforts. C'estev'iensă tasc'hă ben fäts!
I am also exceedingly pleased with the outcome of the referendum. Despite a 32% dropoff in turnout, the Talossan people have once again affirmed their preference for the continuation of the monarchy, although opinion remains divided as to the continued role of the monarch. Since the time I have begun acting on behalf of our monarch, we have begun to see a revival of this aspect of Talossa, and I hope to see the long tradition of Talossan monarchy continue to grow and thrive -- and I hope, too, that His Majesty himself will be able to return to his duties soon.
It is time to further reflect on the many blessings that we have in our country. A unique and beautiful language, long traditions and institutions that give us a singular place on the world stage, skilled and thoughtful leadership, and the varied and vigorous talents of our people... Talossa is a truly great place and we are so lucky to be here. No matter our differences of opinion on governance or any other subject, we must always keep our good fortune and fellowship at the fore of our minds.
Long live Talossa, and long live good King John!
— Sir Alexandreu, Rexhaint d'Ian Regeu
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on January 30, 2021, 01:36:41 PM
I am also exceedingly pleased with the outcome of the referendum. Despite a 32% dropoff in turnout, the Talossan people have once again affirmed their preference for the continuation of the monarchy, although opinion remains divided as to the continued role of the monarch.
Excuse me S:reu Rexhaint, but Option 1: "the King of Talossa shall be replaced by an elected Head of State" won the referendum.
Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on January 30, 2021, 01:59:26 PM
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on January 30, 2021, 01:36:41 PM
I am also exceedingly pleased with the outcome of the referendum. Despite a 32% dropoff in turnout, the Talossan people have once again affirmed their preference for the continuation of the monarchy, although opinion remains divided as to the continued role of the monarch.
Excuse me S:reu Rexhaint, but Option 1: "the King of Talossa shall be replaced by an elected Head of State" won the referendum.
In the most direct sense, the most preferred option once others were eliminated was option 1, of course, narrowly beating out the status quo by 34-32. But first preferences for a monarchy, either ceremonial or traditional, had a similar edge over first preferences for option 1! I'm not sure how to interpret the addition of a second elected prince if we're breaking things down in this way, since it's a bit orthogonal to the other three options.
There's certainly not an overwhelming mandate for monarchy, but considering the fact that the last referendum which was conducted during a general balloting showed much stronger turnout and much stronger royalist results, I am very well-satisfied with these results.
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on January 30, 2021, 03:06:24 PM
In the most direct sense, the most preferred option once others were eliminated was option 1, of course, narrowly beating out the status quo by 34-32. But first preferences for a monarchy, either ceremonial or traditional, had a similar edge over first preferences for option 1!
... and a change from the status quo had a 2-to-1 majority over the status quo. ;D
Instead of trying to "spin" the numbers - something which the Leader of the Opposition has correctly identified as being a "sore loser" - Talossan monarchists would be well served to try to reach some kind of compromise with those who want an Elected Head of State.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 30, 2021, 04:54:06 PM
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on January 30, 2021, 03:06:24 PM
In the most direct sense, the most preferred option once others were eliminated was option 1, of course, narrowly beating out the status quo by 34-32. But first preferences for a monarchy, either ceremonial or traditional, had a similar edge over first preferences for option 1!
... and a change from the status quo had a 2-to-1 majority over the status quo. ;D
Instead of trying to "spin" the numbers - something which the Leader of the Opposition has correctly identified as being a "sore loser" - Talossan monarchists would be well served to try to reach some kind of compromise with those who want an Elected Head of State.
As far as I can see, no one's mind has changed from the last time this question was offered to the nation, three years ago. The format of the question has changed and fewer votes were cast, but the answer remains the same: most Talossans prefer the monarchy in some form. I am glad of it. I believe this fact would be even more clear if the referendum were asked on a general ballot, rather than a midterm one, but time and time again we arrive at the same answer.
I cannot claim to speak for any political group, but I will certainly observe any ideas offered by the Ziu with avid interest. I have seen some suggestions which amount to adoption of the form of government of the Republic, with a change only in extending the term of their elected president; I am not sure that I could consent to such a proposal, since helping to destroy the monarchy would seem to directly contravene my duty to
steward the monarchy which has served our nation so well. I'd be especially hesitant to destroy the monarchy on the basis of a 51.5% majority!
I have also seen the suggestion to add an additional elected figure to the governmental structure to provide another check against the increasingly centralized power of the Government, which is of interest to me -- the "co-prince" mentioned in the referendum; this seems like an intriguing possibility, although the devil is very much in the details.
Ideally, this will only be the beginning of a discussion and in-depth conversation about possibilities for the future of our shared country.
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on January 30, 2021, 06:43:22 PM
most Talossans prefer the monarchy in some form. [...] I'd be especially hesitant to destroy the monarchy on the basis of a 51.5% majority!
The whole point of using STV this time is that you cant expect everyone who supports a purely ceremonial monarchy to also support the status quo monarchy. As the voting results have shown,
a third of those people would rather have an elected head of state than the status quo. The monarchy as it stands now does not enjoy majority support no matter how you look at the numbers.
Tallying up option 3 and option 4 voters and pretending they form one block is either naive or disingenuous.
Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on January 30, 2021, 06:56:29 PM
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on January 30, 2021, 06:43:22 PM
most Talossans prefer the monarchy in some form. [...] I'd be especially hesitant to destroy the monarchy on the basis of a 51.5% majority!
The whole point of using STV this time is that you cant expect everyone who supports a purely ceremonial monarchy to also support the status quo monarchy. As the voting results have shown, a third of those people would rather have an elected head of state than the status quo. The monarchy as it stands now does not enjoy majority support no matter how you look at the numbers.
Tallying up option 3 and option 4 voters and pretending they form one block is either naive or disingenuous.
Indeed, sorting out preferences and ranking them yields a much more granular result and shows 51.5% of respondents to this midterm referendum support a presidency as their preferred outcome versus the status quo when all other other options are eliminated, but also that a majority of respondents prefer as their highest preference that some form of monarchy continue, either in its current form or with emergency/crisis powers. But further, as the Seneschal points out, a large majority prefers some change as their first preference even as they disagree dramatically about what that change should be. I wish there were a clear mandate in favor of the monarchy beyond overall topline preference that we continue to be a
Kingdom of Talossa, but the topline result is about as sharply divided as one could imagine.
If the Regent thinks it's proper to lump the Monarchy options together to "juke the stats", then it's only fair to do it for the other viewpoint...
The clearest mandate to take from this referendum is that the status quo was soundly rejected.
In round one, just 23 people voted in favour of the status quo, while 62 voted for options of change. That's 86% of first preferences seeking a change from the way things are today. If we further look at those 62 ballots, only 4 of them selected the status quo option as their second choice. Going to the next round only 14 of 62 ranked status quo as their third preference.
Even when lumping the two monarchy options together you only get 42%, but it should be pointed out that those two options are completely incompatible with each other. Indeed, option 4 (for a wholly ceremonial Monarch) was the most preferred second choice to the voters who want an elected head of state as their first choice (22 of the 30).
The nation may be divided on what the future form of State should be, but it has spoken clearly in saying that the status quo must change.
Quote from: Eðo Grischun on January 31, 2021, 12:10:17 AM
If the Regent thinks it's proper to lump the Monarchy options together to "juke the stats", then it's only fair to do it for the other viewpoint...
The clearest mandate to take from this referendum is that the status quo was soundly rejected.
In round one, just 23 people voted in favour of the status quo, while 62 voted for options of change. That's 86% of first preferences seeking a change from the way things are today. If we further look at those 62 ballots, only 4 of them selected the status quo option as their second choice. Going to the next round only 14 of 62 ranked status quo as their third preference.
Even when lumping the two monarchy options together you only get 42%, but it should be pointed out that those two options are completely incompatible with each other. Indeed, option 4 (for a wholly ceremonial Monarch) was the most preferred second choice to the voters who want an elected head of state as their first choice (22 of the 30).
The nation may be divided on what the future form of State should be, but it has spoken clearly in saying that the status quo must change.
I just said that.
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on January 30, 2021, 07:11:09 PM
...
But further, as the Seneschal points out, a large majority prefers some change as their first preference even as they disagree dramatically about what that change should be. I wish there were a clear mandate in favor of the monarchy beyond overall topline preference that we continue to be a Kingdom of Talossa, but the topline result is about as sharply divided as one could imagine.
And zero people who chose Option 1 as their first choice chose Option 3 as their second, and likewise vice-versa. We're sharply divided, even if a majority is in favor of some form of monarchy. Again, I'd be interested in seeing more suggestions about further action we can take. One possibility might be re-running the referendum. Adding the option to strengthen the monarchy -- so that the status quo didn't represent one pole versus three other options -- and running it at an actual general ballot would be one possibility. A detailed analysis of what happened with the Republic might be another, if people are still interested in adopting their governmental structure. I'd be happy to keep discussing the numbers here, but I think it's pretty hard to slice-and-dice this any which way where it yields some sort of resounding mandate for action either way (either in solidifying the monarchy as it is or abandoning it). I remain overall very happy with it, though, since I think it shows that the Talossan people still support the monarchy. I think a higher turnout would have made that clearer.
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on January 31, 2021, 12:31:46 AM
Quote from: Eðo Grischun on January 31, 2021, 12:10:17 AM
If the Regent thinks it's proper to lump the Monarchy options together to "juke the stats", then it's only fair to do it for the other viewpoint...
The clearest mandate to take from this referendum is that the status quo was soundly rejected.
In round one, just 23 people voted in favour of the status quo, while 62 voted for options of change. That's 86% of first preferences seeking a change from the way things are today. If we further look at those 62 ballots, only 4 of them selected the status quo option as their second choice. Going to the next round only 14 of 62 ranked status quo as their third preference.
Even when lumping the two monarchy options together you only get 42%, but it should be pointed out that those two options are completely incompatible with each other. Indeed, option 4 (for a wholly ceremonial Monarch) was the most preferred second choice to the voters who want an elected head of state as their first choice (22 of the 30).
The nation may be divided on what the future form of State should be, but it has spoken clearly in saying that the status quo must change.
I just said that.
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on January 30, 2021, 07:11:09 PM
...
But further, as the Seneschal points out, a large majority prefers some change as their first preference even as they disagree dramatically about what that change should be. I wish there were a clear mandate in favor of the monarchy beyond overall topline preference that we continue to be a Kingdom of Talossa, but the topline result is about as sharply divided as one could imagine.
And zero people who chose Option 1 as their first choice chose Option 3 as their second, and likewise vice-versa. We're sharply divided, even if a majority is in favor of some form of monarchy. Again, I'd be interested in seeing more suggestions about further action we can take. One possibility might be re-running the referendum. Adding the option to strengthen the monarchy -- so that the status quo didn't represent one pole versus three other options -- and running it at an actual general ballot would be one possibility. A detailed analysis of what happened with the Republic might be another, if people are still interested in adopting their governmental structure. I'd be happy to keep discussing the numbers here, but I think it's pretty hard to slice-and-dice this any which way where it yields some sort of resounding mandate for action either way (either in solidifying the monarchy as it is or abandoning it). I remain overall very happy with it, though, since I think it shows that the Talossan people still support the monarchy. I think a higher turnout would have made that clearer.
QuoteWe're sharply divided, even if a majority is in favor of some form of monarchy.
We're somewhat divided, even if an overwhelming majority favours a fundamental shift from the status quo.
(FTFY).
Here, instead of politicking the heck out of the numbers and instead of talking about re-running the referendum and instead of trying to dismiss the legitimacy of this referendum over arguments of low turnout, maybe the best option might be the one that has already been suggested by the Seneschal. Monarchists could put forward their input on how a compromise could be achieved. Elected Head of State does not need to mean the abolition of the Monarchy.
Malaysia.