Government Proposal on an Elected Head of State

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Pursuant to section 4 of 55RZ12, and consequent upon the success of Option One, "an elected head of State" in the Ranked Choice Referendum, a majority of the Cabinet hereby offers the following proposal as the starting-point for debate. We hasten to emphasise that this proposal is designed to assuage the fears and doubts of Talossan monarchists as much as possible, while retaining the elective principle.

The proposal is to replace the current Organic Law II.3, namely

The King of Talossa is King John I, until his demise, abdication, or removal from the throne. Should the King at any time renounce or lose his citizenship, that renunciation or loss shall be deemed to imply his abdication of the Throne. Upon the demise, abdication, or removal from the Throne of the King, the Uppermost Cort shall be a Council of Regency.

with the following:

• The King of Talossa shall be chosen by a National Conclave of all members of the Ziu, all members of the Cort Pü Inalt, and the heads of government of all provinces. Every member of the Conclave shall have one vote.
• The Conclave shall be chaired by the Senior Judge of the CpI, or in their absence the next available CpI judge in order of seniority, unless it decides differently. The Conclave shall assemble upon the 6th anniversary of a King acceding to the Throne, or at any time that there is no King.
• The candidate chosen by the conclave shall be approved by the nation in referendum, and then receive the title of "Heir Presumptive".
• Upon the demise, abdication, or removal from the Throne of the King, the Heir Presumptive shall swear an oath promising to protect and uphold the Organic Law of Talossa and the rights of all its citizens, and thereupon become King of Talossa. If there is no Heir Presumptive, the Uppermost Cort shall be a Council of Regency until an Heir Presumptive is chosen.
• Unless the King of Talossa is chosen as their own Heir Presumptive, they shall be deemed to have abdicated upon having served in that role for 7 years.

We aim to put this, or some other proposal to similar effect, to a vote during this Cosa.

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

I am not commenting on the rest of the proposal right now, but I will say I am not a fan of giving each MC the same vote in the conclave (we just removed a similar provision from the Organic Law concerning the budget)

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Pursuant to section 4 of 55RZ12, and consequent upon the success of Option One, "an elected head of State" in the Ranked Choice Referendum, a majority of the Cabinet hereby offers the following proposal as the starting-point for debate. We hasten to emphasise that this proposal is designed to assuage the fears and doubts of Talossan monarchists as much as possible, while retaining the elective principle.

The proposal is to replace the current Organic Law II.3, namely

The King of Talossa is King John I, until his demise, abdication, or removal from the throne. Should the King at any time renounce or lose his citizenship, that renunciation or loss shall be deemed to imply his abdication of the Throne. Upon the demise, abdication, or removal from the Throne of the King, the Uppermost Cort shall be a Council of Regency.

with the following:

• The King of Talossa shall be chosen by a National Conclave of all members of the Ziu, all members of the Cort Pü Inalt, and the heads of government of all provinces. Every member of the Conclave shall have one vote.
• The Conclave shall be chaired by the Senior Judge of the CpI, or in their absence the next available CpI judge in order of seniority, unless it decides differently. The Conclave shall assemble upon the 6th anniversary of a King acceding to the Throne, or at any time that there is no King.
• The candidate chosen by the conclave shall be approved by the nation in referendum, and then receive the title of "Heir Presumptive".
• Upon the demise, abdication, or removal from the Throne of the King, the Heir Presumptive shall swear an oath promising to protect and uphold the Organic Law of Talossa and the rights of all its citizens, and thereupon become King of Talossa. If there is no Heir Presumptive, the Uppermost Cort shall be a Council of Regency until an Heir Presumptive is chosen.
• Unless the King of Talossa is chosen as their own Heir Presumptive, they shall be deemed to have abdicated upon having served in that role for 7 years.

We aim to put this, or some other proposal to similar effect, to a vote during this Cosa.

Based on the published proposal I am inclined to believe the Seneschal that the Government has made a good faith attempt to implement the referendum result while accommodating the concerns of monarchists.
For that reason and the specific components of the published proposal (long term, retention of King official name, broad-based elective body, and the Heir Presumptive transitional arrangement) I am currently inclined to support it.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

It would be an abrogation of my duty as Regent, appointed to act in His Majesty's stead in his absence, if I failed to warn that I could not in good faith approve a bill which would eject His Majesty from the throne immediately, and which would further adopt a drastic new change in government on the basis of a 1.5% majority in a midterm referendum.  I feel very strongly that King John would certainly veto any bill which dethroned him, and accordingly I will veto such a bill in his name, if put to it.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

It would be an abrogation of my duty as Regent, appointed to act in His Majesty's stead in his absence, if I failed to warn that I could not in good faith approve a bill which would eject His Majesty from the throne immediately, and which would further adopt a drastic new change in government on the basis of a 1.5% majority in a midterm referendum.  I feel very strongly that King John would certainly veto any bill which dethroned him, and accordingly I will veto such a bill in his name, if put to it.

What a surprise! This is my surprised face  ;D

Fortunately the Royal veto can be overridden, given sufficient support in the Cosa.

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

Reprinting my La S'chinteia article here:

Saving the Monarchy and Losing my Credibility:
Is an Elected King the Way Forward for Monarchists?

Ian Plätschisch

Between January 10th and January 25th, Talossa held a non-binding referendum to poll citizens on their preference for the future of the monarchy. The options were:
1.   Abolishing the Monarchy in favor of an elected head of state
2.   Introducing an elected "co-prince" who would share power with the King
3.   Keeping the Monarchy as is
4.   Removing all the King's political power
The referendum used Instant Runoff Voting, and the results are available at http://www.talossa.ca/files/ranked_vote.php. 72 citizens voted. Option 4 was eliminated in the first round, and option 2 in the second. In the final count, Option 1 defeated Option 3 by the very narrow margin of 34-32. In keeping with their campaign pledge, the Free Democrats have introduced an Organic Law amendment that would implement Option 1 if passed. Specifically, however, as the Free Democrats know the amendment cannot pass without some opposition support, the proposed amendment keeps the Monarchy exactly as it is now, except that the King would be subject to some sort of election every seven years (the details have yet to be worked out).

Of course, the leader of the opposition is yours truly. I take my responsibility to represent conservative Monarchists very seriously, and I know that many of them are committed to preserving the life term of the King. However, I believe that assenting to the current proposal is the best way to protect the Monarchy from future proposals that would be vastly worse. Please hear me out.

Recall that during the referendum, the main arguments I put forward for keeping a King with some power were that the King is able to act (to some extent) on the long-term perspective that accompanies the throne, and that this form of government is unique and fun. Neither of these benefits of the Monarchy would be significantly reduced by electing the King every seven years. Seven years is such a long time that even I, an accomplished Talossan citizen and politician if I do flatter myself, have not been a citizen for that long. For almost all the term, the King would be practically as insulated from political pressure as he is now and would still enjoy all the powers he enjoys now. Yes, near the election such pressure could creep in, but this would likely be counterbalanced by sentiment among Talossans that campaigning to become King would be in very poor taste, so the King would only likely to be voted out if there is a serious problem.

On the question of the enjoyability of the Monarchy, perhaps this would be increased if the King were provided incentive to exercise royal prerogatives, such as patronage of Talossan culture and granting of awards, more often. Long before his appointment of a Regent (and I wish the King the best with whatever he is dealing with right now), I had not been quiet about my disappointment in King John's low level of involvement. Having a small bit of accountability couldn't hurt.

Of course, even if electing the King every seven years would not be so bad for Monarchists, I probably would not be advocating it if I were not very concerned that the Monarchy is on its way to getting messed with somehow whether conservatives like it or not. Option 3, compared the three options for changing the Monarchy in some manner, lost 23-49 in first preferences, and the FreeDem-NPW coalition is only 11 seats shy of a supermajority in the Cosa. If those parties can pick up the needed seats (which is a distinct possibility given that conservative voters are not known for their great turnout or great recruitment), they will surely act on their criticism of the Monarchy if it has not already been addressed.

The chief complaint against the Monarchy is that the King has no accountability because he never faces election. In response, many people are calling for the complete abolition of the Monarchy or the complete removal of his powers. Given the other options in the referendum, this is most likely what the governing parties will do if they achieve a supermajority while the Monarchy exists as it does now. However, if we accede to the current proposal, Monarchists will not have to sacrifice much (as I demonstrated above), but the animating issue of the anti-Monarchy movement will be addressed. Therefore, the latter will be much less likely to take more extreme action against the Monarchy if they ever get the power to do so.

Hopefully this position does not undermine my credibility as a Monarchist. I am just trying to protect the most important aspects of this prized institution in the best way I can.

[xpb]

Reprinting my La S'chinteia article here:

Saving the Monarchy and Losing my Credibility:
Is an Elected King the Way Forward for Monarchists?

Ian Plätschisch

Between January 10th and January 25th, Talossa held a non-binding referendum to poll citizens on their preference for the future of the monarchy. The options were:
1.   Abolishing the Monarchy in favor of an elected head of state
2.   Introducing an elected "co-prince" who would share power with the King
3.   Keeping the Monarchy as is
4.   Removing all the King's political power
The referendum used Instant Runoff Voting, and the results are available at http://www.talossa.ca/files/ranked_vote.php. 72 citizens voted. Option 4 was eliminated in the first round, and option 2 in the second. In the final count, Option 1 defeated Option 3 by the very narrow margin of 34-32. In keeping with their campaign pledge, the Free Democrats have introduced an Organic Law amendment that would implement Option 1 if passed. Specifically, however, as the Free Democrats know the amendment cannot pass without some opposition support, the proposed amendment keeps the Monarchy exactly as it is now, except that the King would be subject to some sort of election every seven years (the details have yet to be worked out).

Of course, the leader of the opposition is yours truly. I take my responsibility to represent conservative Monarchists very seriously, and I know that many of them are committed to preserving the life term of the King. However, I believe that assenting to the current proposal is the best way to protect the Monarchy from future proposals that would be vastly worse. Please hear me out.

Recall that during the referendum, the main arguments I put forward for keeping a King with some power were that the King is able to act (to some extent) on the long-term perspective that accompanies the throne, and that this form of government is unique and fun. Neither of these benefits of the Monarchy would be significantly reduced by electing the King every seven years. Seven years is such a long time that even I, an accomplished Talossan citizen and politician if I do flatter myself, have not been a citizen for that long. For almost all the term, the King would be practically as insulated from political pressure as he is now and would still enjoy all the powers he enjoys now. Yes, near the election such pressure could creep in, but this would likely be counterbalanced by sentiment among Talossans that campaigning to become King would be in very poor taste, so the King would only likely to be voted out if there is a serious problem.

On the question of the enjoyability of the Monarchy, perhaps this would be increased if the King were provided incentive to exercise royal prerogatives, such as patronage of Talossan culture and granting of awards, more often. Long before his appointment of a Regent (and I wish the King the best with whatever he is dealing with right now), I had not been quiet about my disappointment in King John's low level of involvement. Having a small bit of accountability couldn't hurt.

Of course, even if electing the King every seven years would not be so bad for Monarchists, I probably would not be advocating it if I were not very concerned that the Monarchy is on its way to getting messed with somehow whether conservatives like it or not. Option 3, compared the three options for changing the Monarchy in some manner, lost 23-49 in first preferences, and the FreeDem-NPW coalition is only 11 seats shy of a supermajority in the Cosa. If those parties can pick up the needed seats (which is a distinct possibility given that conservative voters are not known for their great turnout or great recruitment), they will surely act on their criticism of the Monarchy if it has not already been addressed.

The chief complaint against the Monarchy is that the King has no accountability because he never faces election. In response, many people are calling for the complete abolition of the Monarchy or the complete removal of his powers. Given the other options in the referendum, this is most likely what the governing parties will do if they achieve a supermajority while the Monarchy exists as it does now. However, if we accede to the current proposal, Monarchists will not have to sacrifice much (as I demonstrated above), but the animating issue of the anti-Monarchy movement will be addressed. Therefore, the latter will be much less likely to take more extreme action against the Monarchy if they ever get the power to do so.

Hopefully this position does not undermine my credibility as a Monarchist. I am just trying to protect the most important aspects of this prized institution in the best way I can.

I suppose it depends on semantics.

If one wishes to have an elected executive (similar to a President or Prime Minister) then go ahead and have  elections with forced term limits.

If one wishes to have a hereditary Monarchy then one must wait for abdication or severe disability, or death with no stated heir to hold an election.

The term King or Queen, without regard to powers that they have, seems to apply to the latter case.   If you want to have periodic elections then don't refer to the position in terms of royalty.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

the King would be subject to some sort of election every seven years (the details have yet to be worked out).

I suggest that if the Opposition have a better idea than the "National Conclave + referendum" proposal, I crave to hear it. I think we're all in agreement that choosing a new King should not be partisan or politicised, and should result in someone with genuinely broad support from the whole nation getting the nod.

[GV]

I would also suggest if someone does not receive broad support, the UCort, Speaker, OppLeader, Mencei, and DepPM should be a Council of Regency (presided by the Sr Justice as a first among equals) for one year and then hold an election again.

Should there be no monarch selected again, that council keeps reigning with monarchial elections held each year until a new monarch is selected.

I would suggest 'broad support' meaning 67% of all eligible voters in the first round of an election consisting of no more then two people.

[Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir]

Although I do think their are some issues with the proposal as is, such as having elections every 7 years, i feel that that is too long of an interval, and feel that 5 years would be more of a reasonable timescale (and even that id have trouble with)
I also feel that theyre should be conditons upon those who might be chosen for the role, such as being out of political life at least 1 year before the election, and that none of the people on the conclave should be eligable, and that theyre should perhaps be some limits placed on the monarchs power, i accept that major reform is not called for, but some limitations on power in realtion to the monarchy would be appropiate. But yeah, besides the things i have put into this post, i do think this is probably the most reasonable compromise that reflects the referendum results the best we can, but i would say that some of the points i have raised, should be thought about, especially on the term limit, and elegibility, the powers i feel should be a seperate discussion but should also be something to keep in mind.
But yeah on the whole although not perfect, is a move in the right direction (personally id like to see the monarchy just gone, but i do acknowlage that it is still a contentious issues tha needs a broad comrpomise of all position to find something a large majority of Talossans can live with)

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

I suppose it depends on semantics.

If one wishes to have an elected executive (similar to a President or Prime Minister) then go ahead and have  elections with forced term limits.

If one wishes to have a hereditary Monarchy then one must wait for abdication or severe disability, or death with no stated heir to hold an election.

The term King or Queen, without regard to powers that they have, seems to apply to the latter case.   If you want to have periodic elections then don't refer to the position in terms of royalty.

Well, we already don't have a hereditary monarchy, so I don't wish for that. I also don't wish for a President or Prime Minister. I like the monarchy, so getting rid of it just because we introduce an election every so often doesn't really make sense to me.

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

the King would be subject to some sort of election every seven years (the details have yet to be worked out).

I suggest that if the Opposition have a better idea than the "National Conclave + referendum" proposal, I crave to hear it. I think we're all in agreement that choosing a new King should not be partisan or politicised, and should result in someone with genuinely broad support from the whole nation getting the nod.

I'm thinking about it.

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

I would also suggest if someone does not receive broad support, the UCort, Speaker, OppLeader, Mencei, and DepPM should be a Council of Regency (presided by the Sr Justice as a first among equals) for one year and then hold an election again.

Should there be no monarch selected again, that council keeps reigning with monarchial elections held each year until a new monarch is selected.

I would suggest 'broad support' meaning 67% of all eligible voters in the first round of an election consisting of no more then two people.

Maybe a few months; a year seems too long. I'll comment more on the rest of your proposal when I come up with my own idea for a system.

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

Although I do think their are some issues with the proposal as is, such as having elections every 7 years, i feel that that is too long of an interval, and feel that 5 years would be more of a reasonable timescale (and even that id have trouble with)

As it happens, 7 years is about as short of a term as I'd be willing to accept.

I also feel that theyre should be conditons upon those who might be chosen for the role, such as being out of political life at least 1 year before the election, and that none of the people on the conclave should be eligable

I don't think the second point is such a good idea; ideally you would want the most experienced Talossans in the conclave to select the King, and the King would also be most likely selected out of that same pool of people.

and that theyre should perhaps be some limits placed on the monarchs power, i accept that major reform is not called for, but some limitations on power in realtion to the monarchy would be appropiate.

The reason I think this is a good deal is that the King retains his current power; if his power was taken away the reason for electing the King in the first place becomes much weaker. The King's power has already been steadily reduced over the past several years; I think we have already reached the optimal point.

[GV]

It would be an abrogation of my duty as Regent, appointed to act in His Majesty's stead in his absence, if I failed to warn that I could not in good faith approve a bill which would eject His Majesty from the throne immediately, and which would further adopt a drastic new change in government on the basis of a 1.5% majority in a midterm referendum.  I feel very strongly that King John would certainly veto any bill which dethroned him, and accordingly I will veto such a bill in his name, if put to it.

Is John in poor health?  Is John in the midst of a real-life crisis?

If 'yes' is the answer to either of these questions, the tone of this discussion rightly changes.

Until we hear otherwise, it has been established the King is good health and is crisis-free.  Therefore, I can rant.

54RZ28 did away with the hereditary aspect of the monarchy.  That amendment was ratified by the people through referendum ending in August 2020 by a 2-1 margin.

On 3 August 2020, the King logged onto Wittenberg for the last time for two months, having not appointed a regent. 

In September 2020, I made a phone call to the King for the specific purpose of welfare-checking to make sure his health was fine.  His health was fine, and he was crisis-free.

In October 2020, Alexander Davinescu, whom the King knew full well to be competent as well as the most offensive person to the non-monarchists he could have put in that post, appointed him Regent for an indefinite term.

According to his [John's] Witt profile: Last Active: Witt XIV 14 October 2020, 16:52:41

What if I as a Senator decided to go incommunicado?  When I was PM, I was incommunicado for one week, and the whole country was up in arms.

Yet, the King chooses to be incommunicado for *months* at a time, is established to be healthy and crisis-free, and no-one bats an eye.

Is this acceptable conduct from a Talossan Head of State?

It is no coincidence the King went AWOL on 3 August 2021, at about the same time the referendum to take away his ability to name his royal heir was stripped from him.

This ability to name his heir was taken away from him and future monarchs because the prospect of hundreds of years of royal veto-power by an unelected string of monarchs (after John) was rightly found unacceptable to a majority of Talossans. 

By way of 54RZ28 the question was put to the people.  By way of a subsequent referendum, the people answered.

Talossa has made it clear it wants to retain the monarchy.  I personally have no problem with that. 

But monarchist Talossa wants a monarchy with power.  Fine.  Does this mean an endless string of unelected monarchs with power, then?  Is that what the conservative Talossa of 2005-present wants? 

Monarchy in the past has been the warlord taking castles and putting a crown on his head.  For Talossa, Elizabeth II gave the world a new model of how monarchy should be, but one which may not outlast her (that means you, Charles).

An election at the end of each term-limited reign along with a reign being limited in time does two things: it keeps monarchs from reigning too long (unless the people wish it), and it keeps the monarchs on their toes.  Want another seven years on the Throne?  Don't be incommunicado for months at a time, then.

The old-style form of life-term, long-term, hereditary monarchy simply does not work with human nature.  Sir Winston was right: democracy is the worst form of government save for all the others.

The 2017 Organic Law makes it very difficult to throw out a bad monarch.  With an elected monarchy, we throw the bum (not John) out straightaway.

Why can't we have the benefits of election along with the tradition of monarchy, Alexander?  What's wrong with that?

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

What if I as a Senator decided to go incommunicado?

Well, the senator for Atatürk was last online in April of 2020.  He last posted a month before that.  The senators for Cézembre and Maricopa will often let a month go by between communicating here on Witt.  Typically, in fact, we acknowledge that people will often not be engaged with Talossa for long periods, even if they hold high office, and we let it slide unless it's gotten pretty seriously in the way (ie usually only when it comes to the Seneschal or Secretary of State).  In the case of His Majesty, he acted to ensure that things got done (95% of the rubber-stamp variety, since the monarch has relatively few responsibilities these days) by appointing a regent.  This seems like it should have been fine with you, since you personally suggested he do that in September, GV.

But monarchist Talossa wants a monarchy with power.  Fine.  Does this mean an endless string of unelected monarchs with power, then?  Is that what the conservative Talossa of 2005-present wants?

That's phrased in a weird way, but yes.  I'd prefer that Talossa not "end" and that it be ruled by a monarch with significant enough power to form a stabilizing counterweight to the vicissitudes of tide and time.  I'd note that the hereditary monarchy was already eliminated, though, as you are aware and as others have mentioned.

The 2017 Organic Law makes it very difficult to throw out a bad monarch.

In what way?  It can be done the same as any other constitutional reform.  And there were five of those on just the last ballot.  If the Ziu really wanted to remove His Majesty and replace him, it could already be done far too easily, in my personal opinion.  Is there some other obstacle of which I am unaware?

With an elected monarchy, we throw the bum (not John) out straightaway.

Not John?  This bill would indeed immediately depose His Majesty King John, actually.  You and the rest of the Ziu, the heads of provinces, and the CpI would all be immediately responsible for electing a new king, with V presiding over the proceedings.  Totaling up those numbers, it actually looks like the Free Democrats would be able to pretty easily just decide amongst themselves who they want to make the new monarch.  I can imagine a pretty short list of people who you guys might pick, in fact, s:reu ;)

Why can't we have the benefits of election along with the tradition of monarchy, Alexander?  What's wrong with that?

You're describing a French-style presidency, with a term of seven years instead of five.  The office immediately becomes political and partisan (cf above).

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

Why can't we have the benefits of election along with the tradition of monarchy, Alexander?  What's wrong with that?

Probably the same reason you can't have hot ice cream.

Behold, hot ice cream.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Why can't we have the benefits of election along with the tradition of monarchy, Alexander?  What's wrong with that?

Probably the same reason you can't have hot ice cream.

Behold, hot ice cream.

I actually edited that metaphor almost immediately, since I reflected (as the father of three) that I have watched kids eat ice cream soup multiple times.  But looking at the link...

"An elective monarchy is a monarchy ruled by an elected monarch, in contrast to a hereditary monarchy in which the office is automatically passed down as a family inheritance."

His Majesty King John was elected.  His successor will also be elected.  So this seems to describe what we have.  ;)

But more seriously, this is just semantics -- just arguing over labels.  We can call any office the "king," if we so choose, but that's not what we're really arguing over.  We could decide that we'd start calling the Archivist the second king, for example.  It wouldn't mean that we had a king in any way that would be meaningful in terms of governmental continuity.  I'm prepared to argue semantics, but it seems wildly beside the point and tedious.

Like, why can't we have a king who is elected every month and can be dismissed by the town dogcatcher?  There's no reason why not!  There's nothing magical about the word, if we want to use it in a weird way, and we could pass that law immediately.  We can call such an office or any other the "monarchy," but that's sort of sidestepping any actual discussion of the merits.  Such a role would not be above partisan politics, it couldn't act as a meaningful counterweight to the increasingly centralized power of the Seneschal, etc.

Having a monarch has both tangible symbolic and tangible governmental benefits.  The value of the former will be somewhat eroded if the office becomes a partisan prize, since we already vote ourselves all kinds of awards and postnominals.  The value of the latter will be drastically eroded in the same circumstance.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

His Majesty King John was elected.  His successor will also be elected.  So this seems to describe what we have.  ;)

It's true, the Talossan Monarchy has been elective from the very beginning. It is weird that there are so many conservatives then who, considering the constitutional status quo and tradition, openly ask(ed) for a hereditary one -- hell, some even accidentally asked to abolish the Seneschalsqåb three days ago!! -- but who am I to judge.

But more seriously, this is just semantics -- just arguing over labels.  We can call any office the king, if we so choose.  We could decide that we'd start calling the Archivist the second king, for example.  It wouldn't mean that we had a king appointed by the Seneschal in any way that would be meaningful in terms of governmental continuity.  I'm prepared to argue semantics, but it seems wildly beside the point and tedious.

Like, why can't we have a king who is elected every month and can be dismissed by the town dogcatcher?  There's no reason we can't call such an office the "monarchy," but that's sort of sidestepping any actual discussion of the merits.

Let's not indulge in such a tangential and tedious argument then, as you put it. More to the actual point, the link I provided lists a bunch of historical and contemporary examples of time-limited tradition-rich elective monarchies, so I have no idea why the mere concept of having something like that in Talossa is treated as some kind of obvious paradox by some people here.

Such a role would not be above partisan politics, it couldn't act as a meaningful counterweight to the increasingly centralized power of the Seneschal, etc.

Now I'm by no means an expert, but I'm not sure if the current Monarch is really all that above partisan politics either, you know? Especially when the Monarch himself is the center of so much partisan policy nowadays, perhaps due to the lack of other things to legislate? What I'm saying is, I'm aware that vetoing bills for personally partisan reasons is within His Majesty's right, but it's not something an apolitical counterweight to the elected Government ought to do. As a side note, if federal power is too centralised (not sure what that means in Talossan terms), maybe it would be in order to empower the provinces somehow instead of propping up a monarch for life to do the meaningful counterbalance.

Having a monarch has both tangible symbolic and tangible governmental benefits.  The value of the former will be somewhat eroded if the office becomes a partisan prize, since we already vote ourselves all kinds of awards and postnominals.  The value of the latter will be drastically eroded in the same circumstance.

Firstly, you've already said that the Talossan Monarch is elected, which by that logic would mean he already is a partisan prize. The fact that this symbolically and governmentally important post is only up for grabs once every few decades (I refuse to believe that anyone would actually hold on to the office for life) instead of once every seven years doesnt make it less of a prize, quite the opposite, that's just my personal opinion though.
Secondly, did you know that the Federal President of Germany is elected by federal and state legislatures and still manages to be a non-partisan figurehead? The office is so apolitical and inoffensive that you only ever get reminded of its existence when the incumbent manages to find himself implicated in a scandal of gargantuan proportions. Which is to say once in a lifetime or so. How's that for an idea?

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

if federal power is too centralised (not sure what that means in Talossan terms), maybe it would be in order to empower the provinces somehow instead of propping up a monarch for life to do the meaningful counterbalance.

History shows that's probably a pretty bad idea, since focus is so overwhelmingly on national politics that provincial politics seldom goes anywhere and there are usually -- not just often, but usually as a matter of course -- multiple provinces that are utterly silent because there's only one or perhaps two active people.  We could consolidate them to try to change that, of course, but then we're also making it much less likely that they will meaningfully diverge from the national results (since they already usually don't very much).  It's also possible that giving them more power will somehow inspire more activity, but they already each command 1/8th of the Senate individually and have a ton of latitude to do things (all power not explicitly vested in the Ziu or Government is theirs), and that hasn't changed much about the activity level for most provinces.  When they are active, they are usually historically dominated by one or two people, as well, who are themselves typically very active in national politics.

Firstly, you've already said that the Talossan Monarch is elected, which by that logic would mean he already is a partisan prize. The fact that this symbolically and governmentally important post is only up for grabs once every few decades (I refuse to believe that anyone would actually hold on to the office for life) instead of once every seven years doesnt make it less of a prize, quite the opposite, that's just my personal opinion though.

That hasn't proven to be the case.  That may change, but we also need to again look at history: every single political party which existed when His Majesty was elected is gone.  Almost every single person active in politics at that time is no longer active.  The oldest political party now existing dates back to 2015, only six years ago.  Talossan politics just tends to move in smaller timeframes these days, because so many political parties lean heavily on the energies of just one or two people.  That might change someday, but the Seneschal just gave a big speech about how it's still true for her party, at the least.

Yes, I expect that the election of a new king someday will have some sort of partisan pressures, and I don't think there's any way to avoid that with elections in a nation with partisan elections.  But we can minimize it and also hope that infrequency lends some majesty to the process to help forestall it.

Secondly, did you know that the Federal President of Germany is elected by federal and state legislatures and still manages to be a non-partisan figurehead? The office is so apolitical and inoffensive that you only ever get reminded of its existence when the incumbent manages to find himself implicated in a scandal of gargantuan proportions. Which is to say once in a lifetime or so. How's that for an idea?

I didn't know that!  I didn't even know that the President of Germany had significant power to wield in a way that made the office a meaningful part of sustaining the system of governance, I'm ashamed to say.  And I know other examples have been raised that are similar.  I'm not saying it's impossible for any country to have a nonpartisan empowered monarch who is regularly elected, but I will say that Talossa is very different from most countries.  I'd be interested to explain specifically how, if the topic is one you'd like to unpack, but for now this post is probably long enough.