The "Reform" Plan

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Exactly as I said. The FreeDems have no party position on any facet of the PdR proposal.

The goal of this approach, agreed by Cabinet, is to create a single proposal for thorough-going Organic Law reforms. That is, a consensus document, rather than an up-and-down vote on any particular issue eg. unicameralism. Once the consensus document is established, the FreeDems may adopt a party line, or allow a free vote. So there will be no "vote on unicameralism" as a single issue, in this process anyway. The FreeDems will certainly not, as a party, block any proposal just because it would remove our current ability to direct all of Brenéir's sillier bills to the circular file, which I believe was the implication.

Senator Plätschisch and I disagree on several constitutional issues, and this right now is one of them. But it's quite rude to imply that his stance on unicameralism is either venal "job protection" or for partisan advantage, rather than a principled position, and that deserves an apology I think.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Exactly as I said. The FreeDems have no party position on any facet of the PdR proposal.

The goal of this approach, agreed by Cabinet, is to create a single proposal for thorough-going Organic Law reforms. That is, a consensus document, rather than an up-and-down vote on any particular issue eg. unicameralism. Once the consensus document is established, the FreeDems may adopt a party line, or allow a free vote. So there will be no "vote on unicameralism" as a single issue, in this process anyway. The FreeDems will certainly not, as a party, block any proposal just because it would remove our current ability to direct all of Brenéir's sillier bills to the circular file, which I believe was the implication.

Senator Plätschisch and I disagree on several constitutional issues, and this right now is one of them. But it's quite rude to imply that his stance on unicameralism is either venal "job protection" or for partisan advantage, rather than a principled position, and that deserves an apology I think.

Yeah, a nonpartisan Chancery...so silly, Miestra. :)

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Given that predictability would imply a fixed schedule, is your solution then to increase the frequency of elections?

Or put them on a two year-cycle, where the 24 months are divided up into three terms of eight months each.

Or don't meddle with this at all, really.  That'd be fine, too.

The Crown provision would just "trade" the current very weak veto for nothing, unless you're saying the king would have the power to pick any Seneschal they please -- and that'd be too much power for the monarch.

A 2/3 threshold is in fact quite strong. Even the proposed threshold is not something the incumbent Government could overcome; no government since the Schiva III Cabinet (during the 55th Cosa) would have had those numbers. As a result, the override still requires opposition support outside of an overwhelming electoral mandate.
And yes, the idea was that the King would have discretion when appointing a Seneschal -- though that Seneschal would naturally need to survive votes of confidence.

I just see no benefit here... the veto at least can serve a very good purpose as one of the remaining checks in our system -- or at least delays, since most often it's been overcome with a simple majority a few months later after an intervening election.  What benefit would it serve to let the king choose their preferred Seneschal?  It's not going to be a more stable choice than the party itself would make.  And while I guess they could support a favorite who could cobble together a majority from different parties, that just would make that seneschal a creature of the king and mess with the separation there... 

Can you explain what benefit Talossa might derive from this change?  To me, it appears to be a power that is actually designed never to be used, which would make this just a severe new reduction in the few remaining royal powers and checks in our system.  But maybe there'd be a benefit here that I'm just not seeing.  Can you describe a scenario where you think it'd be good to have the king exercise this discretion?

We already have barely any checks in our system to curtail a Government.  They have steadily vanished over the years.  This would eliminate yet another.  This is a serious problem.

The best solution would be to move to a model of government in which the executive and legislature are separated. Thankfully, we have a party dedicated to advocating for that.

I'm not sure that's a good defense of this bill, lol.  If there's another essential component that would replace the elements you propose to remove, maybe add it in here?

If you're doing renovations on my house, and want to knock out a load-bearing wall, you're going to cause problems.  Even if you plan on doing more work next year to add in a new wall somewhere else, that's not going to help the plan right now.

If you want to transition into this system, fine, but it's unwise to give any credence to the idea that they need to be compensated for their fee.

I think it equally unwise to simply say "hey, we're pulling the rug out from underneath you now". This is a one-time, transitional measure, and is meant as a compromise and acknowledgement to incumbent Senators.

Oh, you might need it politically as a sop for them, for sure.  But I just wanted to speak up against the idea that they own their seats.  They don't.  They belong to the citizens of Talossa, through and through.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

That said: my desire for unicameralism is not to remove roadblocks to Government power (why would it when my party has had a lock for the last few terms?), it's the Warm Bodies problem. Having a bicameral legislature requires too many citizens to operate, leading to the "drafting" of quasi-unwilling citizens who act as "lobby fodder". Also, the provinces as they stand have unequal numbers of politically committed citizens, meaning that barely-active incumbents can pretty much carry on in office forever. I want a legislature which has *competitive* elections and is composed of citizens who are keen to be there.

Which members of the Ziu are "quasi-unwilling citizens" who act as "lobby fodder?"

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

That said: my desire for unicameralism is not to remove roadblocks to Government power (why would it when my party has had a lock for the last few terms?), it's the Warm Bodies problem. Having a bicameral legislature requires too many citizens to operate, leading to the "drafting" of quasi-unwilling citizens who act as "lobby fodder". Also, the provinces as they stand have unequal numbers of politically committed citizens, meaning that barely-active incumbents can pretty much carry on in office forever. I want a legislature which has *competitive* elections and is composed of citizens who are keen to be there.

Which members of the Ziu are "quasi-unwilling citizens" who act as "lobby fodder?"

Actually, never mind, don't answer this.  It's only going to lead to ill-will.  But I am just not sure that we have a lot of this.  Looking at the Ziu, I see a number of people who are very quiet but nonetheless work as they're supposed to, even if they're a "back-bencher" who mostly goes with the party (trust me, not a phenomenon isolated to Talossa... there are members of the American Congress who had their last original thought in the eighties).

But let's look at the numbers.  Right now, a party usually needs maybe four or five "warm bodies," unless I'm crazy.  "No person shall hold more seats in the Cosă than ten times the total number of seats in the Cosă divided by the number of ballots cast for the Cosa"... the current maximum seat count for one person is 2000/95, or 21.  So sufficient seats for control of the Cosa can be held by just five people.

That seems pretty reasonable, but if we want to change the formula so you can control the Cosa with only three MCs, then that seems like a much better way to solve the "warm bodies" problem than upending our entire legislative system.  It's not even a OrgLaw provision, so it could be changed in a month.

Now, I guess the Senats might add on to those numbers, but I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that a party find at least one person in a province to represent that province.  If a party is so regionalized that it only has supporters in a couple of provinces, then that's a real reflection of that party's level of support, right?  That's a benefit and a feature... that's what the whole thing is for!

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

With respect, the above isn't a defence of bicameralism, it's a defence of a Big Ziu. You could make exactly the same argument for a 15-member Real Unicameral Cosa, and... well, yes!

The provincialisation argument is IMHO very wrong, though, for all the reasons @Sir Lüc gave.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

With respect, the above isn't a defence of bicameralism, it's a defence of a Big Ziu. You could make exactly the same argument for a 15-member Real Unicameral Cosa, and... well, yes!

The provincialisation argument is IMHO very wrong, though, for all the reasons @Sir Lüc gave.

I wasn't trying to defend our system in specific, but only pointing out that your rationale didn't seem to hold water. 

But the best things about the Senats are:

-it provides some regional representation in a country with some regional differences.  For example, Fiova is heavily populated by fans of republicanism for obvious reasons.

-it provides a check against intemperate changes.  An idea may win over the chamber on its merits in a single day, but a party will require a couple of elections.  We have very few checks left in the system.

-it provides for a check against party power, since no party leader could have much control over a freethinking senator.  There are very few checks against party leaders.

-independent senators can and do exist and meaningfully wield power.  That's a trait not found in much of our system.

We should be careful before smashing a very old institution.  There should be very good reasons beyond personal preference.  And if we absolutely must smash it, we should try to keep its virtues.  I am worried at how few people seem to have even stopped to think about what those virtues might be!

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Of course, this begs the question of exactly why the provinces - barely functional and arbitrary as they are - deserve representation. But if we allow that they do - a South-Africa style system where one ballot helps allocate 100 national seats, and another helps allocate some fraction (8-13?) provincial seats, solves that problem. It *also* gets rid of the other main problem with provinces - that the assignment system over-populates some, so that a Senäts vote in Vuode is more valuable than anywhere else.

Most of your other arguments are of the "it should be harder for majorities to do anything" type, which I can't argue against because it's a basic principle I don't share.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Of course, this begs the question of exactly why the provinces - barely functional and arbitrary as they are - deserve representation.

I do admit that they are things of potential greatness, not current activity, and they have never amounted to very much.  But that will change if we get back to growing.  And unfortunately, they're probably not something we could create again the same way if we ruined them.  Their main virtue right now is their sheer longevity and that it's kind of cool that we have some real subdivisions with real variations.  I mean, they each have their own intricate history... that's not something to discard without good cause.

I guess I'm rambling... I don't feel incredibly strongly about the provinces, really, aside from a general instinct that we should incline to preservation, and a skepticism of the ten thousandth sweeping reform -- always too many people want to be captains and no one wants to actually sail.

But if we allow that they do - a South-Africa style system where one ballot helps allocate 100 national seats, and another helps allocate some fraction (8-13?) provincial seats, solves that problem. It *also* gets rid of the other main problem with provinces - that the assignment system over-populates some, so that a Senäts vote in Vuode is more valuable than anywhere else.

Most of your other arguments are of the "it should be harder for majorities to do anything" type, which I can't argue against because it's a basic principle I don't share.

Sometimes it's hard to discuss these things with you, since you seem to be trying not to understand or you're trolling.  Do you genuinely think I was saying that I think democratically-elected majorities should be powerless?  Did you really boil down those other points besides regional representation into that one strawman inside your head?

It's a spectrum, not a binary.  The choice isn't between "one election means you can delete the Cort pü Înalt" and "you may not change anything except incrementing your age."

Surely you're not saying that there should be no checks on your power, right?  You're not over here going, "The Tyrant-Queen demands unlimited power and skulls for her skull throne."

[Mic’haglh Autófil, SMC EiP]

Or put them on a two year-cycle, where the 24 months are divided up into three terms of eight months each.

Or don't meddle with this at all, really.  That'd be fine, too.

The former is effectively what we're on now. Are you ok with making that a fixed schedule? Because if so then we at least have a starting point to work from.

Can you explain what benefit Talossa might derive from this change?  To me, it appears to be a power that is actually designed never to be used, which would make this just a severe new reduction in the few remaining royal powers and checks in our system.  But maybe there'd be a benefit here that I'm just not seeing.  Can you describe a scenario where you think it'd be good to have the king exercise this discretion?

Actually, if we move to fixed terms, that would be a primary reason to allow at least some degree of royal discretion in naming a Seneschal. Fixed terms would necessitate the ability of the Cosa to withdraw confidence somehow -- hence the constructive VoC's. The negotiations should one of those fail would be a reasonable place to allow the King to exercise some power, and as a result, this is one place I'd be willing to cede a little power to the Crown.

Oh, you might need it politically as a sop for them, for sure.  But I just wanted to speak up against the idea that they own their seats.  They don't.  They belong to the citizens of Talossa, through and through.

Then I suppose it's a good thing I never claimed otherwise.

I wish we could have one ten-thousandth of the number of sweeping reforms we've apparently "had", lol.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Surely you're not saying that there should be no checks on your power, right?  You're not over here going, "The Tyrant-Queen demands unlimited power and skulls for her skull throne."

You cannot view this attachment.

A girl can dream. :D

But no, seriously:

1) I think the only checks on majority power needed are a supermajority+referendum requirement to change the OrgLaw, and a Covenant of Rights that can be enforced. Anything else is an unnecessary drag (and that INCLUDES a royal veto, I'm sure you're not surprised to learn).

2) my opinion on this doesn't alter whether I'm part of the governing majority or outside it. In a unicameral system a lot more miéidă da toro would have happened in the last 2 terms - and then we could roll it back just as easily. In fact, I'm kind of insulted that you haven't noticed that, in the current situation, unicameralism would massively weaken my party's legislative power. But:

Sometimes it's hard to discuss these things with you, since you seem to be trying not to understand or you're trolling.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Or put them on a two year-cycle, where the 24 months are divided up into three terms of eight months each.

Or don't meddle with this at all, really.  That'd be fine, too.

The former is effectively what we're on now. Are you ok with making that a fixed schedule? Because if so then we at least have a starting point to work from.

Yeah, that might make sense if there's a good reason to do it -- I'm definitely open to the idea.

Can you explain what benefit Talossa might derive from this change?  To me, it appears to be a power that is actually designed never to be used, which would make this just a severe new reduction in the few remaining royal powers and checks in our system.  But maybe there'd be a benefit here that I'm just not seeing.  Can you describe a scenario where you think it'd be good to have the king exercise this discretion?

Actually, if we move to fixed terms, that would be a primary reason to allow at least some degree of royal discretion in naming a Seneschal. Fixed terms would necessitate the ability of the Cosa to withdraw confidence somehow -- hence the constructive VoC's. The negotiations should one of those fail would be a reasonable place to allow the King to exercise some power, and as a result, this is one place I'd be willing to cede a little power to the Crown.

Okay, I guess I see what you're getting at.  So you're envisioning a situation where the Government collapses in such a way that they can't pick a new leader, and so the king decides who will be the next Seneschal until the election?

Oh, you might need it politically as a sop for them, for sure.  But I just wanted to speak up against the idea that they own their seats.  They don't.  They belong to the citizens of Talossa, through and through.

Then I suppose it's a good thing I never claimed otherwise.

I was pushing back against your initial statement that, "I believe it unfair to strip them of something before they have gotten that which they pay for."  It's not really a big deal.

I wish we could have one ten-thousandth of the number of sweeping reforms we've apparently "had", lol.

In 2019, the entire Organic Law was reformed extensively.  In the time since, the entire justice section has been redone as well as all the statutory law on the legal system and criminal laws.  We have changed the methods for electing the Cosa leader and the Seneschal (a couple of times, I think?).  We have new rules about government transparency and disclosure.  The finance law was redone, the law around the legislature's operations was changed several times, we added seats for new citizens to the legislature, all the law around STUFF and Interior was changed around, the hereditary monarchy was eliminated, the honours system was significantly altered, immigration law was changed a whole bunch of times, Wittenberg was nationalized... We just did a big dramatic deal around the monarchy, establishing new succession protocols and paving the way for an upcoming new change in royal house. 

I'm sure there's more, but that's just the last few years.  Most parts of the constitutional and statutory law have been changed significantly, just recently.  We seriously do not have a "it's hard to change the law" problem.  We have a "there's nothing else to do but change the law" problem.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

In a unicameral system a lot more miéidă da toro would have happened in the last 2 terms - and then we could roll it back just as easily.

I think this might be the crux of it: I think it's underappreciated that there might be consequences of reckless changes to our country's institutions.  Some things are breakable and can't just be "rolled back."  Eventually we might end up with six or seven people standing in the ashes and taking turns being in charge.

[GV]

I'll believe the FreeDems support Senats abolition when they propose it and make an effort to pass it. But please note I said "the FreeDems" not Miestra personally...

Looks like GV, a FreeDems senator, supports the abolition, which is surprising ...

Do you even listen to yourself speak?

I support abolition...at the moment. 

I also support a system whereby the Senäts becomes as the House of Lords in the UK - no longer having a veto, but still being a place where bills and what-not are formally amended, if needed, handing amendments back to the Cosâ.

Again, the problem with the current Senäts is any single member has way too much power.  That being said, a single member of Cosa could conceivably have an even greater proportion of voting strength than a Senator - a point I did not think of before...

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

I'll believe the FreeDems support Senats abolition when they propose it and make an effort to pass it. But please note I said "the FreeDems" not Miestra personally...

Looks like GV, a FreeDems senator, supports the abolition, which is surprising ...

Do you even listen to yourself speak?

I support abolition...at the moment. 

I also support a system whereby the Senäts becomes as the House of Lords in the UK - no longer having a veto, but still being a place where bills and what-not are formally amended, if needed.

Hopefully the FreeDems will come around to a formal position, matching yours, on the matter. As I mentioned I'm skeptical.