ANNOUNCING: the Campaign for an Elected Head of State

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

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]

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]

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.

[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]

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]

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]

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.