Union of Free Reformists: The Democracy Agenda

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

The Union of Free Reformists is the Party of Talossan Democracy, an ideal we place so much importance on that is in the first sentence of our party's platform.

In an era where a party which explicitly does not believe in democracy will be part of the Government, the defense of Talossan democracy is more important than ever. Therefore, as part of our rebuilding towards the 63rd Cosa, the Union of Free Reformists is opening broad debate on a Democracy Agenda.

As the last election shows, simply defending Talossa's current, flawed, democratic procedures won't seize the popular imagination. We must dare something worthy -- dare to dream of a more democratic Talossa. One where the popular will can be expressed freely and fairly; where that will can manifest in an empowered yet accountable Government, able to enact a political program, yet restrained by basic democratic rights and by the ballot box.

A situation of "elective dictatorship" is not a democratic one; nor is one of permanent institutional gridlock, where a determined minority can prevent things from happening forever. Any attempts to repower the monarchy, on the other hand, will revive trauma reactions from anyone who lived under King Robert I, the equivalent of a "Liechtenstein monarchy".

The URL therefore pledges to promote one bill for a major democratic reform on every one of the Clarks of the 62nd Cosa term, even if it manages to last all six. In the event that these bills are not adopted by the Ziu, they will form the basis for our program for the 63rd Cosa election. The "Pseudo-Real Cosa", proposed by URL-affiliate MC-elect Marcel Tafial will be the first of these.

This thread will be for elaboration and discussion on these bills as well as other democratic proposals. Non-URL members will be welcome to participate, although if necessary they will be "moderated with a blowtorch", to borrow one member's phrasing.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

An Opposition committed to democracy has to be a good thing for the nation, one assumes. I hope this legislation will get a second wind: https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=4183.0

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

A few other options have been raised as part of a broader Democracy Agenda. Here are some I'd like to throw in the pot:

• Water down the Royal veto. You guys know that I love His Maj, despite my republicanism, and I trust him to use his veto wisely. On principle, though, I still don't think it should exist. If I had my way, I'd reduce the Royal veto to the discretion to refer a bill to the CpI for an opinion on its Organicity, for ordinary legislation; and nothing for OrgLaw amendments (in the latter case, the people's vote in referendum should be the only veto).
• Repeal of Organic Law XII.4: "Proposed changes to this Organic Law that affect the representation of a province in the Senäts, or of the territory or equal sovereignty of a province, shall not take effect unless approved by a majority of participating voters in that province." There is already a provision that messing with the Senäts requires a 2/3 majority in the Senäts. This provision requires near-total unanimity in the whole nation to make any changes to the provincial basis of Senäts election. That's more than it would require to fully depower that body. Anti-democracy in action, and unjustifiable on its merits. At least fold this provision into XII.1 so the threshold is the same. OR: perhaps you could just put "the equal representation"?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Here's another one, which I just brought up in another thread: narrow down or eliminate the ability of parties to allocate seats off-list.

1) Requiring bigger party lists means that parties have to be "real parties", collectives based around a platform, not a figurehead nominating expendable pawns. (Admittedly, the latter is Talossan tradition.)

2) There's something gross and sneaky about how a party can give seats, post-election, to someone whose presence on their list would have sunk their chances in the election.

There's also a vague idea about adding requirements for parties to choose their lists in a democratic and open fashion, rather than the leader doling them out at whim, but I'm not sure how we'd work that.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

It is a big problem in my opinion that MCs are merely custodians of party power instead of being elected and acting on their own behalf. Even for a proportional system, the way that seats are literally portioned out like slices of a pie is really strange to me.

This circumstance might contribue to the way the Cosă functions on a day-to-day basis: bills are put forward mainly by party leadership, and most rhetorical mud fights are also between party leaders, while the rest of the Cosă silently spectates on the sidelines waiting for the monthly Chancery email reminding them to vote on the Clark arrives in their inbox, just to unquestioningly vote the way the party leadership commands them to. Every parliamentary system has backbenchers of course, but the ratio here seems to be way off.

In an ideal world, MCs would be empowered enough to act on their own. Maybe an electoral reform, or even a switch to a different voting system entirely, can effect this change.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

I am *very* supportive of an electoral reform that would mean that individual MCs rather than just parties would be subject to accountability from voters. A minimal way of doing this might be "open party lists", where you can choose a party but give "yes" or "no" votes to individual candidates within that party. A maximal way might be Single Transferable Vote.

There could also be room for "parliamentary reform". Like, every MC can only speak in the Hopper or the Ziu a certain number of times a month. So party leaders would have to at least delegate.

[Mximo Malt]

So party leaders would have to at least delegate.

[Mximo Malt]

So party leaders would have to at least delegate.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

I'm sure you'll understand that little parties are not the problem. The problem is where you have a big party with many votes, but it's not actually a "party" as such but one guy who owns the "brand" and interprets the whole thing as a vote for him personally. Such a party would only hand out seats if it had to, to compliant nobodies whose job was just to shut up and do what they're told.

I was going to go on that that would be antidemocratic, but then you'd like that :D

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

Since it's been mentioned more than once now, I should note that yes, I intend to pursue the Upper House of Review Amendment as part of the Democracy Agenda.

Here's another one, which I just brought up in another thread: narrow down or eliminate the ability of parties to allocate seats off-list.

...

There's also a vague idea about adding requirements for parties to choose their lists in a democratic and open fashion, rather than the leader doling them out at whim, but I'm not sure how we'd work that.

At least in the vein of "narrowing down", I would argue that parties should only be able to allocate seats to off-list candidates if they are unable to legally assign any seats to candidates on-list. The 1/3 limit would (and in my opinion should) remain untouched, but also preference should be more clearly in favor of the listed candidates.

As to the latter idea, it's a fine one in spirit, but I would argue there's a right for parties as private organizations to conduct their internal affairs as they see fit within the broad confines of the law. This is more a point of principle than a legal issue; something on which to judge parties when in the polling booth.

It is a big problem in my opinion that MCs are merely custodians of party power instead of being elected and acting on their own behalf. Even for a proportional system, the way that seats are literally portioned out like slices of a pie is really strange to me.

This circumstance might contribue to the way the Cosă functions on a day-to-day basis: bills are put forward mainly by party leadership, and most rhetorical mud fights are also between party leaders, while the rest of the Cosă silently spectates on the sidelines waiting for the monthly Chancery email reminding them to vote on the Clark arrives in their inbox, just to unquestioningly vote the way the party leadership commands them to. Every parliamentary system has backbenchers of course, but the ratio here seems to be way off.

In an ideal world, MCs would be empowered enough to act on their own. Maybe an electoral reform, or even a switch to a different voting system entirely, can effect this change.

I am *very* supportive of an electoral reform that would mean that individual MCs rather than just parties would be subject to accountability from voters. A minimal way of doing this might be "open party lists", where you can choose a party but give "yes" or "no" votes to individual candidates within that party. A maximal way might be Single Transferable Vote.

There could also be room for "parliamentary reform". Like, every MC can only speak in the Hopper or the Ziu a certain number of times a month. So party leaders would have to at least delegate.

While I've obviously gone on record as supporting a Mixed-Member Proportional Cosa, if we are to remain a bicameral legislature, it would seem there's a spectrum of "making individual MCs accountable to voters", along the lines of:

• Closed-list proportional representation (current method)
• Open-list proportional representation
• Panachage / free vote (I actually like panachage tbh)
• Something like proportional approval voting or single transferable vote

Realistically, any of the alternatives would be an improvement, though one of the dangers of the public ballot is that people likely feel pressured to avoid making any of the major political figures angry with them, so a more "personal" form of counting votes should likely be coupled with a more private method of casting them.

Fully on-board with Sir Marcel's arguments in favor of a smaller Cosa.

And we should probably look at formalizing and empowering the offices of Tuischac'h and Mençei, to let them maintain better order in their chambers.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Since it's been mentioned more than once now, I should note that yes, I intend to pursue the Upper House of Review Amendment...

Glad to get confirmation you are moving forward with this.