ANNOUNCING: the Campaign for an Elected Head of State

[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.")

[GV]

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?

Right now, I have to agree with Ziu vetting and then a ranked-choice ballot with provision for a runoff, if necessary, though in theory, there should never be a runoff.

Also, how long should a transition period be from one 'consul' to the next?

[GV]

But the last Republic shrank until it was just a small group of like-minded people.

True, though this whole line of thought, even if you didn't meant it to be trolly was trolly.  Ever and anon, you pine for the halcyon days of 2005-2011 when SCA-Talossa ruled supreme.

We took over the disco board and domains out of genuine duress, Alexander.  Our methods were draconian, to be sure, and did not take into account those many Kingdom-people caught in the middle, but had we not done so, Ben would have gotten away completely with falsely accusing Kane of domestic violence not once, but four times without a shred of remorse.

The whole spat between you and Daph over the years has its roots in that we in the Republic were always a threat to the way you wanted to do Talossa.  This is why you did your part to make sure Kingdom society did not look kindly on our return for many years, if ever.

'Betrayed.  Stolen.  Kept.'  Of our genuine mistakes with talossa.com and Witt X, you and the RUMP took full advantage. 

[GV]

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.

Albeit their monarch is selected from small monarchs, if Malaysia can can an elected monarch, so can we.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

True, though this whole line of thought, even if you didn't meant it to be trolly was trolly.  Ever and anon, you pine for the halcyon days of 2005-2011 when SCA-Talossa ruled supreme.

I think it's pretty hard to argue that the discussion over whether to establish a new republic of Talossa should ignore the last Republic of Talossa.  It might be uncomfortable to reckon with, but that doesn't make it "trolly."

None of the rest of your post seems to be pertinent.  I didn't bring up any of those things and didn't criticize the Republic even slightly.  Please reread my post and see for yourself.  Surely that's not news to you, because I have been saying the same thing for literally a decade (as in this official declaration I made as Seneschal to you in 2010).  But I'll say it as many times as you wish: the people who left for the Republic were justified in doing so; the great schism was abhorrent and Reunision was an amazing and good thing that I vocally supported; I am glad you are here.  In 2006, just after I immigrated, we had a conversation where I told you that I "wish that the wisdom of the Kingdom would rejoin with the fire of the Republic."

All of that is still true, as it was sixteen years ago and ten years ago.  And not a whit of it matters here, except as a distraction.

Some folks want to create a new republic of Talossa, so we should look at what happened to the old one.  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.  But the Kingdom ended up, in the reckoning of our current Seneschal, "much more culturally rich and attractive to citizens."  So let's figure out why.  At the last, if we do end up going back down that path, we might be able to steer a bit better.

[Açafat del Val]

Sorry that I am responding so late.

To give hope to all those skeptics out there, I wanted to share an idea. We could amend the Organic Law such that Talossa remains a kingdom nominally, but the throne is permanently vacated and its functions exercised by a Regent / Consul / First Citizen / whatever title we want who just so happens to be elected nationally every 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 years.

Something like...

1. The nation of Talossa is a Kingdom.
2. The King of Talossa does [insert functions here].
3. The Throne of the King of Talossa is permanently vacant.
4. While the Throne may be vacant, its Powers and Duties shall be exercised pro tempore by a Regent.
5. The Regent of Talossa shall be elected nationally by all citizens for a term of two years.
6. No person shall be elected consecutively as the Regent of Talossa.

Win-win scenario for everyone. We stay a Kingdom on paper while in practice we have an elected head of state.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

Sorry that I am responding so late.

To give hope to all those skeptics out there, I wanted to share an idea. We could amend the Organic Law such that Talossa remains a kingdom nominally, but the throne is permanently vacated and its functions exercised by a Regent / Consul / First Citizen / whatever title we want who just so happens to be elected nationally every 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 years.

Something like...

1. The nation of Talossa is a Kingdom.
2. The King of Talossa does [insert functions here].
3. The Throne of the King of Talossa is permanently vacant.
4. While the Throne may be vacant, its Powers and Duties shall be exercised pro tempore by a Regent.
5. The Regent of Talossa shall be elected nationally by all citizens for a term of two years.
6. No person shall be elected consecutively as the Regent of Talossa.

Win-win scenario for everyone. We stay a Kingdom on paper while in practice we have an elected head of state.

This seems to be identical to Eðo's proposal. Leaving the Thone permanently empty is a cop-out (see page one of this thread).

[Éovart Andrinescù]

If an elective monarchy, or indeed a republic, be the will of the people, it must be valid. But a permanently empty throne seems to me—though inspired and interesting in a Game of Thrones kind of way—slightly absurd. The throne itself is just a piece of (digital) furniture. Without a person sitting it, it doesn't retain much symbolic meaning. It's comparable to having a permanently empty parliament. It sounds ghostly, like a memorial for an institution with no life left in it. If that's the case—as the more iconoclastic republicans among us would have us believe—then they should go the full distance and advocate for its full abolition. All these semantic compromises strike me as the staging grounds for a later move against the entire monarchy and its vestiges, such as the peerage. We're in the process of cobbling together some kind of new monarchical system in the wake of our Bastille. If and when the supporters of our monarchy attempt to flee to Varennes, as it were, there won't be any further need for compromise.

(Apologies in advance if this is a slippery slope fallacy. Indeed, sometimes history abides by very illogical and fallacious rules. Cf. Tolstoy, War and Peace, Epilogue. Also, for a biblical perspective on our current troubles, see 1 Samuel 8, especially verse 18: 'And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves; but the LORD will not answer you in that day.' I would prefer a true monarchy, or no monarchy at all.)

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

All these semantic compromises strike me as the staging grounds for a later move against the entire monarchy and its vestiges, such as the peerage.

The "peerage" is miéidă da toro. There were no Lords or Dukes or Counts or all that nonsense in KR1's Talossa 1997-2005. That was all made up in the "RUMP-led National Schism Kingdom" of 2005-11. One of the things that always gets my goat is that Woolleys, Hands, Cannons etc. became Talossans years after the founders of the Republic had become Talossan, made up all this nonsense, and then fooled future citizens into thinking it was "Talossan tradition".

There is justification for a Talossan Monarchy, if it has popular support and a qualified claimant can be found. There is no justification for a "peerage". Knighthoods are different.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Anyway, I'd like to put this up to the leader of the Opposition. The fact remains that - even if Option One wins the election - nothing will happen without an OrgLaw amendment, which will need 2/3 of the Coså (3/4 with a veto override) to happen.

So, @Senator Plätschisch or other members of the LCC or other Monarchists, please answer. Would you be any less likely to oppose an Elected Head of State if we continued to call them "King"? Or "Regent" for a permanently empty throne? If the answer is no, then all these "compromises" are a waste of time (in fact, cxhn. Andrinescù for one has already dismissed them in advance) and we might as well just go for what we want.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

If an elective monarchy, or indeed a republic, be the will of the people, it must be valid. But a permanently empty throne seems to me—though inspired and interesting in a Game of Thrones kind of way—slightly absurd. The throne itself is just a piece of (digital) furniture. Without a person sitting it, it doesn't retain much symbolic meaning. It's comparable to having a permanently empty parliament. It sounds ghostly, like a memorial for an institution with no life left in it.

I agree in a very real and practical sense.

A monarchy has real value in terms of stability in a small country which lacks very many physical anchors and symbols of continuity.  If the constitution changes every few years, major institutions change their workings dramatically or simply fall into disuse, and new political parties rise and fall, then what remains to tie Talossa together with any sort of continuity?  Only a handful of people are interested in our language or other aspects of our culture, after all.  Having some important elements of our country that remain continuous means that there's a weight of history behind Talossa -- doing big things has deeper meaning because they help build up something that's going to last into the future, just as it's lasted from the past.

You can build a sandcastle down in the waves, but the constant tide will pull it right down and leave you disinterested.  If you want it to last, you build it on a rock.

The "peerage" is miéidă da toro. There were no Lords or Dukes or Counts or all that nonsense in KR1's Talossa 1997-2005. That was all made up in the "RUMP-led National Schism Kingdom" of 2005-11. One of the things that always gets my goat is that Woolleys, Hands, Cannons etc. became Talossans years after the founders of the Republic had become Talossan, made up all this nonsense, and then fooled future citizens into thinking it was "Talossan tradition".

Why do you get to decide what's fun for people?  Why do you get to decide which Talossan traditions are valid, and which aren't?
Heraldry stuff is fun for people!  Peerages are fascinating!  Do we really have to grind it out of existence because it doesn't meet with your personal approval or because King Ben did it a different way?

I mean, honestly, 2005 was sixteen years ago!  "Oh, well, you've been doing this thing in Talossa for sixteen years, but it doesn't count as a traditional, real Talossan thing.  Only valid King Ben cosplay is really doing Talossa."