The Ranked Choice Constitutional Referendum Bill

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

There was an anonymous opinion survey a bit ago, but if there's interest in why some people specifically lost the taste for Talossa, that's one way to find out.

I agree! By a staggering coincidence, running a second National Survey in the next Cosa term is Free Democrat policy; so I hope we can count on your vote to make that happen.

Funny, though, I'm pretty sure that in the original survey "Talossa has been ruined by democratic reforms which have sapped the fun out of it" was not the major factor which you would expect to hear Sir Alexandreu talk - see attachment. Well, we'll find out if that's changed. I repeat that one major factor which was mentioned as driving people away was "nastiness in discussion", which I honestly believe is not a problem any more.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Sounds like things are going great, then.  Glad to hear it.  Best of luck.

[GV]

There was a special midterm referendum on the monarchy just a few years ago, with 71% of respondents saying they wanted to keep the monarchy and 60% saying they didn't want it to be a figurehead.  I guess this question will be asked over and over in different ways until it produces the answer that is desired.

Perhaps that valid referendum didn't ask the best questions to deliver clarity?

[Béneditsch Ardpresteir]

The Senator from Maricopa also does not seem to understand that, in a ranked-choice (IRV/PV) election, there isn't a "second round".

Of course, many true sentences can be made of the form: "The Senator from Maricopa also does not seem to understand that..."

Yes... and with each passing day, I care less and less about what happens in Miestra's Kingdom.... err Republic.

Para 3 of her vote count scenario does talk of the second round of counting. I think one of us actually is a simpleton. You better not teach me a ranked-choice vote, for in an RCV with multi-choice, the winner gets a majority in the final round.

I don't know if many sentences can be written about Ctx. M... but definitely she and her coterie are responsible for the non-participation of quite a few otherwise well-meaning citizens. It's not that they don't want to, it's only that - they can't.

[esbornatfiglheu]

I don't know if many sentences can be written about Ctx. M... but definitely she and her coterie are responsible for the non-participation of quite a few otherwise well-meaning citizens. It's not that they don't want to, it's only that - they can't.

Why can't they?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

I don't know if many sentences can be written about Ctx. M... but definitely she and her coterie are responsible for the non-participation of quite a few otherwise well-meaning citizens. It's not that they don't want to, it's only that - they can't.

Why can't they?

I put a powerful shamanic curse on them (pic related: it me)

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

I am opposed to this referendum. What would be the point? Would the next Government actually refrain from trying to further reduce the power of the Monarchy if that is what the referendum indicated? Because that is not what I recall the FreeDems did after the previous referendum.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Certainly, if "status quo" wins this referendum, I don't foresee any serious attempts to depower the monarchy in the 55th Cosa; though I don't exclude other OrgLaw reforms to clear up little problems (eg. whether the election has to be delayed if the King doesn't dissolve the Cosa before the end of the last Clark month). This of course assumes that the Government's current cordial relations with His Maj continue and we don't end up with another Proclamation Crisis or Fiova/Florencia constitutional clusterfudge.

To be honest, the format of the referendum is because each of the three options has its supporters within the FreeDems, and if we can't come to a party consensus on the way forward, then the people should give us a hint.

[Glüc]

the King of Talossa shall be replaced by an elected Head of State.

This should probably be rewritten as we may have an elected Head of State already.

Perhaps:
* The King of Talossa shall be replaced by a regularly elected president.

Additionally, can the following options be added:

* The Hereditary Monarchy shall be restored.
* An Electoral College, which shall be independent of the Ziu, shall be established to nominate future monarchs.

[Glüc]

Actually, the npw dual head of state thing could probably be added as well.

[Glüc]

Fwiw, I don't like non-binding referenda either way, but if we're gonna have one, might as well have some appealing options on there. In the current proposal all three options are bad imho.

[C. M. Siervicül]

This should probably be rewritten as we may have an elected Head of State already.

Perhaps:
* The King of Talossa shall be replaced by a regularly elected president.

Additionally, can the following options be added:

* The Hereditary Monarchy shall be restored.
* An Electoral College, which shall be independent of the Ziu, shall be established to nominate future monarchs.

One challenge in creating a list of options is that mode of selection, tenure, and powers (and number of holders, for the NPW) are different dimensions of the office and the interplay between them can dramatically influence one's order of preference. For example, a particular citizen might rank lifetime hereditary monarchy at the top of the list if the monarch is a "symbol of the nation" figurehead with no real powers, but far down the list otherwise. You could create a comprehensive list of options with different permutations of these dimensions but that could result in a very long list.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

I am not in favour of a complicated referendum ballot. That said, if suggestions can be made that will enable the essential principle to get the necessary 2/3 for a Royal Veto override, I am interested to hear what the LCC has to say.

On the subject of an Electoral College to choose a new King, rather than the Ziu, I am actually entirely in favour of that. The reason that the previous Government decided to abolish the hereditary principle without replacing it ("skinny repeal", I believe it's called) was precisely because we knew the argument on what should replace it would be a huge one and derail the issue altogether. So, now is the time to make such suggestions, and they may get Free Democrat support.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Bill amended with the addition of a fourth option, as per the Coalition Agreement.

[GV]

4.)  Whoa-Boy, the Infrastructure- Sleek websites and forums are very nice.  But they're also a huge pain in the tuckus.  Talossa will always be beholden to its nerds to keep things running, but I often think back to the geocities era of micronationalism and wonder if there wasn't something to the "quick and dirty" method of hanging out your shingle.  From what I've gathered, maintaining this stuff has been a thankless job.  This can be extended to a lot of stuff handled by the overall civil service.  You hear from the requisite minister when you miss a deadline, but not otherwise.  Do we have too much STUFF?

I agree.  This is one reason why I think the wiki is the best platform for most of our records and the like.  It's transparent, keeps records innately, it's very easy to understand and edit, and it operates based on very widely-used software.  The database is kicking up errors and has things that just can't be fixed without its specialist designer.  It's very impressive and cool, but it's also made us wholly dependent on MPF for most things to do with it.  That's just the way it is, and it's not a problem now, but it might be in the future.  Plans should be made for a future time when the database breaks and MPF is unable to help.

I came to enjoy using the Wiki.  It will continue to be ubiquitous, and I continually make backups with the functionality Lüc set up.  (I'll get everyone the link tomorrow.)

Our dependence on MPF is a real Achilles' heel (and yes, I periodically back up the Database), even as dependable as he has been.