ANNOUNCING: the Campaign for an Elected Head of State

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

With the Regent taking the democratically-correct option of not exercising his veto, the Ranked-Choice Referendum on Talossa's Constitutional Future will take place at the time of the 3rd Clark, i.e. January (unless we go for a month of recess, which I don't think we will).

Neither the Free Democrats nor the Government will be taking an official "side" in this referendum, since there are supporters of all four options within those bodies (taken together). It is therefore appropriate to launch a stand-alone campaign for supporters of the option "the King of Talossa shall be replaced by an elected Head of State.".

Note that the details of this option will be fleshed out (by Cabinet) only if it wins. It might mean a "New Talossan Republic", at one end of the scale; at the other end, it might mean a minimalist solution, that Talossa remains a Kingdom a permanently-empty Throne and a periodically-elected Regent. But this is the campaign for you if you think Talossans should choose their Head of State - for a shorter or longer term of office, renewable or not, via popular vote, legislature or Electoral College, with sizeable powers or none, whatever their title.

This is a thread for you to post your vision of an Elected Head of State, and to make suggestions for the campaign. Thank you.

[GV]

Monarch: symbol, standard-bearer, and rallying point for the nation - term: 10 Cosas - cannot be Consul or a member of Cosa or Senats.  Cannot be a UCort justice or Secretary of State.  Cannot become Monarch more than once in a period of 20 consecutive Cosas.  Doles out honours.

Consul: Takes up the current royal powers of nominating UCort justices, giving assent to bills, etc. - term: 4 terms of Cosâ - Cannot become Consul more than once in a period covered by the end-dates of voting in seven consecutive Cosâ elections.

In the event of the premature end of the term of a Consul, the Vice-Consul shall immediately become Consul.  The new Consul shall nominate (not the previous Consul) to be the new Vice-Consul.  This nomination shall be confirmed by majorities of each of Cosa and Senats in votes held independently of any Clark.  If there is no new Vice-Consul chosen within 21 days of the end of the previous consular tenure, the Speaker of the Cosa shall become Vice-Consul.

A consular veto may be overridden by a two-thirds majority of Cosâ only or by majorities in both Cosâ and Senäts.

Elections for Monarch and Consul shall take place concurrently with an election for Cosâ.

We could call the Consul 'Chancellor', but I didn't want so much 'Ein!  Zwei!  Drei!'.

[Eðo Grischun]

I will be voting PER on option 4; For an elected Head of State.

My vision for the future of that would go something like this:


1. There shall be a Talossan Monarchy, but in a state of perennial interregnum.  There shall never be another Royal Family, nor another King, nor another Queen.  Talossan citizens shall never be forced to make oaths of allegiance to another Talossan person ever again, but instead shall pledge their oaths to the Symbols of the Nation.

2. The role of the Talossan Monarchy shall exist in line with Bagehot's arguments: that it shall represent the "dignified branch" of the national fabric by symbolising the state through pomp and ceremony, and that the Head of State shall have "the rights to be Consulted, to Encourage and to Warn".  It shall have no real nor effective political power and any powers it does have must be ceremonial only.

3. The Head of State shall be elected.  The Head of State shall act as a temporary steward of the Crown and, ideally, the role will be styled as "The First Citizen".

4.  I have no preference on consecutive term limits.  If the First Citizen ends up being re-elected 20 times in a row then so be it.  As long as democracy has had its day and the people have had their say and that the temperature of the nation can be regularly checked then I'm okay with that.  But, it's not a hill I'm willing to die on, so if a greater majority prefer the idea of term limits then that's fine too.  I don't see a real need for term limits if the First Citizen has no political power, but if political power does end up part of the role then perhaps term limits would be desirable.

5.  I'm not sure what the ideal term length between elections should be.  It should not be as short as a single Cosa term, but should not be anything more than ~5 years.  I think somewhere around ~3 years might be the sweet spot.

6. When a term is due to expire, if there are no challengers to the incumbent, then the election shall be be replaced by a national referendum on re-confirmation.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Any thoughts on how a Regent/First Citizen should be elected? Free popular vote? Irish-style popular vote (where candidates need to be nominated by legislators or local government)? German-style electoral college? Supermajority of the Ziu?

[Eðo Grischun]

A Ziu vetting process similar to the ones we have been doing for the UC appointments. Candidates can self-nominate, but must pass a Ziu vote to appear on the ballot, followed by a universal popular vote.

What would be the better translation, by the way; Prairugadour or Prum Citaxhien?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Prüm Citaxhien was the title we used for the President of the Talossan Republic, so of course I'd like that, though it might set others' teeth on edge.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

What's the point of keeping the Throne around if it's supposed to stay empty for all eternity? If Talossa does want an elected Head of State, either be thorough and abolish the Throne (either with or without replacement; Botswana does fine with combining the posts of President and Prime Minister into one  thing), or turn Kingship into the elected office in question.

Impose a term length on the King, like 5 Cosa terms or so, and limit consecutive terms to 2 or 3.

I have no preference for the voting method, as long as its not one round of FPTP of course.

[Eðo Grischun]

What's the point of keeping the Throne around if it's supposed to stay empty for all eternity? If Talossa does want an elected Head of State, either be thorough and abolish the Throne (either with or without replacement; Botswana does fine with combining the posts of President and Prime Minister into one  thing), or turn Kingship into the elected office in question.

Impose a term length on the King, like 5 Cosa terms or so, and limit consecutive terms to 2 or 3.

I have no preference for the voting method, as long as its not one round of FPTP of course.

Because many still believe that the appeal of Talossa as a Kingdom with all the pomp and ceremony that comes with that is still greater than outright abolishing it, and that the symbols of Monarchy provide some kind of historical glue.  However, at the same time, swearing fealty to a Monarch or a Royal Family is falling out of fashion.  A perpetually empty throne would allow for the symbolic/ historical/ traditional while having the Head of State be a Steward of the Throne rather than be an actual Monarch eliminates the requirement for Talossan citizens to swear fealty and oaths of allegiance to some person; instead making those oaths to the symbols of Talossa and its laws.  That's my thinking on the issue anyway.  On top of all that we also need to consider the powers of the Head of State.  Do we still think it is right for an unelected Monarch or Regent to be wielding a legislative veto or to even be wading around in the Hopper? 

I think I understand the question you are asking.  You are seeing this is a simple choice between Monarchy vs Republic, or King vs President, right?  My position is more nuanced than that.  I'm saying keep Talossa as a Kingdom with all its traditions and ceremony and whatnot, but go for a permanent interregnum.  Then use popular election as the method of selecting who acts in tutelam over the Throne, and that person being "first among equals" meaning we don't swear allegiance to that person, rather that person swears allegiance to protect the nation, its symbols and laws, and its peoples. 

Also, by having the position be an electable one we cool down the hotness of the Head of State playing around with a veto.

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

Sorry to butt in, but if swearing an oath of allegiance to the King is such a problem, you could just change the oath rather than change the entire government structure.

I can also say that leaving the throne perpetually empty will probably not do much to satisfy people who enjoy the traditions of the Monarchy. Speaking for myself, one of my chief complaints with King John is his low activity; a problem which will not be solved by deposing him and never replacing him.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

However, at the same time, swearing fealty to a Monarch or a Royal Family is falling out of fashion.  A perpetually empty throne would allow for the symbolic/ historical/ traditional while having the Head of State be a Steward of the Throne rather than be an actual Monarch eliminates the requirement for Talossan citizens to swear fealty and oaths of allegiance to some person; instead making those oaths to the symbols of Talossa and its laws.  That's my thinking on the issue anyway.

I believe this is a false dichotomy. Nothing prevents us from having a Monarch and also redirecting oaths towards the State. I know you know this because you advocate for an empty throne -- de jure keeping the Monarchy -- and redirecting oaths towards the State, so we're in agreement!

On top of all that we also need to consider the powers of the Head of State.  Do we still think it is right for an unelected Monarch or Regent to be wielding a legislative veto or to even be wading around in the Hopper?

Of course, if the Monarch was elected and term-limited they wouldnt be unelected anymore, so that point would be moot immediately.

I think I understand the question you are asking.  You are seeing this is a simple choice between Monarchy vs Republic, or King vs President, right?  My position is more nuanced than that.  I'm saying keep Talossa as a Kingdom with all its traditions and ceremony and whatnot, but go for a permanent interregnum.  Then use popular election as the method of selecting who acts in tutelam over the Throne, and that person being "first among equals" meaning we don't swear allegiance to that person, rather that person swears allegiance to protect the nation, its symbols and laws, and its peoples. 

Also, by having the position be an electable one we cool down the hotness of the Head of State playing around with a veto.

This too would be moot immediately if the King was elected and term-limited. I think the main thing you and I disagree on is what to call the future elected Head of State. While you want them to be the Steward watching over a perpetually empty Throne, I think that new Head of State should still be called the King. Elective monarchies are nothing new, in fact Talossa has always been one de facto, the only change that I am proposing is limiting how long the King can reign thus forcing them to abdicate once their time is up, which as far as I can see would already solve most if not all the problems that Republicans have with the current Status Quo. Let me know if I missed something.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Do we still think it is right for an unelected Monarch or Regent to be wielding a legislative veto or to even be wading around in the Hopper? 

Er, to butt in here: the Hopper is free to all citizens. And I would honestly prefer that - as long as the Regent wields a legislative veto - he informs us of any issues he has with legislation in plenty of time.

In any case: if we're agreed that a Head of State elected to a defined term, rather than for life, can still be called a "King", we're still within the realms of Option 4. We are only debating titles.

[Eðo Grischun]

Yeah.  It seems it's all just a matter of semantics and convention at this point.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

I've just talked to the SoS who confirms that they'll send out 50 word statements for this referendum. Here is my draft. Comments?

Talossa's history shows lifelong monarchy doesn't work - unaccountable Kings get corrupt, or apathetic. We need a head of State accountable to the nation, even if they're still called "King". Title, length of term and means of election are up for debate. Vote Option 1 for the people's right to choose!

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I'd be curious to know why a Third Republic would turn out better than the previous two, if anyone would be interested in addressing that. It seems like a pretty important question that hasn't been addressed yet.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Well, if we had a new Republic we could fire you. That would be a start.

Seriously, "unaccountable Temporary Bogus Head of State thinks the system which gave him his job is excellent" is not news.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Well, if we had a new Republic we could fire you. That would be a start.

Seriously, "unaccountable Temporary Bogus Head of State thinks the system which gave him his job is excellent" is not news.

I mean... didn't you queue up a bill to fire me almost immediately after I was appointed?  You evocatively named it the "Sword of Damocles Act" to signify that it was being held dangerously over my head and could drop at any moment, right?  I don't feel very much job security, let me tell you ;)  Org.II.5 allows for a regent to be removed at any time by the Ziu.  You must know this, since you wrote the bill.

I'm not sure this is a great explanation, either, even if it was true, since it doesn't really make sense on the face of it.  Obviously there wouldn't be a regency in a republic! Really, this argument amounts to "a republic would turn out differently this time because it would be a republic."

But the last Republic shrank until it was just a small group of like-minded people.  I think a serious reply might point to more liberal immigration laws in the Kingdom or something like that, but your answer here seems -- to be generous about it -- to be a bit of a tangent from the real question: why would it make sense to try the same thing again and expect a different result?  You owe it to the people to engage in good faith about this, I think.

[esbornatfiglheu]

Sometimes I think that an interesting twist on the "Sword of Damocles" would be to make the individual themselves almost impossible to remove from the seat... but make the seat itself relatively easy to abolish.  It might focus the sitter's attention away from their personal ambition toward devotion to the institution itself.

In effect:  "If this King screws it up... we won't have any more of them and he/she will be responsible."

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

But the last Republic shrank until it was just a small group of like-minded people.  I think a serious reply might point to more liberal immigration laws in the Kingdom or something like that, but your answer here seems -- to be generous about it -- to be a bit of a tangent from the real question: why would it make sense to try the same thing again and expect a different result?  You owe it to the people to engage in good faith about this, I think.

A bad-faith trolling question deserves a snarky answer. Your question is a masterpiece of begging the question, in that it assumes what must be proved - that there is some link between the longevity/health of a Talossan regime and whether it is a Kingdom or a Republic. I assumed you knew that, because you are smart and a skilled rhetorician; but perhaps you honestly didn't understand what was wrong with it, in which case, I am now enlightening you.

You have to argue now why you think there is any conceivable link between monarchy and Talossa being healthy. Please note that "I don't know why, there just is" will be rejected out of hand as superstitious at best. Please also note that the very worst time in Talossan history - 1997-2005 - was under a King. Worst in that it was an increasingly abusive totalitarian cult, but at least it was an active one?

You are also (deliberately?) avoiding the point of the breadth of Option 1. An elected Head of State could still be a King of the Kingdom of Talossa. A totally minimalist solution under Option 1, should it win, would be to simply amend the current OrgLaw to make it clear that the King serves for 7 years and then must resubmit himself to the nation to continue his reign, or not. You have to argue specifically against the principle of "no life term for the head of state". As you rightly point out yourself, during the National Schism the Kingdom was much more culturally rich and attractive to citizens than the Republic, but that was nothing to do with its constitution. You might also point out that Reunision also happened because the Kingdom had shrunk to a "small group of like-minded people" because of its 1-party-dominant politics. You needed us to spice things up, lol.

Anyway, yes, we can sack you, but we can't replace you. Until the OrgLaw is changed.

[Ián S.G. Txaglh]

your problems and rothschildt's money, that's what i miss of all right now, is what we use to say here when seeing someone to solve interesting pseudo-problem :)

within entities like talossa, it hardly matters that much if they have king or president, monarchy or republic. you always need some extent of likemindedness of its members to keep it alive, but the formal ones, which attract 90 % of new members who then simply vanish with the wind, those are really pointless (i made a typo "pintless" which i somehow like). i like the idea of having fun doing things together with friends which allow me to take some new social roles i did not (and mostly do not want to) try in real world. it has to be a process, vivid thing, otherwise it fades into inexistence. remember penguinea-pangea-polyphony? ;) we have to admit we grow older, things funny once are not that much today. do you see a new generation of agile and clever talossans, 25-30 yrs, trying to kick (y)our ol'butt of (y)our comfort chairs? i do not. that has to be here. king or dwayne elizondo mountain dew herbert camacho, not important. good feeling, important. no good feeling now.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

But the last Republic shrank until it was just a small group of like-minded people.  I think a serious reply might point to more liberal immigration laws in the Kingdom or something like that, but your answer here seems -- to be generous about it -- to be a bit of a tangent from the real question: why would it make sense to try the same thing again and expect a different result?  You owe it to the people to engage in good faith about this, I think.

A bad-faith trolling question deserves a snarky answer. Your question is a masterpiece of begging the question, in that it assumes what must be proved - that there is some link between the longevity/health of a Talossan regime and whether it is a Kingdom or a Republic. I assumed you knew that, because you are smart and a skilled rhetorician; but perhaps you honestly didn't understand what was wrong with it, in which case, I am now enlightening you.

You have to argue now why you think there is any conceivable link between monarchy and Talossa being healthy. Please note that "I don't know why, there just is" will be rejected out of hand as superstitious at best. Please also note that the very worst time in Talossan history - 1997-2005 - was under a King. Worst in that it was an increasingly abusive totalitarian cult, but at least it was an active one?

You are also (deliberately?) avoiding the point of the breadth of Option 1. An elected Head of State could still be a King of the Kingdom of Talossa. A totally minimalist solution under Option 1, should it win, would be to simply amend the current OrgLaw to make it clear that the King serves for 7 years and then must resubmit himself to the nation to continue his reign, or not. You have to argue specifically against the principle of "no life term for the head of state". As you rightly point out yourself, during the National Schism the Kingdom was much more culturally rich and attractive to citizens than the Republic, but that was nothing to do with its constitution. You might also point out that Reunision also happened because the Kingdom had shrunk to a "small group of like-minded people" because of its 1-party-dominant politics. You needed us to spice things up, lol.

Anyway, yes, we can sack you, but we can't replace you. Until the OrgLaw is changed.

Respectfully, I know that this is an awkward issue, and so I appreciate that makes it seem like "trolling" to bring it up.  But our past -- not even that long ago! -- is usually one of the best guides to what might happen in the future.

For years, there was a Republic of Talossa and a Kingdom of Talossa.  The former got smaller until it was a small group of die-hard, dedicated, and talented citizens, at which point its last Seneschal reached out to the much larger Kingdom to broach the subject of a merger of equals.  (A happy day as we joined together!)  The Republic boasted ownership of talossa.com, a citizenry with a ton of longtime Talossans, the form of government you're proposing, and experienced leadership in the person of your very own self.  If the Kingdom ended up "much more culturally rich and attractive to citizens," by your own admission and despite the advantages of the Republic, then I'd think that it's pretty pertinent!  We should look at the big obvious difference between the two groups.

Naturally, I can't "prove" that the problem with the Republic was that it was a republic.  But if we're proposing a Third Republic of Talossa, then I think it's disingenuous to pretend that it's "superstitious" to consider the Second.  (Even if we call the new President of Talossa a "king.")