The Importance of the Upcoming Election (my views)

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

I'm not arguing that Talossa is like other countries, however, I am arguing that principles that are ingrained in what is meant by a Constitutional monarchy, have existed and predates Talossa,  and is generally accepted Apolitcial Monarchy, which is the case for all the constitutional monarchies I have come across, and from what I can tell, is a KEY part of what constitutes a constitutional monarchy.  Due to that being how a constitutional monarchy survives.
Also you argue that there is no way that the monarch can infringe upon the rights of its Citizens? By virtue of vetoing a bill, the Monarchy is slapping down the rights of the people who sent MCs and Senators to the Ziu, even if temporarily, and infringing upon the political fray with voicing their political opinions on something. Whether or not the Ziu can override a veto is irrelevant. The act of the Monarch not adhering to the democratically ELECTED government of Talossa, and stating an opinion publicly against this, is undermining the principles which are at the heart of what a democracy is.
Also I find it hilarious that you don't equate a figurehead monarchy and a constitutional monarchy AS THE SAME THING, as that's what they are. The same thing.

No, the definition of "constitutional monarchy" is not that the Monarch has nothing but ceremonial power. It is only, according to Wikipedia, "a form of monarchy in which the sovereign exercises authority in accordance with a written or unwritten constitution," which is exactly has Talossa has.

Also, again, I don't see a problem with a group of people in (for all practical purposes) a voluntary association deciding that they want a Monarch with some power. You may want a different form of government, but that would be a disagreement over preference, rather than a disagreement over whether we have enough democracy.

It's true the Monarchy would work better if His Majesty didn't make people angry a lot, but most of the anger directed at him is due to how he goes about exercising his power (such as vetoing at the last second), rather than the object of that exercise (ie, the concept of a Royal veto).

There are options to wat we can choose going forward, you are right, and I expect those debates to come. And you are right in so far that we do need to have these debates. However from what I can tell, although yes the FreeDems in the majority of its members are in favour of Abolishing the monarchy, that is not what is in the party platform, as what is being proposed in our platform is "a ranked choice referendum on the powers of the King: choosing between the status quo, a Monarchy with only emergency powers, and an elected Head of State."
So what actions we do take will be on the democratic will of the people, not based on purely driving our political agenda. As it would be political suicide to peruse something which the majority of the population opposed. Whether they place us in power or not. Yes, our ultimate goal is a republic (which I have been coming evermore in favour of for Talossa), it is not something we can achieve without the country behind us. So we have been and will continue to argue our case. (I apologise to  Miestră if I'm assuming to much in speaking this in the way I have)

If the position of most FreeDems is and will continue to be that Talossa should be a Republic (or that the Monarch should only have ceremonial power), what is the point of the referendum? If the point is to get a mandate for the something the party wants to do anyway, it seems likely to me that the FreeDems will keep proposing to have referenda until they get the outcome they want. What would be the point of that, given the FreeDems could just pass the Organic amendment they wanted and have the referendum on the actual amendment?

Also my final points will be to say, that I never said, or implied that being a monarchist party automatically means you are "stagnant" I was merely pointing out that the opposition parties have the characteristics of also being politically stagnant, with little to no meaningful policy platforms that I have seen.

Well, so far the CCL is the most vibrant Monarchist movement Talossa has seen for a while.

As the values and principles in a democracy, and a democratic society, leave no place for dangerous intervention by a Monarch, as that could be seen as a slow erosion of democratic principles, leading ever so slightly closer to an absolute monarchy, if these what you might call "small" uses of veto powers remain unchecked.

It seems nonsensical to me to suggest that Talossa could be headed back toward absolute Monarchy, given the most prominent Monarchist politician right now (me) has spent his entire career making sure the Monarchy is not absolute.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

If the position of most FreeDems is and will continue to be that Talossa should be a Republic (or that the Monarch should only have ceremonial power), what is the point of the referendum?

To see which (if either) of those options is accepted by the general public, before going to the trouble of writing the appropriate OrgLaw amendment. What exactly are you scared of? If the broad masses like the status quo, then the Free Democrats will not seek to change the status quo.

It's almost like you're afraid there is a majority out there for an end to a powerful Monarchy...

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

In fact, let me put it like this: it is perfectly safe for a Talossan who supports both the monarchical status quo, and the Free Democrat programme of Government activity, to vote for us. There will be no major reforms to Royal powers without a prior majority in the Rank Choice Referendum.

[Ián S.G. Txaglh]

woosh, talossa during elections is like a desert after rain, few days out and suddenly tons of contributions ;D

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

If the position of most FreeDems is and will continue to be that Talossa should be a Republic (or that the Monarch should only have ceremonial power), what is the point of the referendum?

To see which (if either) of those options is accepted by the general public, before going to the trouble of writing the appropriate OrgLaw amendment. What exactly are you scared of? If the broad masses like the status quo, then the Free Democrats will not seek to change the status quo.

It's almost like you're afraid there is a majority out there for an end to a powerful Monarchy...

Well, ask the same question every other year, and eventually circumstances will change enough that the ~30-40% support that it has mustered will crest to 50% -- especially as the ranks of active citizens shrink.  It was asked as a regular referendum during an election and failed.  Okay, so then it was asked as a special referendum outside of the general election and failed.  Now it's been a bit and there are fewer Talossans, so maybe it will pass, especially if it's structured as an IRV (which will allow multiple paths to "success").  If this fails, then I imagine next year we'll see a special referendum of a different sort or with different phrasing.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Well, ask the same question every other year, and eventually circumstances will change enough that the ~30-40% support that it has mustered will crest to 50%

Really? I'll keep going, then. We're playing the long game.

(Your innuendo that keeping the constitutional issue alive represses turnout is simply unfounded.)

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I wasn't insinuating that.  It wouldn't even make sense.  If someone's whittling a stick of wood so they can fit it in their pocket, I don't think it makes any sense to say that it's the pocket causing the stick to get smaller.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

The point of the metaphor seems to be that I'm deliberately driving Royalists away so I can totally dominate Talossa. What a cruel thing to insinuate.

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

If the position of most FreeDems is and will continue to be that Talossa should be a Republic (or that the Monarch should only have ceremonial power), what is the point of the referendum?

To see which (if either) of those options is accepted by the general public, before going to the trouble of writing the appropriate OrgLaw amendment. What exactly are you scared of? If the broad masses like the status quo, then the Free Democrats will not seek to change the status quo.

It's almost like you're afraid there is a majority out there for an end to a powerful Monarchy...

I'm not afraid of that, because in the last referendum a few years ago, in which we gave the exact three options (the referendum included two questions, one asking if the voter wanted a Monarchy and the other asking if the voter wanted a Monarchy with some power), the Monarchists won by a respectable margin on both counts.

You say you don't want to go through the trouble of writing the amendment if there isn't the support for it, but conducting and contesting a referendum is not a trivial task either, especially given we would have to hash out the exact same issues again when the amendment is actually proposed. It just does not seem like a good use of time and energy.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

You say you don't want to go through the trouble of writing the amendment if there isn't the support for it, but conducting and contesting a referendum is not a trivial task either,

As Ian Txáglh says above, Talossa springs into life in election season. In referendum season, too! Some work will need to be done but it will promote activity.

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

Well, ask the same question every other year, and eventually circumstances will change enough that the ~30-40% support that it has mustered will crest to 50%

Really? I'll keep going, then. We're playing the long game.

(Your innuendo that keeping the constitutional issue alive represses turnout is simply unfounded.)

If your plan is to keep asking the same question over and over until you get the result you want, why even ask it?

Also, I think there is something to the suggestion of voter fatigue. I can easily see how voters who are just voting to maintain the status quo on a particular issue would not be as motivated to vote in an ongoing series of referendums as those who are actually trying to make the change.

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

You say you don't want to go through the trouble of writing the amendment if there isn't the support for it, but conducting and contesting a referendum is not a trivial task either,

As Ian Txáglh says above, Talossa springs into life in election season. In referendum season, too! Some work will need to be done but it will promote activity.

The kind of activity in which people debate the same question repeatedly would get old fast, I bet.

[esbornatfiglheu]

The kind of activity in which people debate the same question repeatedly would get old fast, I bet.

Though it really does seem that Talossa is never more vibrant than when there is a debate as to what it will be.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Sincerely, the point of the referendum is to find out whether either of the major options for constitutional reform has majority support right now. Admittedly this is so we can choose the option which will have the best chance of success. But this stuff about "referendums too often drive people away / are illegitimate" seems to just be trying to tip debate towards the status quo.

Are you suggesting a law which forbids this question to be asked too often? I believe there's one in Northern Ireland, i.e. they can have a referendum on abolishing the jurisdiction but only one every 10/20 years or something. But why is it worse than - for example - if we presented a New Talossan Republic Amendment or a King's Job Is Now Opening Shopping Malls, Nothing Else Amendment every single Cosa?

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

Sincerely, the point of the referendum is to find out whether either of the major options for constitutional reform has majority support right now. Admittedly this is so we can choose the option which will have the best chance of success. But this stuff about "referendums too often drive people away / are illegitimate" seems to just be trying to tip debate towards the status quo.

Are you suggesting a law which forbids this question to be asked too often? I believe there's one in Northern Ireland, i.e. they can have a referendum on abolishing the jurisdiction but only one every 10/20 years or something. But why is it worse than - for example - if we presented a New Talossan Republic Amendment or a King's Job Is Now Opening Shopping Malls, Nothing Else Amendment every single Cosa?

OK, I guess the point of the midterm referendum would be the practical consideration that you could not pass both the no-powers-Monarchy and the no-Monarchy amendments in the same term, because they would contradict each other. But if the goal is to see which of these could pass referendum, the RCV method would actually be unhelpful. The correct method would be to, like we did last time, ask two different questions, a yes/no on a figurehead Monarchy and a yes/no on a Republic.

I didn't say any referendum would be illegitimate or drive people away, only that lack of motivation to vote might strike one group of voters harder than others if the same question kept coming up.