Succession Solution Amendment

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Go into detail on the last section: "If the confirmation referendum described in section 5 should fail to achieve a majority any three times". Does this mean for one particular candidate, i.e. the King gets three goes at trying to impose a successor? Or, the King picks 3 different successors and each one get rejected?

I wonder whether there's merit in an opposite approach. If there's no Crown Princess, the Ziu picks a slate of 3 candidates, and the King chooses one?

These are only personal suggestions for discussion based on Miestra's suggestion:

What if the Ziu picks a slate of three with the King choosing from those three. But the King has the option of rejecting the first slate and sending it back to the Ziu. The Ziu sends a second slate and if the King rejects those again it is reversed. The King makes a selection and sends to the Ziu. In any of these three situations where a candidate is approved. They are to be approved in a public referendum by two-thirds vote.

That is three potential rounds with up to 7 potential candidates being considered. If there is no successful choice then we are in an exceptional situation which is where the Convocation suggested by Ian could be activated.

Would this address your concerns Miestra? Would this allow the King to have a significant say in choosing his successor, Baron?

Ian, as to #1 in your overview, I think the above proposal might be workable.

On point #2, I could support a recall petition along those lines.

Hopefully others will chime in but a proposal blending what I quoted above, Ian's petition proposal, along the lines of the Baron's initial draft might represent a workable way forward.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Let me work on this and see what can be done.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

I should point out that, as it stands, I see no incentive for Republican Talossans - or those who want an elective monarchy - to vote for his bill, because it would be a step back (for us) from the status quo. The status quo is: on the demise or abdication of the King, the Ziu would have to name a successor by the normal OrgLaw proposal. That would be better for us than the King naming a successor.

So I don't think this bill is going anywhere this Cosa (or at any time Republicans or reformists have 67 Cosa seats) unless it has a "sweetener". Thankfully the Seneschal has started the discussion on possible sweeteners.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Changes to the removal criteria were not a part of internal discussions so I can't speak for the party. But, personally, as an alternative to the confidence votes, I am open to it. I am also, personally open to the Ziu's involvement with the King making the final call.

Miestra, are these measures which would garner significant FreeDem support?

Mmmmmmmmaybe? As I said above, this has to be better for Free Democrats than the status quo to get our support. For me, a way to democratically remove a non-performing King might be enough of a sweetener to swallow a less-democratic way of choosing a successor. That way there would be something in it for Monarchists as well as Republicans, if you see what I mean. We will get nowhere if either side has an incentive to simply block any reforms because the status quo is preferable.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Go into detail on the last section: "If the confirmation referendum described in section 5 should fail to achieve a majority any three times". Does this mean for one particular candidate, i.e. the King gets three goes at trying to impose a successor? Or, the King picks 3 different successors and each one get rejected?

I wonder whether there's merit in an opposite approach. If there's no Crown Princess, the Ziu picks a slate of 3 candidates, and the King chooses one?

These are only personal suggestions for discussion based on Miestra's suggestion:

What if the Ziu picks a slate of three with the King choosing from those three. But the King has the option of rejecting the first slate and sending it back to the Ziu. The Ziu sends a second slate and if the King rejects those again it is reversed. The King makes a selection and sends to the Ziu. In any of these three situations where a candidate is approved. They are to be approved in a public referendum by two-thirds vote.

That is three potential rounds with up to 7 potential candidates being considered. If there is no successful choice then we are in an exceptional situation which is where the Convocation suggested by Ian could be activated.

Would this address your concerns Miestra? Would this allow the King to have a significant say in choosing his successor, Baron?

Ian, as to #1 in your overview, I think the above proposal might be workable.

On point #2, I could support a recall petition along those lines.

Hopefully others will chime in but a proposal blending what I quoted above, Ian's petition proposal, along the lines of the Baron's initial draft might represent a workable way forward.

Miestra, are you referring to this summary not having a sweetener? The recall petition would be a pretty big sweetener in my opinion.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

I repeat: Maybe the recall petition would be enough, but I'd have to see the details. And I can't imagine I'd vote for any process (either for removal or for nominating a successor) which is too complicated/has too many steps.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

I repeat: Maybe the recall petition would be enough, but I'd have to see the details. And I can't imagine I'd vote for any process (either for removal or for nominating a successor) which is too complicated/has too many steps.

Complicated, right.
I am glad to hear the recall petition could be a step forward and that the TNC proposal might be the basis for an enduring solution.

I wanted to add something via this edit: Thank you to the Seneschal and Miestra for engaging with the proposal. This is actually an exciting moment.

[xpb]

Thank you for your feedback.  I don't want to be unreasonable, but this represents a pretty careful months-long effort to bring together a number of stakeholders with very different views.  So please believe me when I say that I'm going to do my best, but I think only some of what you propose is possible. 

On one hand, I see what you mean, but on the other, it's kind of irritating. If you were having a months-long discussion with the goal of presenting a nearly-finished amendment, it probably should have included everyone important enough to have their own entrance music (i.e., the Seneschal).

With that aside, I think there are two conceptually distinct aspects of Monarchy reform that both need to be addressed:
1. How should a new King be selected?
2. How should the current King be able to be replaced before their death or voluntary abdication?

Unlike my fellow Free Democrats, I am not that concerned with #1. I personally like my Convocation idea but the other proposals seem mostly fine to me as well (although I am not sure a new King should be able to be elected with only a bare majority of the votes). I think it is fine if the current King gets a say over their successor, and I do not think the democratic-ness of the selection process should be the overriding consideration, as long as there is an element of democracy involved.

As should surprise no one, I am very concerned with #2. A King could be doing a very poor job without committing anything actually criminal, so I don't think the current mechanisms for removing the King pass muster. I understand the aversion to regular votes of confidence, though. What about this:

If the Secretary of State is presented with a petition signed by 1/3 of all the citizens of Talossa to remove the King, then the Secretary of State shall call a referendum on the question. The King is removed if at least 3/5 of the votes are in favor.

Now there is no fixed term of office. I will also point out, given the nature of Talossa, getting 1/3 of all Talossans on the petition would be an enormous task, so this isn't something that could be done willy-nilly.

Without regard to any other parts of this (and it would likely be well within a partisan effort to get a petition of one-third) I don't recall any other place in the law where there is a 60% supermajority vote, only 66⅔

[Ian Plätschisch]

Is there any update on this? I would imagine it will not be proposed this Cosa, but I am interested to hear any developments.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I don't have any immediate updates, since I had to mostly set aside Talossan stuff for the past few weeks (which is why I was pretty quiet).  I'm working on it -- I really want this to be a solved issue that we can set aside and stop fighting about.  But finding a solution that is palatable to everyone is crazy hard, since some monarchists feel like some recent proposals are just a stalking horse for the next step to ending the monarchy, and some republicans feel like they'd be signing up for the end of their movement if they agreed to anything.  I do think the gap can be bridged with a sufficiently thoughtful approach.  I appreciate the earnest and thoughtful engagement so many have already given the proposal.

We can and will find a point of agreement to settle this issue that is mutually (un)satisfactory to His Majesty, supporters of strong monarchy, and supporters of republicanism.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I'd like to reintroduce this to the current Cosa.  I will be contacting stakeholders again soon, to see if there's a path forward right now.

One thing right off the bat that might be able to be done: @Ian Plätschisch , you were very open to this proposal initially, but suggested you'd like something more selective than an open election, and also an easier means to remove the monarch.  If the method of selection of a candidate were by means of the convocation thing you invented for your own monarch selection bill, compromising between the two, would you be in support of this?  I know it wouldn't be your ideal, but I'm not sure that everyone would sign off on a way to make it much easier to remove the monarch beyond the existing methods that permit removal with one vote in case of mis or non feasance.  I don't want the perfect to be the enemy of the good, here -- let's get a system in place that hits this great sweet spot with the strength of the monarchy but also the voice of the people.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

No, no, and no.

If the King is allowed to nominate his own replacement, we all know who he will nominate.

He will nominate the same person who he nominated as Regent when he "ragequit" last time.

And that is simply unacceptable, and would lead to mass renunciations.

There is absolutely no incentive for people who are not members of the TNC and are not part of its "personality cult" to support this amendment. As it stands, when the King abdicates or passes to his great reward, his replacement will be chosen by the regular procedure of Organic Law. And that's much better than letting him name a successor to lord it over us. So let it be.

Trying to "get around" Senator Plätschisch as an individual will have no reward. The Free Democrat majority in the Senäts will vote as a team on this issue. If you have an option which might be better for reformist or Republican opinion - the people who were elected on a platform that this current King must go - we crave to hear it, but we doubt it.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

No, no, and no.

If the King is allowed to nominate his own replacement, we all know who he will nominate.

He will nominate the same person who he nominated as Regent when he "ragequit" last time.

And that is simply unacceptable, and would lead to mass renunciations.

Fascinating.
Who would renounce in an actual "ragequit" rather than a theorized one?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

No, no, and no.

If the King is allowed to nominate his own replacement, we all know who he will nominate.

He will nominate the same person who he nominated as Regent when he "ragequit" last time.

And that is simply unacceptable, and would lead to mass renunciations.

Fascinating.
Who would renounce in an actual "ragequit" rather than a theorized one?

Preserving this against the inevitable deletion, once the Seneschal realises he just said "WELL GET OUT THEN, THERE'S THE DOOR" to a large proportion of the nation.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

No, no, and no.

If the King is allowed to nominate his own replacement, we all know who he will nominate.

He will nominate the same person who he nominated as Regent when he "ragequit" last time.

And that is simply unacceptable, and would lead to mass renunciations.

Fascinating.
Who would renounce in an actual "ragequit" rather than a theorized one?

Preserving this against the inevitable deletion, once the Seneschal realises he just said "WELL GET OUT THEN, THERE'S THE DOOR" to a large proportion of the nation.

And it is also saved for the next time you make this threat, Miestra.