FREE DEMOCRATS PARTY CONVENTION starts February 15

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

All right, here are my suggested rewrites for @Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir's constitutional amendments. I have rephrased her second suggestion as a rewrite to Section XIII of the Constitution, to which it properly pertains.

So, my suggestion is that Section IV be changed to read:

"IV.
a, Membership shall be open to all Talossan citizens who agree to abide by this Constitution, endorse the Party Policy, and are not currently members of another nationally registered party. However, the rights of any party member in good standing to seek changes to the Constitution or Policy in accordance with this Constitution shall never be infringed.

b. A prospective member must provide such contact information to the Party Secretary as the Party Secretary may ask for. The Party Secretary shall keep this information confidential, to be shared only with the Party Leadership, and used only for party business.

c. The Secretary of the Party shall be entitled, no more than once a year, to conduct a Census of all party members to make sure they still see themselves as Party members and that their contact details are up to date. A Party member who does not reply to this census within 30 days shall be deemed to have offered their resignation, which shall be accepted at the discretion of the Party Leadership.

And Section XIII:

XIII.
a) The Party Leadership, upon petition of at least 1/2 of party members or at its own initiative by majority vote, shall suspend members for:
i) stated violations of this Constitution;
ii) publicly voting for or joining another nationally registered party;
iii) bringing the party into disrepute in a stated way.

b) A suspension decision, the justification for it, and the provisions for lifting this suspension (as contained in the rest of this section) shall be communicated to the suspended member as soon as possible and through all possible means of communication. A suspended member's rights under this Constitution shall cease to apply during their suspension, including the right to participate in Party discussion forums.

c) On the first day of the next Party Convention, the Party Leadership shall publicly announce a recommendation for every suspended member whether to lift their suspension, continue their suspension until the next Convention, or to expel the member. A recommendation to lift suspension shall be effected immediately. A recommendation to continue suspension or to expel shall take effect after 5 days, unless the suspended member addresses the Convention requesting a hearing.

d) A hearing shall be held in closed session and shall be chaired by a Talossan citizen agreed to by both the suspended member and the Party leadership. The Party Leadership shall make the case for continued suspension or expulsion, and the suspended member may make a case against this decision. Debate shall then ensue, in which other party members may make their own arguments or statements, moderated by the chair of the hearing. After no fewer than five days, the chair of the hearing shall call for a vote as to whether to accept or reject the Party Leadership's recommendation. A quorum of no less than 1/2 of current membership shall be required to endorse a motion to continue suspension or to expel. If the vote fails, the member's suspension shall be immediately lifted. The outcome of the hearing shall be immediately publicly announced.

e) An expelled member shall be eligible to rejoin the Free Democrats after two General Elections following the expulsion.

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

"We stand against attempts by the King, Privy Council, or government, to expand the powers of the royal authority, or to fortify the position of the monarchy."

Not the biggest fan of this since I can't guarantee there would never be a time I could support more royal power on some issue. Also, what exactly does "fortifying the position of the Monarchy" mean? I certainly don't want it to get weaker.

Coming from the most monarchist party member so feel free to ignore.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

@Miestră Schivă, UrN It may be too late but I would be interested in making a speech to the convention as a guest. I was reviewing the party's proboards site but was unable to see any activity so I assume most of it is happening here.

Thank you. This request will be considered by the party leadership. As you say, it may be too late and if it is accepted it will have to come after the guest speech we already have scheduled.

Thank you for considering it. That's all I can ask for.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

"We stand against attempts by the King, Privy Council, or government, to expand the powers of the royal authority, or to fortify the position of the monarchy."

Not the biggest fan of this since I can't guarantee there would never be a time I could support more royal power on some issue. Also, what exactly does "fortifying the position of the Monarchy" mean? I certainly don't want it to get weaker.

Coming from the most monarchist party member so feel free to ignore.

As possibly the *least* monarchist party member, lol, the issue with this is that it's hypothetical. Neither the King, the Sabor nor the Government are currently trying to expand the powers of the monarchy. So this is kind of empty and voters might be excused for wondering what we're worried about. In contrast, I really strongly want us to adopt this for obvious reasons:

We oppose any attempts to change the current provisions to replace or establish a successor to the Monarchy - that is, the standard provisions of Organic Law amendment - without a full reform and/or replacement of provisions for Talossa's Head of State.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

I kind of want to go through this to explain the process as I envisage:

XIII.
a) The Party Leadership, upon petition of at least 1/2 of party members or at its own initiative by majority vote, shall suspend members for:
i) stated violations of this Constitution;
ii) publicly voting for or joining another nationally registered party;
iii) bringing the party into disrepute in a stated way.

b) A suspension decision, the justification for it, and the provisions for lifting this suspension (as contained in the rest of this section) shall be communicated to the suspended member as soon as possible and through all possible means of communication. A suspended member's rights under this Constitution shall cease to apply during their suspension, including the right to participate in Party discussion forums.

c) On the first day of the next Party Convention, the Party Leadership shall publicly announce a recommendation for every suspended member whether to lift their suspension, continue their suspension until the next Convention, or to expel the member. A recommendation to lift suspension shall be effected immediately. A recommendation to continue suspension or to expel shall take effect after 5 days, unless the suspended member addresses the Convention requesting a hearing.

d) A hearing shall be held in closed session and shall be chaired by a Talossan citizen agreed to by both the suspended member and the Party leadership. The Party Leadership shall make the case for continued suspension or expulsion, and the suspended member may make a case against this decision. Debate shall then ensue, in which other party members may make their own arguments or statements, moderated by the chair of the hearing. After no fewer than five days, the chair of the hearing shall call for a vote as to whether to accept or reject the Party Leadership's recommendation. A quorum of no less than 1/2 of current membership shall be required to endorse a motion to continue suspension or to expel. If the vote fails, the member's suspension shall be immediately lifted. The outcome of the hearing shall be immediately publicly announced.

e) An expelled member shall be eligible to rejoin the Free Democrats after two General Elections following the expulsion.

Basically, if the Party Leadership suspends someone (or is required to by petition of the membership) that suspension will last at least until the next Convention, i.e. the leadership won't be able to end it early. I think this is necessary to stop "wheeling and dealing", i.e a Leadership telling a suspended member "your suspension will be lifted if you toe the line". If a suspension happens it can't be a casual thing, it must have consequences, and its outcome should only be decided by a membership vote. Conversely, a suspension can't last beyond the next Convention (or turned into an expulsion) without that membership vote. So I'm trying to make sure the Leadership can hand out suspensions when necessary but to minimise the control they have over the process in favour of the membership as a whole deciding.

Oh, while I'm at it, change e) to read as follows:

e) An expelled member shall be eligible to rejoin the Free Democrats after two General Elections following the expulsion. A member whose suspension is lifted at a Convention may not be suspended again for the same cause.

(This to stop a suspension expiring at a Convention and the party leadership just yelling HUTSCH-TÚ and reimposing it immediately.)

Sound good?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Okay, how about this: replace existing Plank B of our program:

B. CUTTING THE RED-AND-GREEN TAPE
Talossa's government and legal structure is top-heavy, unwieldy, hard to navigate and no fun. We support the repeal of all laws and abolition of all Government posts and procedures which are more trouble than they are worth to keep going. We want a smaller, consistently active Cabinet, a Ziu which offers active oversight of the Cabinet and intelligent scrutiny of laws, and a functioning Judiciary.

With this:

B. A POLITICAL SYSTEM FOR EVERYONE
Free Democrats want a political system where *democracy and expertise* balance each other. We want an end to "green-and-red tape"; our politics and laws have to be simple and straightforward enough that any citizen can become a political leader or seek justice in the Corts with minimal training. In turn, the Royal Civil Service should recruit those with specialist skills to work for the Kingdom independently but under political supervision.

I'd like some feedback on this

[Bentxamì Puntmasleu]

"We stand against attempts by the King, Privy Council, or government, to expand the powers of the royal authority, or to fortify the position of the monarchy."

Not the biggest fan of this since I can't guarantee there would never be a time I could support more royal power on some issue. Also, what exactly does "fortifying the position of the Monarchy" mean? I certainly don't want it to get weaker.

Coming from the most monarchist party member so feel free to ignore.

As possibly the *least* monarchist party member, lol, the issue with this is that it's hypothetical. Neither the King, the Sabor nor the Government are currently trying to expand the powers of the monarchy. So this is kind of empty and voters might be excused for wondering what we're worried about. In contrast, I really strongly want us to adopt this for obvious reasons:

We oppose any attempts to change the current provisions to replace or establish a successor to the Monarchy - that is, the standard provisions of Organic Law amendment - without a full reform and/or replacement of provisions for Talossa's Head of State.

I would support that in lieu of my proposal.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[Bentxamì Puntmasleu]

Okay, how about this: replace existing Plank B of our program:

B. CUTTING THE RED-AND-GREEN TAPE
Talossa's government and legal structure is top-heavy, unwieldy, hard to navigate and no fun. We support the repeal of all laws and abolition of all Government posts and procedures which are more trouble than they are worth to keep going. We want a smaller, consistently active Cabinet, a Ziu which offers active oversight of the Cabinet and intelligent scrutiny of laws, and a functioning Judiciary.

With this:

B. A POLITICAL SYSTEM FOR EVERYONE
Free Democrats want a political system where *democracy and expertise* balance each other. We want an end to "green-and-red tape"; our politics and laws have to be simple and straightforward enough that any citizen can become a political leader or seek justice in the Corts with minimal training. In turn, the Royal Civil Service should recruit those with specialist skills to work for the Kingdom independently but under political supervision.

I'd like some feedback on this

It has my support.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Okay, we seem to have good consensus on some Constitution and Platform amendments. We have nominations for both President and Secretary. I would like to get to voting after the guest speech section, which will be this weekend. Anyone else want to speak / propose something / nominate someone?

[Bentxamì Puntmasleu]

If it isn't already too late, I propose that, somewhere in our program, we state that we are in favor of some kind of reform of the federal system. I don't think it needs to be too specific at the moment (although I, and I assume others, have specific ideas of how Talossan federalism might be reformed), just convey to the public that it is something we're interested in. Tentatively, a clause like this or something:

"With the aim of preserving and further developing distinctive provincial cultures and traditions, we commit ourselves to cooperating with the citizens of all provinces toward reforming Talossa's federal structure."

Of course, I would not object to proposals to reword that or make it more specific.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

If it isn't already too late, I propose that, somewhere in our program, we state that we are in favor of some kind of reform of the federal system. I don't think it needs to be too specific at the moment (although I, and I assume others, have specific ideas of how Talossan federalism might be reformed), just convey to the public that it is something we're interested in. Tentatively, a clause like this or something:

"With the aim of preserving and further developing distinctive provincial cultures and traditions, we commit ourselves to cooperating with the citizens of all provinces toward reforming Talossa's federal structure."

Of course, I would not object to proposals to reword that or make it more specific.

I honestly think we need some specific ideas. The biggest problem with Talossan federalism is that while - on one hand - provincial governments only exist intermittently and rarely do anything, on the other hand, the Senäts has a veto over any changes; and that previous attempts to merge provinces have failed because it means someone loses a Senäts seat. So in summary, provinces are not functioning as units of government; but operate as "electorates for Senators" and Senators are very jealous of that. So, the question is: is it possible to reform federalism in any meaningful way (reducing the number of Provinces, increasing or decreasing their independent powers, depowering or changing the franchise for the Senäts) that persuades at least 6 Senators (see OrgLaw XII:1)

Can I just ask: do your preferred reforms go in the direction of a more centralised (the Kingdom has more power) constitution, or a more decentralised (provinces have more power) system?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

If it were up to me, I would downgrade provinces to "local governments" without their own sovereignty, which only have the powers delegated to them by the Ziu. Which makes sense because Talossa is not really a federation at all, the Kingdom was created as a unitary state. I would personally want a unicameral Mixed Member Proportional Cosa as well, but that'd be too high a mountain to climb just now.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Obviously the guest speeches haven't happened yet, lol. We've got two people who've put their hands up and we're waiting on them. After that I suppose we'll get to voting.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

"With the aim of preserving and further developing distinctive provincial cultures and traditions, we commit ourselves to cooperating with the citizens of all provinces toward reforming Talossa's federal structure."

The more I think about it, the more I think it's obvious that provincial mergers will never happen as long as every province gets a Senäts seat - in fact the incentive is towards *more* provinces if they can be made. But at the same time there is *no* incentive towards active provincial governments! What can be done?

[Bentxamì Puntmasleu]

Sorry it took so long for me to respond. The specific idea I have in mind for federalism reform isn't necessarily to make the system any more or less centralized, to transition to a unitary state with some devolved powers for subnational entities, or to merge or create more provinces. Perhaps my idea doesn't quite fall under the umbrella of federalism reform after all, though I think it is related. Before I describe my idea, I will give my opinion about centralization.
   I think that the core (not necessarily the only) problem with Talossa's provinces is the lack of a unique shared identity among citizens of any given province. By that, I mean the set of characteristics that are generally shared by, say, Vuodeans, but not all Talossans. (There are exceptions to this: For example, the Cjovani of Benito and Reviênsadéirs of Fiovă.) In other countries (both federal and unitary) that have meaningful subnational entities, these shared characteristics are associated with the geography.
My relationship to the geography of Talossa obviously differs from all other current Talossans. I always try to keep this in mind. I could be wrong but I think it is reasonable to assume that most Talossan don't have much consideration for the geography of Talossa. I don't mean this is a bad thing. It is perfectly reasonable for cybercitizens to focus on the non-physical aspect of Talossa. What this means is that the provinces of Talossa have little meaning to most Talossans as geographical entities. With the exception of the Cjovani of Benito and Reviênsadéirs of Fiovă (the latter of whom aren't geographically defined), there is little base for shared identity in any of the provinces.
One solution would be to do away with the provinces other than in name only. They would still exist but only 1.) as artifacts of Talossa's history (like the provinces of Ireland) and 2.) for actual denizens of Metropolitan Talossa (of which there are currently none). In this arrangement, no one other that these actual denizens would be provincial citizens and the Ziu would become unicameral.
My idea is this: We keep the provinces (in this case I don't have a strong position on Talossa being a federation or a unitary state with devolved powers) but change the procedure by which citizens are assigned to provinces. With the expectation of Ohio being within Benito's catchment area, the catchment areas are not conducive to the emergence of provincial identities. What if, upon being granted citizenship, new Talossans were assigned to provinces based on the existing catchment areas (same as how it is now) but after a period of time, say two years, they were allowed to relocate to another province of their choosing. After an initial relocation, citizens would have the right to relocate a minimum of every, say, five years. Instead of an arbitrary grouping of Talossans based on catchment areas, Talossans would gravitate toward provinces with citizens who share characteristics (interests, values, etc.) Over time, this might lead to the emergence of distinct provincial identities. (I do think that those citizens who actually do reside in Metropolitan Talossa should be assigned a province based on geography.) I don't know if this solution would work but I think it is worth considering, maybe experimenting.