LCC Leadership Election (+ Recruitment Thread)

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

accomplished by the same techniques outlined in http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~unger/articles/irv.html (see "some electoral suprises" ) while a simple "do you want a hereditary King or Queen - yes or no" was diluted by shaded options to confuse the issue and split the vote.
Fait accompli.

This characterisation of the referendum is just as disingenuous and fallacious as the first time you brought it up. No vote was split, nothing was diluted. The pro-hereditary camp lost, end of story.

[Tierçéu Rôibeardescù]

As I was not leader of the opposition at the time I was not in a position to attempt to change the policy and I'm not going to retred that ground (yes yes I was a MC however I kept my promise as Speaker of the Cosa an attempt of impartiality). Fresh start. Let us begin.

[GV]

The strategy is not to have a monarch, but a 7 year president with veto powers, who can be re-elected, accomplished by the same techniques outlined in http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~unger/articles/irv.html (see "some electoral suprises" ) while a simple "do you want a hereditary King or Queen - yes or no" was diluted by shaded options to confuse the issue and split the vote.
Fait accompli.

Good or bad, a King or Queen is outside the bounds of election, (similar to a Justice of the Supreme Court in the US) after their initial appointment, until their demise or resignation.  This is fundamental concept.

This fundamental concept was Ben Madison's greatest weapon against Kane Gruber in 2004. 

[Tierçéu Rôibeardescù]

The strategy is not to have a monarch, but a 7 year president with veto powers, who can be re-elected, accomplished by the same techniques outlined in http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~unger/articles/irv.html (see "some electoral suprises" ) while a simple "do you want a hereditary King or Queen - yes or no" was diluted by shaded options to confuse the issue and split the vote.
Fait accompli.

Good or bad, a King or Queen is outside the bounds of election, (similar to a Justice of the Supreme Court in the US) after their initial appointment, until their demise or resignation.  This is fundamental concept.

This fundamental concept was Ben Madison's greatest weapon against Kane Gruber in 2004.

Although this is interesting and I have been educating myself on the topic, could we now get back to the leadership election.
There's a whole wide Witt to discuss upon this :)

[Ian Plätschisch]

The strategy is not to have a monarch, but a 7 year president with veto powers, who can be re-elected, accomplished by the same techniques outlined in http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~unger/articles/irv.html (see "some electoral suprises" ) while a simple "do you want a hereditary King or Queen - yes or no" was diluted by shaded options to confuse the issue and split the vote.
Fait accompli.

Good or bad, a King or Queen is outside the bounds of election, (similar to a Justice of the Supreme Court in the US) after their initial appointment, until their demise or resignation.  This is fundamental concept.

This fundamental concept was Ben Madison's greatest weapon against Kane Gruber in 2004.

Although this is interesting and I have been educating myself on the topic, could we now get back to the leadership election.
There's a whole wide Witt to discuss upon this :)

The election is happening on our Facebook page; this was just an announcement

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Okay, starting from scratch.

What upset me about Txosuè's recent speeches was not the politics so much as the ad hominem attacks on my side of politics. It's sadly common for me to be told by Talossan conservatives that, even when reformists and republicans win elections and votes, it is illegitimate because conservatives are "bullied", "ostracised", "disenfranchised" or even "cancelled". The question is whether it is fair for them to feel this way, or whether it is just a way to make people feel bad (and thus demobilise them) for winning support for policies they oppose.

This kind of thing happens in US politics a lot these days, and it's in bad faith - there is no way that progressives can "make conservatives feel less bullied" but complete political surrender. There is no way that we can phrase our politics less confrontationally, because it is not the vehemence of the views that they're objecting to, it's the views themselves, which they consider illegitimate. Same in Talossa - there is no way that I can make conservatives like me apart from giving up my political project, or of course becoming inactive altogether, as the Regent kindly pointed out. If this is true - if the monarchy cannot be questioned, if reform proposals cannot even be considered because it hurts conservatives in the feels - then Talossa is not a democracy. And most of us will quit if that's the case.

Does anyone want a new National Schism, for a new Republic to split from the Kingdom? Anyone? Because that's where we're going if we can't have open and respectful political debate which ends up in a compromise that perhaps no-one really likes, but everyone can live with. The results of the referendum show a knife-edge division between Status Quo and Republic. We need a compromise between the two blocs, because neither bloc can be defeated and excluded without a new National Schism. 55RZ21 was created in "cross-party talks" between the FreeDems and the old LCC leadership to be precisely that compromise.

What really crossed the line was Txosuè's accusation that I am motivated by "hatred" for King John. As GV says, this is precisely the kind of thing that King Robert used to say - that his opponents were motivated by "hate" rather than political principle, and therefore they were not true Talossans, that no compromise was possible or admissible, and any means were necessary to defeat, punish and exclude them. This is the language of demonisation, of creeping fascism, of turning political debates into contests of Good vs. Evil where the opposition needs to be destroyed rather than defeated. Please never use it again.

I want these endless constitutional debates to end in a solution that both major blocs can accept, if not fall in love with, for a generation to come - something like the Belfast Agreement arrangements in the North of Ireland. If the incoming LCC leadership agrees to support the Historic Compromise, then that reduces the possibility of a really nasty fight over this issue in the incoming election (and reduces the incentive for the Regent to veto). That is the Free Democrats' first proposal re: new "cross-party talks".

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

accomplished by the same techniques outlined in http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~unger/articles/irv.html (see "some electoral suprises" ) while a simple "do you want a hereditary King or Queen - yes or no" was diluted by shaded options to confuse the issue and split the vote.
Fait accompli.

This characterisation of the referendum is just as disingenuous and fallacious as the first time you brought it up. No vote was split, nothing was diluted. The pro-hereditary camp lost, end of story.

This isn't quite right, The principle of hereditary monarchy was lost with the passage of 54RZ28. The current debate is over periodic renewal of the King's mandate.

Some people are going to die in a ditch that "King" means "King for life". Other people are going to die in a ditch about tossing out "King" in favour of "President". The historic compromise of 55RZ21 is not meant to placate either extreme, but the vast majority in between. I suppose someone has to be the Talossan equivalent of the north of Ireland's "loyalists" and "rejectionist republicans". Just lay off the bombs, guys.

[xpb]

My apologies.

I shouldn't have commented in the discussions of this party to which I have never been a member.

I suppose I am increasingly regretful about my participation in reunison - but then again I suppose no good deed goes unpunished.

[Tierçéu Rôibeardescù]

I want these endless constitutional debates to end in a solution that both major blocs can accept, if not fall in love with, for a generation to come - something like the Belfast Agreement arrangements in the North of Ireland. If the incoming LCC leadership agrees to support the Historic Compromise, then that reduces the possibility of a really nasty fight over this issue in the incoming election (and reduces the incentive for the Regent to veto). That is the Free Democrats' first proposal re: new "cross-party talks".

It appears the that we do have common ground then. I want to put this debate to bed and draw the line under this entire thing.

[Ián Tamorán S.H.]

...Had the lifetime monarchy won out convincingly, the Compromise never would have existed.  This is not what happened.  As with Brexit in the United Kingdom, and even more than with Brexit, the people gave themselves a split-decision.  Brexit was 52-48.  The monarchy referendum of 2020 was much closer. 
...

As an aside: Brexit is a ****ing disaster. Total ****ing disaster  :( :( :(

[GV]

...Had the lifetime monarchy won out convincingly, the Compromise never would have existed.  This is not what happened.  As with Brexit in the United Kingdom, and even more than with Brexit, the people gave themselves a split-decision.  Brexit was 52-48.  The monarchy referendum of 2020 was much closer. 
...

As an aside: Brexit is a ****ing disaster. Total ****ing disaster  :( :( :(

I know, I know...  :-(  Two different situations entirely, but I agree with you re Brexit.