My apologies for taking this on too much of a tangent - I will confine my futher comments on the matter to threads within Cézembre.
Welcome to Wittenberg!
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Show posts MenuQuote from: xpb on January 26, 2021, 12:51:52 PMQuote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on January 26, 2021, 12:38:36 PMQuote 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
Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on January 26, 2021, 12:38:36 PMQuote 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, 11:08:31 AMQuote 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. 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: Ian Plätschisch on January 26, 2021, 10:37:59 AMQuote from: xpb on January 26, 2021, 08:35:58 AMLet'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.
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: Eiric S. Bornatfiglheu on January 26, 2021, 09:49:48 AMQuote 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: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on January 26, 2021, 09:00:02 AMQuote 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?