The Non-Hereditary Monarchy Amendment

[Glüc]

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.

[Sir 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.

[Sir 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.

[Sir 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?

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

Alternatively, we could instead say the committee is made up of "the X citizens with the longest tenure"

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

And then we'd be into the weeds of "does citizenship in the Republic count" or "should periods of renunciation be subtracted".

Look guys: go for the minimalist solution or there will be no solution. The continuing belief that we can design important constitutional amendments "by committee" is why it took 22 years to reform the OrgLaw.

[esbornatfiglheu]

Honestly, the more I think about it.  I think this is a nonstarter, and that Miestra is correct in constitutional minimalism.  Quite simply, the Orglaw stipulates that John is King.  We'll have to amend the Orglaw regardless. 

[Istefan Perþonest]

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

Well, I'd be tempted to use a fixed cutoff date of February 22, 1998.

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

Alright, looks like this wouldn't work in practice.

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

OK, the text in the first post is what I intend to Clark. Please make sure it does not have any fatal errors.

[Glüc]

Alright, looks like this wouldn't work in practice.

Why? Because there are some unresolved issues? I don't see why these cannot be resolved... Obviously no proposal is going to make everyone equally happy, but even this unfinished proposal is already many times better than the current text, which to me removes basically any value the monarchy still has.

What even remains the incentive to wait for a King to retire, when the procedure for changing King every other cosa term is the same as waiting for there to be a vacancy?

Also, why not just call it a republic then?

[Glüc]

And then we'd be into the weeds of "does citizenship in the Republic count"

I would expect yes, considering the database already counts that way, though if we want to be sure I guess we could specify it in the Lexhatx somewhere. (Then again, if we go with the seven year plan it wouldn't be needed, because reunision happened more than seven years ago).

or "should periods of renunciation be subtracted".

I imagine the default would be no, though personally I'd prefer to completely reset the clock when someone renounces. While I'm always happy to welcome back someone who renounced, I also don't think it would be unfair to get a citizenship bonus for not doing the renouncing and coming back routine.

Look guys: go for the minimalist solution or there will be no solution.

Why? It seemed like we were working towards a solution. (And personally I think the having a minimalist monarchy defeats the purpose and isn't really a solution at all).

The continuing belief that we can design important constitutional amendments "by committee" is why it took 22 years to reform the OrgLaw.

That's the lesson you got from that? Discussing bills is what the Ziu is supposed to do. I think the idea that whoever is in power should just push through the first idea that comes to mind without consideration or compromise is incredibly destructive.

[Glüc]

Anyway, regarding the earlier discussion, Sir AD made a good point. I keep forgetting how few lasting citizens we have added in recent years.

On the one hand you could argue that with seven years a citizen will have enough sense of Talossan culture and history to make a sensible decision. If that means we end up with a very large group of electors then so be it.

On the other hand a committee of over a 100 might be somewhat unwieldy.

I think that if we do something like send out an email when the King position becomes vacant and only admit to the committee everyone who declares their presence within a week, we probably reduce the group by a significant amount. That way we have both a longevity and an activity threshold.

Though I also like the X citizens with the longest tenure proposal. Perhaps the best solution is a combination.

For example

We contact anyone who has been a citizen for more than x years. Anyone who responds within y time is selected. However, if this results in more than z members only the z members with the longest tenure are selected.

We could even consider additional criteria. For example, members of the Ziu could be ruled out since they already have the right to approve/reject the nominee.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

The continuing belief that we can design important constitutional amendments "by committee" is why it took 22 years to reform the OrgLaw.

That's the lesson you got from that? Discussing bills is what the Ziu is supposed to do. I think the idea that whoever is in power should just push through the first idea that comes to mind without consideration or compromise is incredibly destructive.

I am mainly thinking now about that version of the Judicial Amendment that V drew up to attempt to satisfy the objections of AD. It was incredibly complex and convoluted to the point where I couldn't even understand it myself, and it got voted down anyway.

The problem I have here is not with "discussing bills" or whether people can offer amendments to Government bills. It is a process where an attempt to satisfy all suggestions leads to a Frankenstein's monster, where IMHO this was heading.

[Ián Tamorán S.H.]

While I'm always happy to welcome back someone who renounced, I also don't think it would be unfair to get a citizenship bonus for not doing the renouncing and coming back routine.

I'm awfully confused about the meaning of this triple negative!... don't think... unfair... not doing.... ??? ???

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

It's not so much that any particular issue would be impossible to deal with, it's that I realized there are likely to be many other issues and dealing with them all would probably not be practical.

When the need to replace a King arises, the Ziu could set out any procedure they want; implementing a procedure then would still lend prestige to the office.

Also, I need the support of the other parties to pass this bill, and they have made up their mind on what they will accept.

[Glüc]

It's not so much that any particular issue would be impossible to deal with, it's that I realized there are likely to be many other issues and dealing with them all would probably not be practical.

And there won't be any issues with not having a procedure in place? Also, why would dealing with them now not be practical?

When the need to replace a King arises, the Ziu could set out any procedure they want; implementing a procedure then would still lend prestige to the office.

Highly doubt it. Based on recent political history, my best guess would be the government deciding on a candidate internally and the Ziu just basically accepting that.

(Also, again, why would we even wait until the need to replace a King arises. A formal removal procedure won't be needed since the procedure for picking a new one is the same with or without a vacancy. How long until people decide to replace the King because they disagree with some opinion or veto? )

Also, I need the support of the other parties to pass this bill, and they have made up their mind on what they will accept.

...