I cast my as vote PËR for T. Roibeardescù for Túischac'h

Ataturk is currently holding our elections for Başbakan, and will conclude on the 23rd of September, however their is only one canditate in the race (but even so, according to the consitution of Ataturk, the elections must be held (by my reading)) Myself, i am a bit disappointed in the turnout of the election so far (Espeically as though it is by the consitution, i fear its legitimacy based on the involvment in the provincial Gorvernment we have), but still, this is not the place for that. Anyway it looks likely that I'll remain in the post of  Başbakan of Ataturk if things stay as they are, but will keep this place updated.

I hereby cast my vote for myself as Başbakan of Atatürk

I apologise for the delay, has been a stressful few days, however the nomination period has now ended, and as per Law, a 2 week voting period on the nominations shall now begin (or until all members have voted), with one nomination of
Antaglha (myself) for Başbakan of Atatürk.

All members are hereby summoned to vote on this nomination.

I hope that @Eiric S. Bornatfiglheu is able to assigns the NPW seats soon,

In the mean time, I will open the Nomination period, of One Week, for Başbakan of Atatürk,
If you wish to nominate anyone, then please post in this thread.
Voting on nominations will start on Friday 4th September at 7pm GMT if no one objects (so any nominations must be made before this date).

Also. I nominate myself to remain as Başbakan of Atatürk.

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on August 19, 2020, 01:45:31 PM
The LCC assigns 3 seats each to Nicholas Hayes, Brad Holmes, and Xheneta Britxind

Thank you for assigning your parties seats, and now we just need the NPW seats to be allocated by @Eiric S. Bornatfiglheu ASAP, as i want to start Başbakan elections as soon as possible. Hopefully before the end of the week nominations should have begun.

Honestly, as that particular line of law that the SoS has quoted is a bit unclear in the middle, where

Quotewhen such action is requested whensoever their own judgment directs that it is necessary

is stated, honestly with how it reads and how the start of the relevant section states

QuoteThe Secretary of State or their designated representative(s) shall act to maintain a minimum level of acceptable behavior

It is not unreasonable to assume that the SoS does have the power to act without the individual in charge of that boards say so. The unclear part is whether the action is only able to be taken by someones requesting it first, or if the SoS can also act when they, in their judgement, is able to act without such request. And due to the unclear, and awkward phrasing here, i find it difficult to tell, as it does feel that the part referecing a request needs to be re written to become clearer. But due to the way the law is structured, i would argue that the SoS does have the power to act in this matter. And acknowlege this section should probably be amended to be clearer in its intentions.

Also i would point out something that i feel should be pointed out, whilst i do agree this power is a much needed power, i do think it might be prudent that all such actions, for sake of record keeping, incase of any possible action over any possble actions from the SoS, in order to safeguard the SoS, and those involved, be recorded and kept in records for a set time (tbd) (not public, and only accessed by request if it is needed) of the state of a thread both before and after any actions taken and the SoS's justification for the change. Unless such a requirement is already in place? (which im not sure there is) It would involve a bit more work for the SoS, however it does seem like a prudent requirement in such situations.

So the Election results have now been verified by chancery, so party leaders please could you assign seats?

@Ian Plätschisch  @Eiric S. Bornatfiglheu

I unless another FreeDem in the province wishes to hold seats in the house (if so let me know and seats can, and will be divided) and assuming @Miestră Schivă, UrN doesnt object, i assign the 9 FreeDem seats to myself.

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on August 02, 2020, 11:43:03 AM
Largest remainder method gives:

FreeDems: 9
LCC: 9
NPW: 2

Thank you for your help.

So to Party leaders, should the current results stand,
How would you like to split the seats you control in the House?

Hello fellow citizens, it is time once again to form a new Ziu.

These results might change until the election is verify but the provisional Provincial vote is as:-
(The results have now been Verified by the chancery)

FreeDems :- 4
LCC:- 4
NWP :- 1
And one vote to abstain.

We have a 20 seat house. I ask for help to work out how the votes shall inform seat distribution.
(Of course this is still preliminary results as of time of writing but i feel that getting things stated would be useful)

Thanks to all who voted in the election, and I am looking forward to seeing how the coming term progresses.

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on July 17, 2020, 07:05:14 PM
There has been a lot of criticism of the King recently for not acting more like Monarchs of other countries. Talossa is not like other countries.

If Talossa was a country in which people essentially had to live (ie, if we exerted any real control over Milwaukee), then I would of course be advocating for a figurehead Monarchy. Talossa is not like that, though; we are for all practical purposes a voluntary association. There is no possible way for the Monarchy to actually infringe on the rights of citizens, because a citizen can, with a single post, leave and no longer be the King's subject. So the question is really how we want our voluntary association to be set up, which is why it is not anti-democratic to be in favor of a Monarchy with the capability of temporarily vetoing bills (and I will take this opportunity to remind everyone that the reason the King's veto over legislation is now temporary is an amendment that I passed). The claim that a Monarch's political activity devalues the Monarchy only makes sense if you already believe the Monarch should not get involved in politics.

Can anyone provide an example of how the Talossan Monarchy has actually curtailed anyone's rights? How it converts Talossa into a plaything of the King's allies? Makes it a relic of the past? Talossa is wide open for any citizen; go out there and make it yours! The King is not standing in your way (the bureaucracy sometimes does though, which is why I am still committed to AMP as a think tank...).

Talossa, like all other vibrant societies, must continually change! On that I agree. But there are more changes available than an ever-more anti-Monarchy programme of Organic amendments. Change comes via the citizens engaging with each other. The Monarchy doesn't hinder that, and I would argue can encourage it, if operating at its best.

Accusations that Monarchists are "politically stagnant" take an extremely narrow view of what constitutes freshness, and how Talossa can be taken into the future

Finally, the King very rarely vetoes anything that is not related to reducing his own prerogatives. So, for all of the (quite understandable) bellyaching about the King's antics, what does it matter if the King protects his power if he never does anything else with it? It's a self-licking ice cream cone.

I'm not arguing that Talossa is like other countries, however, I am arguing that principles that are ingrained in what is meant by a Constitutional monarchy, have existed and predates Talossa,  and is generally accepted Apolitcial Monarchy, which is the case for all the constitutional monarchies I have come across, and from what I can tell, is a KEY part of what constitutes a constitutional monarchy.  Due to that being how a constitutional monarchy survives.
Also you argue that there is no way that the monarch can infringe upon the rights of its Citizens? By virtue of vetoing a bill, the Monarchy is slapping down the rights of the people who sent MCs and Senators to the Ziu, even if temporarily, and infringing upon the political fray with voicing their political opinions on something. Whether or not the Ziu can override a veto is irrelevant. The act of the Monarch not adhering to the democratically ELECTED government of Talossa, and stating an opinion publicly against this, is undermining the principles which are at the heart of what a democracy is.
Also I find it hilarious that you don't equate a figurehead monarchy and a constitutional monarchy AS THE SAME THING, as that's what they are. The same thing.

Also as I said in my post, I support the Monarchy of the UK, although I do believe they should have less power than they have on paper, so I do believe reform is needed, to make the country even more democratic. However, one of the main key reasons I support them is because Queen Elizabeth II does remain apolitical, and only acts ON ADVICE OF GOVERNMENT, despite what powers they still technically possess. They defer to and accept the will of Parliament.
So this begs the question, of if we are a constitutional monarchy, why do we tolerate the trespass into the political fray by King John? I mean no disrespect to His Majesty; however, it isn't the cleverest move for a monarch to voice a political opinion on anything. This restraint is a key aspect of why constitutional monarchies work, and if this restraint on the monarchy's part isn't kept in place, then that does create a clear and present threat and weakening of and to the democracy in which we live in.

There are options to wat we can choose going forward, you are right, and I expect those debates to come. And you are right in so far that we do need to have these debates. However from what I can tell, although yes the FreeDems in the majority of its members are in favour of Abolishing the monarchy, that is not what is in the party platform, as what is being proposed in our platform is "a ranked choice referendum on the powers of the King: choosing between the status quo, a Monarchy with only emergency powers, and an elected Head of State."
So what actions we do take will be on the democratic will of the people, not based on purely driving our political agenda. As it would be political suicide to peruse something which the majority of the population opposed. Whether they place us in power or not. Yes, our ultimate goal is a republic (which I have been coming evermore in favour of for Talossa), it is not something we can achieve without the country behind us. So we have been and will continue to argue our case. (I apologise to  Miestră if I'm assuming to much in speaking this in the way I have)

What is more important that following a political agenda, is doing what's best for the country, in a way that improves things for the country, with reforms and policies, that the country is behind. The will of the people, and the democratic voice are key principles that must always be protected, and our monarchy is undermining.

Also my final points will be to say, that I never said, or implied that being a monarchist party automatically means you are "stagnant" I was merely pointing out that the opposition parties have the characteristics of also being politically stagnant, with little to no meaningful policy platforms that I have seen.
Lastly, your last point I have addressed many times in different ways throughout this reply. Just because the monarch has the powers, it does NOT mean that the monarchy SHOULD use them.
This isn't a question of the Kings reasons for veto, but questions raised by the King using the power of veto against the advice of the Government. It isn't an easy role of being Monarch, but if you are to have the role, in a constitutional monarchy, then you must accept the principles of the country, and fully uphold them. And if the King can't, then he should just abdicate and be done with it.
As the values and principles in a democracy, and a democratic society, leave no place for dangerous intervention by a Monarch, as that could be seen as a slow erosion of democratic principles, leading ever so slightly closer to an absolute monarchy, if these what you might call "small" uses of veto powers remain unchecked.
I doubt this would have convinced you, but I hope it has caused you to pause and fully consider the full implications of why the King veto's are dangerous for Talossa, whether you agree with me or not, I do hope that this informs you just a little and causes some reflection over your position. And I look forward to hearing your response (whatever that might be)
And sorry for the length of this, I didn't realise I has do much to say in reply (although I feel I might  have repeated myself too much)

Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on July 17, 2020, 07:40:31 PM

Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on July 17, 2020, 04:20:17 PM
For all that I've said above and more. I ask my fellow citizens to vote for FreeDems in the coming election, for a party that truly cares about the people, and has been, is and will continue to be a force for Change to build Talossa that we can all believe and take pride in.

There are fewer active Talossans each year, and even those who are active are much less active than before.  Fewer Talossans vote in each election.

You yourself are a good example of the drop-off in interest... you have eleven posts here, total, even though this Witt became official in February.  In the year prior, you posted more than a thousand times on the old Witt.  And there can be all kinds of reasons for that, but you're not the only citizen who's approximately 1% as interested in Talossa as they used to be.

So if you're advertising the Free Democrats, your pitch should probably not be, "We're going to keep making Talossa great."  Things aren't going great.  Your pitch should probably be, "We're going to dramatically change our approach to account for the dramatic decline in interest on our watch."

That is unfair, as i have on many occasions stated the reasons why im not as active as i would like to be, and it is not due to a lack of interest. It is due to my mental health, and trying to work through things. Which i have been completely open about. If i was more able to, I would have been a lot more active. Also the number that you quoted about my activity, wasn't done in one year but since I've been a Talossan (since 2012ish).

Also from what I can tell, a lot of the people who have become inactive over the years since I've been a citizen are disenfranchised supporters of the old RUMP party, and conservatives in Talossa, who from what i can tell, instead of staying to defend their position and keep an opposition going, they decided to give up. With limited numbers choosing to remain. I may have missed some things over the years, but from what i can see, thats what happened.

Also after re reading my post many times i fail to see how you acquaint it with me saying "We're going to keep making Talossa great" as although yes I do believe that the FreeDems are the best choice for our nation, they're are faults with the country, which we may politically disagree on (FreeDems and yourself), and have debates on, but that does not mean that you should drag things to a personal level whist avoiding the actual principles at stake, as you have in your characterisation of myself and my interest in Talossa, whist ignoring the fundamental principles that I have been advocating for in my post.

Also you argue that we need to drastically change course, I think that the populace disagrees, otherwise the RUMP would still be in power and the FreeDems would never have been in government in the first place. Also you paint all of those who have declined activity with one brush, not acknowledging that there may be a range of issues that have prevented people from taking part more.

Things in Talossa have improved and progress over the last few Cosas has been great, though more does need to be done, especially to make the system more democratic especially in regards to the monarchy. I do apologise if you don't like the direction, but instead of complaining about things and pointing out what you perceive as flaws in the Government, you could try to build an effective opposition, and have counter proposals, and engage in meaningful debates, which will bring more life into Talossa, that just criticising people you don't agree with.
It is not for the FreeDems to change out approach, but for those who disagree to provide credible plans to put to the Government through their terms and the People in elections, and show that you have a vision for the future and make people believe in you. Which is the heart of what a democracy is, a healthy exchange of policy ideas and allowing the people to decide where they want the country to go, no matter whether you agree with the outcome or not. And it is those democratic principles that we need to protect.

More than any election I have taken part in during my time as a citizen of Talossa, I feel that this is one of the most important. As this is a crossroads in Talossan politics, especially with the many controversies the monarchy has caused which has sparked a debate on the role of the monarch in its current state and going forward into the future. This is something I haven't voiced my opinions on much if at all in this time due to not keeping fully up to date, and other more personal issues. But I think the time has come to share my views.

As many of you might know, I am from the UK, where we have one of the oldest constitutional monarchies in the world, which has inspired others of its type across the world. The way the monarchy functions in the UK is why I support its existence (I do recognise they're issues and reform does need to take place), it remains mostly apolitical, keeping their political opinions behind closed doors, and never go against the democratically elected government, and never will veto their laws, which is a critical part of the concept of constitutional monarchy, so it can survive. And consistently whilst I've been a citizen of Talossa, this crucial test has been failed by King John.

Time and time again the Monarch has gone against the will of a DEMOCRATICALLY elected government in Talossa, whilst providing political analysis at the same time. So, remaining far from apolitical, the monarch has deemed fit to throw them into the political array, whilst drastically devaluing the value of the monarchy.

For many years I have thought that Talossa as a Kingdom is not viable for the future, especially in its current form.

We as Talossan's have a vital choice ahead of us in these coming elections, do we value the democratic values which Talossa strives to be, and the rights that are afforded to us all, where the government works for Talossa, for the people, striving to take Talossa into the future and make Talossa thrive with activity.

Or once again become politically stagnant, under a monarchist party, which are largely opposed to change, relegating Talossa as a relic of the past, and a play thing of the monarchy and their allies, whilst ignoring the development the amazing rich and diverse country we have here In Talossa.

For all that I've said above and more. I ask my fellow citizens to vote for FreeDems in the coming election, for a party that truly cares about the people, and has been, is and will continue to be a force for Change to build Talossa that we can all believe and take pride in.

I apologise if this is a bit late, howver i only just saw this post, As the Başbakan of Atatürk, I request that the chancery helps in our elections, as we do not currently have the facilites or legistlation to conduct these ourselves.

As we have moved to a new Witt, we should have our Constitution of this Province on display in our halls, so here it is :-


WE, the citizens of the Talossan Province of Atatürk, in order to assure the vibrant and continued life of our Province, ESTABLISH the following Constitution for the governance of Atatürk. This constitution shall serve as the guide for the citizens and highest provincial law for the province of Atatürk. It shall be superseded only by the following: the dictates of the Organic Law of the Kingdom of Talossa, the statutory law of the Kingdom of Talossa as pertaining to the specific limits of the power of the national Ziu as detailed within that Organic Law, and the rights of the citizenry as ensured by that Organic Law's Covenant of Rights and Freedoms. This constitution shall be considered to fulfill the requirements for provincial "rules of operations" as detailed in Article XVII, Section 9, paragraph D of the Organic Law, for the province of Atatürk alone, and shall be considered so in perpetuity. This constitution shall only be repealed or amended by the process detailed within this document. Upon proclamation of this Constitution, all Laws contrary to its provisions or superseded thereby, are instantly repealed. Other Laws, which are not in conflict with this Constitution, shall remain in force.


ARTICLE I. THE PROVINCE and CITIZENS

Section 1:
The name of the Province is Atatürk.

Section 2:
Citizens of the Province of Atatürk shall be known as Atatürkeys or Atatürkers. A status of "Good Standing" will be granted to citizens who have voted in the most recent General Election.

Section 3:
The Official Languages of Atatürk shall be El Glheþ Talossan, and English.

Section 4:
The Provincial Flag, Arms, and other Patriotic Depictions not established in this Constitution shall be decided by Law.

Section 5:
The subdivisions of the Province of Atatürk consist of the Cantons of Flúvia-Montevúdio and Abbavilla. The Capital of Atatürk is Abbavilla in the Canton of Abbavilla.


ARTICLE II. THE HOUSE of COMMONS and THE BAşBAKAN

Section 1:
Provincial lawmaking powers will be vested in the Atatürk House of Commons. The number of seats in the House of Common shall equal 10% of the number of seats in the Cosa. The allocation of the seats amongst political parties will correspond to the percentage of provincial votes each registered party received in the most recent General Election, rounded to the nearest whole number, to be assigned by party leaders, in accordance with Article VI of the Organic Law.

Section 2:
Members of the House of Commons shall be Atatürkeys in good standing, at least fourteen years of age, and shall not have a criminal record in Talossa.

Section 3:
The House of Commons will elect one member of the House of Commons to be the Speaker of the Chamber and Executive of Atatürk, or the Başbakan, by a majority vote. The Başbakan will serve for the duration of a Cosa, unless removed by a two-thirds vote of the House of Commons. The Başbakan will coordinate the business of the House of Commons, maintain order, and may dictate points of order and rules of conduct with the chamber.

Section 4:
The Başbakan is entitled to use the Provincial Gong to keep order in debates, and may also wield the Ceremonial Mace of Atatürk.

Section 5:
The House of Commons will meet on an "as-needed" basis when called to do so by the Başbakan. If the House of Commons has not assembled for business for a period of 6 months, the Başbakan will call for a general meeting of the House of Commons to allow for the introduction of any new business and to discuss the overall state of affairs in the Province.

Section 6:
Any member of the House of Commons may, at any time, present proposed measures to the Başbakan within the House of Commons chambers, which will be known as Bills. The Başbakan will then issue a "Summons to Vote" to the House of Commons by posting a clearly-marked thread on Wittenberg, or in a prominent place on the streets of Atatürk. It is acceptable for the Başbakan to hold a Bill for up to 14 days before issuing a "Summons to Vote" should he/she feel that more discussion is required to bring the proposal into a suitable condition for a vote, or to allow for two or more proposals to be presented for vote at one time.

Section 7:
Upon calling for a vote, the Başbakan will make a reasonable effort to assure that every member of the House of Commons is given suitable opportunity to cast their vote. All votes will be public, and voting will be closed at the end of the 14th day following the call to vote. Votes may be cast by posting in the thread of a "Summons to Vote," and by any other methods deemed suitable by the Başbakan.

Section 8:
A Bill that functions as a provincial statute requires a simple majority to pass. A Bill that would change the system of governance (such as abolishment or amendments to a constitution) will be known as a referendum and require a 2/3 majority within the House of Commons and subsequent approval by a majority of Atatürkeys.

A: The Başbakan may call for a provincial vote on a referendum at any time during the term of a Cosa. If a vote has not been conducted prior to the General Election, the Başbakan shall make every reasonable effort to contact all Atatürkeys and inform them of the additional referendum vote.

B: The vote may take place via similar methods outlined in Article II, Section 7 above.

Section 9:
Should a Bill pass the House of Commons, it shall be submitted to the King or to his Cunstaval for Royal Assent. Upon signature by the King or his Cunstaval, a Bill immediately carries the force of Law within the boundaries of this fair Province.

Section 10:
The King or his Cunstaval may Veto a Bill, thereby returning it to the House of Commons, who may reconsider it. If the King or his Cunstaval does not sign or Veto a Bill within three weeks of its passage of the House of Commons, he shall be deemed to have signed it, and it shall enter into law.

Section 11:
The House of Commons shall not pass acts of attainder.


ARTICLE III. The CUNSTAVAL

Section 1:
The Cunstaval is appointed by the reigning monarch of Talossa as the formal representative of the Crown in Atatürk.

Section 2:
In accordance with Article III, Section 2 of the Organic Law, the Cunstaval has the equivalent royal powers as the monarch within Atatürk.


ARTICLE IV. The JUDICIARY

Section 1:
The Province of Atatürk reserves the right to establish a provincial judicial system in accordance with the Organic Law.


ARTICLE V. AMENDMENT

This Constitution may be amended only by the process outlined in Article II, Section 8 above.

RATIFICATION

Seeing as how us Atatürkeys decided that we might like one of those Con-sti-too-shun things and drafted one on a really fancy piece of restaurant place mat, in crayon, it's now my turn to put on a hat of some fashion and proclaim it in as much of an official capacity as my sobriety allows.

Me BRAD, by proximity of birth and great stoke of luck, flunky and stooge (also known as Cunstavál) of JOHN, by the Grace of God King of Talossa and of all its Realms and Regions, King of Cézembre, Sovereign Lord and Protector of Pengöpäts and the New Falklands, Defender of the Faith, Leader of the Armed Forces, Viceroy of Hoxha and Vicar of Atatürk, do hereby proclaim the Provincial Constitution of Atatürk as was ratified by the citizens of Atatürk on the 16th of February.

Done with one hand tied behind my back in the City of Norfolk in Virginia, this feast of Saint Cuthbert, the 20th day of March in the year of salvation 2010, being the 31st of the independence of Talossa, and of our gracious sovereign JOHN'S reign the 3rd.