CPR: A Lifesaving Measure

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

Earlier this year, a prominent member of Talossa's aristocracy stated that  "Gradual decay is not a plan." He said this in reference to the Consensus Plan on Reform, a roadmap that was debated and refined through several rounds of discussion, with constructive input from all mainstream political parties both within the Government and the Opposition. This Plan was one of the ¡Avant! Coalition Government's stated goals back when it was inaugurated: to facilitate "a wide-ranging and open-ended discussion on Talossa's Organic Law and constitutional structure." This was a promise made and a promise kept.

Given that even the Leader of the Opposition commended the Government's "ability to build consensus" and praised "this latest proposal and the style with which [responsible figures] handled the discussion", it is fair to say the goal of charting the roadmap has been met. Whether or not we stay on course to a brighter future for Talossa remains to be seen -- though the final word rests, as it always should, with the Talossan people.

Given the fact that the aforementioned aristocrat and I are opposed on a host of political issues, it may surprise you to find out that he and I are in full agreement on this one. Gradual decay is not a plan, at least not one any capable government should countenance. The problem lies in the inability to self-reflect and see that it is attitudes such as his own that keep us on the road to decay, plodding along like a cart in a rutted track. Slowly but surely, we roll down the gentle hill of time, until eventually this track dumps us off a cliff and on to the ash heap of history. With all due respect to a member of Talossa's nobility, that simply will not do. We cannot sit in the burning room, sipping our coffee and telling ourselves "this is fine" until we've been charred to a crisp.

It is true that more immigration is always a good thing. It is also true that immigration is something that pretty much every government of this nation, regardless of ideological position or partisan makeup, has attempted to improve, frequently with mixed results. While this Government has enacted improvements to our immigration system, it is a fact that Talossa simply does not have the population to justify the current structure of our state.

We have, at last count, 131 active citizens. It is, however, the same 20 or so who continue to form the core of active citizenry. This is not enough to keep Talossa's posts fully manned. We have too many provinces and too many positions that must be filled, and the most glaring example of this is the Senäts. Eight citizens forbidden from most other positions, including Cosӑ service (understandably so, to be fair), Uppermost Cort seats, and several key spots in the Royal Civil Service. Wouldn't it be nice to have them available to help share a bit more of the workload?

This is not to criticize the concept of provincial representation, to be clear. Both proposals submitted for Cosӑ apportionment, including the Mixed-Member Proportional system ultimately selected for the Consensus Plan on Reform, are intended to sacrifice a little proportionality to ensure smaller provinces are not completely overpowered by more populous neighbors. But they do so in a way that solves what has been termed the "warm bodies problem" – fewer people are required to make things function properly, though there is nothing stating that more people cannot be included – there's nothing wrong with making a large party list and then only giving each person on it a few seats, you know? (By the way, this is one excellent feature of the 200-seat Cosă: it's easily scalable and almost infinitely expandable.)

Perhaps the most sinister motivation at play here is that of self-perpetuation. We can talk about how our systems are broken, about how we do not have enough people to man the ramparts, about how immigration is paramount. But when new prospective immigrants show up, this leaves us in a bind – we are forced to show them a house with its windows smashed in and its paint peeling, only to follow up with "welcome home!" It's no wonder most of them don't stick around! Wouldn't it make the most sense to renovate the house first before having someone move in?

All of these metaphors are to try and emphasize why the Consensus Plan on Reform – CPR – is so necessary. As in medicine, CPR is not undertaken lightly; it is an emergency lifesaving measure, after all. The ¡Avant! ticket is trained in its administration. And you, the Talossan people, will decide with your votes whether we as a nation get the emergency care we need, or whether we will allow ourselves to flatline.

A vote for the ¡Avant! ticket is a vote for democratic reform, a vote for adaptable government, and a vote for Talossa's future. Not just a brighter future, but a future of any kind.

[Glüc]

On what basis is this proposal called "Consensus Plan on Reform"?

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Alternative titles for the plan: The Plan That Everyone Agrees On, the Great Plan That Your Dear Grandmother Told Me She Loved, and This Plan Passed Last Wednesday and You Already Voted for It.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

You present two arguments in favor of eliminating the Senate.  One of them seems to be simply mistaken.

We have too many provinces and too many positions that must be filled, and the most glaring example of this is the Senäts. Eight citizens forbidden from most other positions, including Cosӑ service (understandably so, to be fair), Uppermost Cort seats, and several key spots in the Royal Civil Service.

The senator from Maritiimi-Maxhestic is nominated for a seat on the Cort right now.  I think the only bar on service for senators is the Cosa (duh) and Secretary of State.  Can you provide a list of the other spots in the Civil Service that I missed?


Your other argument is that eliminating the Senats will make the country seem livelier, I think?  The metaphor isn't quite clear to me.

But when new prospective immigrants show up, this leaves us in a bind – we are forced to show them a house with its windows smashed in and its paint peeling, only to follow up with "welcome home!" It's no wonder most of them don't stick around! Wouldn't it make the most sense to renovate the house first before having someone move in?

I guess I can kind of see the wisdom of this... like, it would be better to have a full vibrant and humming country with every institution working at full steam.  But I just really doubt that eliminating institutions is going to help.  Indeed, that's what I meant by "gradual decay."

Also, what's the argument that the Senats is smashed and peeling?

And of course, there's the glaring problem: we need checks in our system on a powerful Government, and it's not a good sign when the Government is proposing eliminating one of the few remaining checks on their power.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

there's the glaring problem: we need checks in our system on a powerful Government, and it's not a good sign when the Government is proposing eliminating one of the few remaining checks on their power.

How many more elections do the Free Democrats need to get a bulldozer majority in the Senäts to make you question this :D

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

It is a poor legislator who thinks only of the current moment.

Currently, individuals in the Senate hold power of their own accord. They must be persuaded to support a bill or candidate. That is a good thing, and we should continue it.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

The purpose of a system is what it does. What the Senäts does, and what it has done for at least 4 or 5 Cosa terms - longer than the current moment - is to act as a Free Dems party-line block on legislation. Of course Senators have minds of their own, but consider: the overwhelming majority of recent Senäts elections have been uncontested. In such a situation, less active citizens, who happen to live in a particular province, can put their name up, get elected, and pay minimal attention thereafter except to vote party-line every month.

As you can see, I am a principled patriot because I understand the current system is too easy to game and needs reforms. Especially since the other mob might get control of the machinery at some stage. Of course there are alternatives to abolition, such as Lüc's proposal to elect Senators at-large, which would largely do away with the uncontested-elections problem.

I don't think it behooves us to act like Soviet Communists in the 1980s, arguing that a system which manifestly does not work should work in the abstract and might work under other circumstances and therefore must be defended. ¡Avant! says: the institutions are there to support the Talossan people, not the other way around.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

The necessity of making it through the Senate has held up multiple bills in that time and compelled compromise changes.  I simply do not believe your argument that the independent and thoughtful consideration of people like Ian and Gluc hasn't affected the course of policy.

I would certainly be open to other reforms to ameliorate the problem you describe, but the fact that the immigration rate was tragic this past term is the overwhelmingly bigger issue.  We could do with a Government that focuses a little more on that.  We went four months with zero naturalizations.

If we want to discuss senators-at-large, something like that might make sense.

[Glüc]

I simply do not believe your argument that the independent and thoughtful consideration of people like Ian and Gluc hasn't affected the course of policy.

Heh, I have a sense that my independent and thoughtful considerations are about to get kicked out of the senate pretty soon, but thanks for the compliment anyway :p

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

If we want to discuss senators-at-large, something like that might make sense.

Oh, good to hear, because your Senäts candidate in CZ seems to disagree; and there's no point putting up anything that can't get 6 Senators saying yes in the 61st Cosa. But I may hopper something just to give a sense of my thoughts.

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

On what basis is this proposal called "Consensus Plan on Reform"?

Well, the fact that we had

three

different

rounds

of successive national conversations about the best way to forge a path forward -- in which every citizen was invited to contribute, MZ or no, Government or Opposition -- and this was ultimately what emerged from the talks is a pretty good basis.

Obviously, yes, more citizens contributing would always be preferred, but if people can't be hassled to even check Witt, I cannot compel them to speak up.

[Munditenens Tresplet]

There were maybe 6-7 people participating in these, and this post suggests a wide range of views on each of the topics presented. On the single page Witt thread of your supposed third round, there are even less votes, still with differing views. Hardly a consensus.

I look forward to vociferous debate in the Ziu when we actually see the substance of these plans. I do not want to be, nor to your credit—based on keeping the VoC—expect to be, met with a brick wall of "it was already agreed to, we don't need to debate it again."