The Non-Hereditary Monarchy Amendment

[Glüc da Dhi S.H.]

OK, how about this as a starting point for discussion

-Nominations are put forward by a committee composed of all Talossans who have been a citizen for longer than 7 years.
-Nominations must be approved by 2/3 of both houses
-Confirmation in a referendum

In particular tagging @Glüc da Dhi S.H.

I like the general direction of this idea.

One thought I have is whether it might be worth to somehow make the citizenship threshold more flexible, for example depending on population size. For example in a situation like in 2005 where we simply don't have a lot of long-time citizens it might be wiser to have a slightly more lenient threshold, whereas if we ever get thousands of citizens it might be worth having a more strict threshold to prevent the nominating committee from becoming unwieldy due to its size.

I can also see the case for additional criteria or procedures to determine the membership, but I don't like the suggestion of letting the Ziu pick the members. My worry is that the Ziu might then pick the members with the intent of steering the committee to a certain outcome. This would be unneccesary anyway as the Ziu already has to approve of the proposed candidate anyway so there is no risk of the Ziu not having enough influence on the outcome.

Finally I think it would also be good to have a clear procedure and timeline established for the committee nominating a candidate. Some procedure vaguelly inspired by papal conclaves seems like an obvious choice here (as others have already hinted at).

[esbornatfiglheu]

I cannot help but feel that having a well-trodden path for the replacement of the monarch might not be the best idea, lest it lead to choosing a replacement too easily. 

[Ian Plätschisch]

Personally, I think that the members of the "nominating conclave" should also be very carefully chosen.  As opposed to a blanket over "everyone above 7 years," lets make that the floor to be considered.  Then membership in the body needs to be approved by 2/3 of each house of the Ziu.

I don't see what the point of this would be given that the Ziu would need to approve of the committee's nominee. The point of this provision was to ensure that whoever is chosen is approved by Talossa's "senior" citizens.

[Açafat del Val]

I see that this did not make it to the most present Clark. In which case, may I offer two changes?

First, that the Ziu may not elevate to the throne any person who has not been a citizen of Talossa for 6 consecutive years at least.

Second, that such choice be ratified by the nation in referendum, but by three fifths of those voting (instead of a mere majority).

I'd like to ask these questions again. The current bill as it was proposed in the first post of this thread + the two suggestions above = success ???

[Ian Plätschisch]

Glüc and I had a conversation about this on the video chat a few weeks ago, and he convinced me that having a more established process for selecting a new monarch would give the office more prestige.

[Açafat del Val]

"A more established process", such as?

[Ian Plätschisch]

"A more established process", such as?

The one I currently propose

[Açafat del Val]

OK, how about this as a starting point for discussion

-Nominations are put forward by a committee composed of all Talossans who have been a citizen for longer than 7 years.
-Nominations must be approved by 2/3 of both houses
-Confirmation in a referendum

In particular tagging @Glüc da Dhi S.H.

This proposal specifically? Okay. So what do you have against changing 7 years to 6, and modifying the referendum to require 3/5 approval instead of a simple majority?

For what it's worth (and I did read the reasons why), I also don't think that a 'committee' would work very well. Who selects the committee? And wouldn't that process be as political if not more political than merely leaving the choice to the Ziu? Perhaps the committee could be comprised of certain officials (the Senior Judge, the Mencei, etc.), but then everyone else would feel left out.

The Cosa is accessible to everyday Talossans. If someone wants a voice in choosing the next King, they simply can become an MC. Plus the fact that the choice is ultimately approved (or rejected) by a referendum anyways.

It would seem so much better to just leave the nominations to the Ziu, i.e. members of the Cosa and Senate, rather than mire the process under more bureaucracy under the guise of 'fairness' or 'inclusivity'.

[esbornatfiglheu]

I'm not sure that having such a low bar adds any prestige to the office of the Monarchy.  If prestige is desired, then even potential nominators should be strongly vetted.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

I would like to reaffirm, as a constitutional minimalist, that I would like to simply have something in there saying "John I of House Lupúl is King of Talossa, and if he dies or abdicates or loses citizenship there will be a Council of Regency". Then we can set up a process *at the time*, via OrgLaw amendment, to appoint a successor, which I think would be more appropriate than to try to imagine one in advance.

[Glüc da Dhi S.H.]

The Cosa is accessible to everyday Talossans. If someone wants a voice in choosing the next King, they simply can become an MC.

Except nobody runs for Ziu or votes a certain way just to elect a King. Most likely when we vote in the GE we won't even know a King will be elected that term.

The Ziu (maybe, hopefully) represents the political views and general policy direction Talossans wants to take. In many other aspects it might not be representative of Talossa at all (for one thing, it is comprised entirely out of people with an interest in Talossan politics).

Ultimately when it comes to the direction of this country the power of the King is very limited. The people, both directly and through representation by the Ziu decide what the future of this country looks like, which is inclusive and democratic and overall a good thing.

But what use is there for a King then, if they are just an extension of the political hype of the day, like most other institutions already are. I'd much prefer it if our King were an extension of our long term history and culture. The long and real history of Talossa is what separates from most other micronations and what makes Talossa far more appealing. I think the selection process proposed by Ian reflects that much more than just letting the Ziu decide.

[Ian Plätschisch]

OK, how about this as a starting point for discussion

-Nominations are put forward by a committee composed of all Talossans who have been a citizen for longer than 7 years.
-Nominations must be approved by 2/3 of both houses
-Confirmation in a referendum

In particular tagging @Glüc da Dhi S.H.

This proposal specifically? Okay. So what do you have against changing 7 years to 6, and modifying the referendum to require 3/5 approval instead of a simple majority?

For what it's worth (and I did read the reasons why), I also don't think that a 'committee' would work very well. Who selects the committee? And wouldn't that process be as political if not more political than merely leaving the choice to the Ziu? Perhaps the committee could be comprised of certain officials (the Senior Judge, the Mencei, etc.), but then everyone else would feel left out.

The Cosa is accessible to everyday Talossans. If someone wants a voice in choosing the next King, they simply can become an MC. Plus the fact that the choice is ultimately approved (or rejected) by a referendum anyways.

It would seem so much better to just leave the nominations to the Ziu, i.e. members of the Cosa and Senate, rather than mire the process under more bureaucracy under the guise of 'fairness' or 'inclusivity'.

Any particular reason for having it be six years rather than seven?

The Committee is just anyone who has been a citizen for that long; it would not need to be selected by anyone.

[Ian Plätschisch]

I'm not sure that having such a low bar adds any prestige to the office of the Monarchy.  If prestige is desired, then even potential nominators should be strongly vetted.

It would not be a low bar to be nominated by Talossa's oldest citizens.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

7 years means 114 of 187 total citizens would be the committee.  6 makes it a 122-person committee instead.  I love the idea of a committee composed of 61% (or 65%) of the whole.

[Ian Plätschisch]

7 years means 114 of 187 total citizens would be the committee.  6 makes it a 122-person committee instead.  I love the idea of a committee composed of 61% (or 65%) of the whole.

Very fair point, although I suspect not everyone who was eligible would be involved.

You know I am a sucker for graphs, so, given this graph, where would you make the cut off?