May 2020 Results (54th Cosa, 5th Clark)

[Eiric S. Bornatfiglheu]

Or it needn't have a King.  Perhaps an eternal Regent?  Or a Holy Crown?  Or an office like the Sh'botay or Panarch from science fiction?  Talossans are a creative bunch, and those looking for pomp and ceremony could find something far more effective, I'm sure.

Yeah.  Talossa can definitely be whatever Talossa wants to be, but whatever Talossa decides to be I'm sure my Peculiarist friend will agree with me that political clout should not be held by one person holding a lifetime position.

Oh definitely not.  I would, in fact, be interested in working as a Peculiarist caucus to create a roadmap to a Peculiar Talossan Monarchy.  If you're interested.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

I thought you NPW types were balls-out Republicans? I am disappoint 

[Glüc da Dhi S.H.]

Section 2 The King shall assent to amendments proposed by the Cosa and Senäts unless he returns them with his objections within thirty days of their proposal, or within fifteen days in the case of amendments passed on the last Clark of a Cosa term. The King shall not refuse assent if the identical amendment is approved by three-quarters of the same Cosa with an absolute majority of the Senäts, or by two-thirds of the following Cosa with a simple majority of the Senäts. (53RZ18)"

A question for the SoS, to forestall any problems: do you read "an absolute majority of the Senäts" here to mean an absolute majority of the current Senators (i.e. 4 PËR votes / 7) or an absolute majority of Senäts seats (i.e. 5 PËR votes / ?

Kind of a moot point, because a Senator for Cézembre appears to have been appointed today, but intuitively I would say the former. To be honest I think the term absolute majority is rather vague. There is lots of precedent (plus a clause somewhere saying abstain votes arent counted to determine the outcome of a vote except where otherwise provided) for a majority meaning more votes in favour than against. Then again, this appears to be the only mention of the term absolute majority in the OrgLaw, so perhaps that doesn't apply here.

EDIT: Looked up the discussion on the 3/4th Majority and the "absolute" bit was definitely intentional to mean 5 votes in favour rather than more per than con votes. I wish it had been phrased more explicitly though. That still leaves open the question of whether we are talking an absolute majority of seats or senators. Having read the discussion I now think majority of seats was probably intended but it's not at all clear. We don't need to answer it now though, because there are eight Senators...

tldr: amendment needs 5 PER votes to pass.

[Eiric S. Bornatfiglheu]

I thought you NPW types were balls-out Republicans? I am disappoint 

If the door closes, open a window.

[Açafat del Val]

To remedy this, of course, it will be suggested that the King have a set term of office, three years or five years or whatever.  At which point we should simply change the name of the office from "King" to "President", and the name of the country to The Talossan Republic, and have done with it.  I mean, why pretend?

I agree! Why pretend? A republic would be far superior to a kingdom in the first place.

I for one think that Talossa should adopt a semi-presidential constitution (think France, Mongolia, or Portugal), but I could absolutely compromise on a parliamentary republic (think Germany, India, or Ireland).

Talossa can still be unique, can still "be fun", and can still have knighthoods and orders and writs and awards and coats of arms and all those sorts of things without a king. There is no reason why a republic, i.e. a non-monarchy, can't have previously monarchical things; in fact, all modern-day republics do!