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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Eðo Grischun on January 31, 2021, 12:10:17 AM
If the Regent thinks it's proper to lump the Monarchy options together to "juke the stats", then it's only fair to do it for the other viewpoint...

The clearest mandate to take from this referendum is that the status quo was soundly rejected.

In round one, just 23 people voted in favour of the status quo, while 62 voted for options of change. That's 86% of first preferences seeking a change from the way things are today.  If we further look at those 62 ballots, only 4 of them selected the status quo option as their second choice.  Going to the next round only 14 of 62 ranked status quo as their third preference.

Even when lumping the two monarchy options together you only get 42%, but it should be pointed out that those two options are completely incompatible with each other.  Indeed, option 4 (for a wholly ceremonial Monarch) was the most preferred second choice to the voters who want an elected head of state as their first choice (22 of the 30).

The nation may be divided on what the future form of State should be, but it has spoken clearly in saying that the status quo must change.

I just said that.

Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on January 30, 2021, 07:11:09 PM
...

But further, as the Seneschal points out, a large majority prefers some change as their first preference even as they disagree dramatically about what that change should be.  I wish there were a clear mandate in favor of the monarchy beyond overall topline preference that we continue to be a Kingdom of Talossa, but the topline result is about as sharply divided as one could imagine.

And zero people who chose Option 1 as their first choice chose Option 3 as their second, and likewise vice-versa.  We're sharply divided, even if a majority is in favor of some form of monarchy.  Again, I'd be interested in seeing more suggestions about further action we can take.  One possibility might be re-running the referendum.  Adding the option to strengthen the monarchy -- so that the status quo didn't represent one pole versus three other options -- and running it at an actual general ballot would be one possibility.  A detailed analysis of what happened with the Republic might be another, if people are still interested in adopting their governmental structure.  I'd be happy to keep discussing the numbers here, but I think it's pretty hard to slice-and-dice this any which way where it yields some sort of resounding mandate for action either way (either in solidifying the monarchy as it is or abandoning it).  I remain overall very happy with it, though, since I think it shows that the Talossan people still support the monarchy.  I think a higher turnout would have made that clearer.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on January 30, 2021, 06:56:29 PM

Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on January 30, 2021, 06:43:22 PM
most Talossans prefer the monarchy in some form.  [...]  I'd be especially hesitant to destroy the monarchy on the basis of a 51.5% majority!

The whole point of using STV this time is that you cant expect everyone who supports a purely ceremonial monarchy to also support the status quo monarchy. As the voting results have shown, a third of those people would rather have an elected head of state than the status quo. The monarchy as it stands now does not enjoy majority support no matter how you look at the numbers.

Tallying up option 3 and option 4 voters and pretending they form one block is either naive or disingenuous.

Indeed, sorting out preferences and ranking them yields a much more granular result and shows 51.5% of respondents to this midterm referendum support a presidency as their preferred outcome versus the status quo when all other other options are eliminated, but also that a majority of respondents prefer as their highest preference that some form of monarchy continue, either in its current form or with emergency/crisis powers.  But further, as the Seneschal points out, a large majority prefers some change as their first preference even as they disagree dramatically about what that change should be.  I wish there were a clear mandate in favor of the monarchy beyond overall topline preference that we continue to be a Kingdom of Talossa, but the topline result is about as sharply divided as one could imagine.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 30, 2021, 04:54:06 PM

Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on January 30, 2021, 03:06:24 PM
In the most direct sense, the most preferred option once others were eliminated was option 1, of course, narrowly beating out the status quo by 34-32.  But first preferences for a monarchy, either ceremonial or traditional, had a similar edge over first preferences for option 1!

... and a change from the status quo had a 2-to-1 majority over the status quo.  ;D

Instead of trying to "spin" the numbers - something which the Leader of the Opposition has correctly identified as being a "sore loser" - Talossan monarchists would be well served to try to reach some kind of compromise with those who want an Elected Head of State.

As far as I can see, no one's mind has changed from the last time this question was offered to the nation, three years ago.  The format of the question has changed and fewer votes were cast, but the answer remains the same: most Talossans prefer the monarchy in some form.  I am glad of it.  I believe this fact would be even more clear if the referendum were asked on a general ballot, rather than a midterm one, but time and time again we arrive at the same answer.

I cannot claim to speak for any political group, but I will certainly observe any ideas offered by the Ziu with avid interest.  I have seen some suggestions which amount to adoption of the form of government of the Republic, with a change only in extending the term of their elected president; I am not sure that I could consent to such a proposal, since helping to destroy the monarchy would seem to directly contravene my duty to steward the monarchy which has served our nation so well.  I'd be especially hesitant to destroy the monarchy on the basis of a 51.5% majority!

I have also seen the suggestion to add an additional elected figure to the governmental structure to provide another check against the increasingly centralized power of the Government, which is of interest to me -- the "co-prince" mentioned in the referendum; this seems like an intriguing possibility, although the devil is very much in the details.

Ideally, this will only be the beginning of a discussion and in-depth conversation about possibilities for the future of our shared country.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on January 30, 2021, 01:59:26 PM

Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on January 30, 2021, 01:36:41 PM
I am also exceedingly pleased with the outcome of the referendum.  Despite a 32% dropoff in turnout, the Talossan people have once again affirmed their preference for the continuation of the monarchy, although opinion remains divided as to the continued role of the monarch.

Excuse me S:reu Rexhaint, but Option 1: "the King of Talossa shall be replaced by an elected Head of State" won the referendum.

In the most direct sense, the most preferred option once others were eliminated was option 1, of course, narrowly beating out the status quo by 34-32.  But first preferences for a monarchy, either ceremonial or traditional, had a similar edge over first preferences for option 1!  I'm not sure how to interpret the addition of a second elected prince if we're breaking things down in this way, since it's a bit orthogonal to the other three options.

There's certainly not an overwhelming mandate for monarchy, but considering the fact that the last referendum which was conducted during a general balloting showed much stronger turnout and much stronger royalist results, I am very well-satisfied with these results.

I appreciate the whimsical and amusing nature of this bill, and I am glad to see people having fun with this sort of stuff.

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:




Option 1 - an elected head of state wins the referendum.



Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă,
Secretary of State

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

A great loss to Talossa and to the world.

Com'el rexhaint per la Coronă, aprovéu acest proxhect da legeu.

Acting on behalf of the crown, I hereby issue my approval in the name of King John acting in the person of his cunstaval for the resolution in question, and thank l'Etats for its good service.

              —  Sir Alexandreu, Rexhaint d'Ian Regeu

The Crown vetoed the last bill which was submitted for consideration, requesting to discuss it.  It would have seemed a matter of basic courtesy to at least acknowledge and reply to my concerns.

Com'el rexhaint per la Coronă, aprovéu acest proxhect da legeu.

Acting on behalf of the crown, I hereby issue my approval in the name of King John acting in the person of his cunstaval for the resolution in question, and thank l'Etats for its good service.

              —  Sir Alexandreu, Rexhaint d'Ian Regeu

I cast my vote in the following way:

3
2
4