Government Proposal on an Elected Head of State

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

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.

Ha ha ha, lolwut? I must have missed that!

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

I must say I am concerned with some of what top Free Democrats are saying at their party convention regarding this proposal. FreeDem President-elect Grischun said in a speech earlier this week:

The journey doesn't need to stop here.  We can stay unified and keep chipping away, slowly, surely, to achieve something closer to your [Republican's] overall visions.

Later, GV said:

...if the monarchy could have been made to go altogether, so much the better.

I would like to believe the Seneschal that this proposal really is going to be a Historic Compromise, but if it is instead just another waypoint on an ultimate mission to abolish or dramatically diminish the Monarchy, then I can do nothing else but oppose it.

[Eðo Grischun]

I must say I am concerned with some of what top Free Democrats are saying at their party convention regarding this proposal. FreeDem President-elect Grischun said in a speech earlier this week:

The journey doesn't need to stop here.  We can stay unified and keep chipping away, slowly, surely, to achieve something closer to your [Republican's] overall visions.

Later, GV said:

...if the monarchy could have been made to go altogether, so much the better.

I would like to believe the Seneschal that this proposal really is going to be a Historic Compromise, but if it is instead just another waypoint on an ultimate mission to abolish or dramatically diminish the Monarchy, then I can do nothing else but oppose it.

To oppose this compromise, which leans very heavily in favour of Monarchism, and in turn rejecting the democratic result of a popular referendum, just because the Republican caucus might want to keep campaigning for future changes is nothing short of petty.  None of us have a crystal ball, so we can't say what the future will or won't bring, but I'm sure if any future moves towards Republicanism ever happen then it would happen as a result of an election that led to a future parliament being made up of a supermajority of Republicans.  I'm not sure how likely that is.  You are basically saying that you won't help pass this compromise proposal because, what?... you thought Republican caucuses would cease to exist from this point forward?

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

To oppose this compromise, which leans very heavily in favour of Monarchism, and in turn rejecting the democratic result of a popular referendum, just because the Republican caucus might want to keep campaigning for future changes is nothing short of petty. 

I am upholding the democratic result of the 55th Cosa election, which entrusted 77 seats to the LCC for the purpose of defending the Monarchy. As I said in my article, I am not supporting this proposal because it prima facie gives Monarchists any benefit, only because I think passing this might make enough FreeDems content enough for this to be a long-term compromise that protects the Monarchy from worse changes in the near future. If that isn't true, then it is not petty for me to be concerned.

None of us have a crystal ball, so we can't say what the future will or won't bring, but I'm sure if any future moves towards Republicanism ever happen then it would happen as a result of an election that led to a future parliament being made up of a supermajority of Republicans.  I'm not sure how likely that is.  You are basically saying that you won't help pass this compromise proposal because, what?... you thought Republican caucuses would cease to exist from this point forward?

I don't need a chrystal ball to read these speeches, which don't sound like the FreeDems view this as a long-term compromise.

[Eðo Grischun]

I actually do see it as a long term compromise that puts the issue to bed for quite some time. Also said in that speech was that I am not a die hard Republican and that I would steer the party on safe ground (in fact, I would have thought that the opposition would be elated and stoked that the FreeDems are about to elect a person who has been as pro-Monarchy as I have been as the next party leader).  I also think you know well enough that that section  of the speech was a call for party unity more than anything else. Nothing radical or extreme will be coming from the FreeDems on this issue; at least, not under my stewardship of the party.  The spirit of our policy of 'agnostism' will continue on. This compromise proposal, or something similar to it, should satisfy the majority of FreeDem members to cease seeking any further, more radical proposals, yes.  Although, neither of us should just expect the die hard Republican minority to just sit down and eat their cereal and stop campaigning for what they desire. Is that reason enough to not pass reforms in line with the result of the referendum?  That a political movement would do what political movements would be expected to do? You correctly identify that passing this reform will put the issue to bed for a majority of our nation.  Choosing not to pass such a reform will only allow the issue to continue being a big issue and the debate to continue being a big debate for longer.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

I think that if the leader of the opposition's idea of a compromise is for there to not be any Talossan Republicans any more, he'll be waiting a long time. In Northern Ireland, the vast majority of Republicans have accepted the "Belfast Agreement" compromise for now and peaceably work towards their goals, no matter what an incalcitrant fringe might believe. That is the kind of situation I see as the best possible outcome from here.

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

Although, neither of us should just expect the die hard Republican minority to just sit down and eat their cereal and stop campaigning for what they desire. Is that reason enough to not pass reforms in line with the result of the referendum?  That a political movement would do what political movements would be expected to do? You correctly identify that passing this reform will put the issue to bed for a majority of our nation.  Choosing not to pass such a reform will only allow the issue to continue being a big issue and the debate to continue being a big debate for longer.

I'm glad we're on the same page then. I should point out that of course I never thought all Republicans would go away; my only concern was that the leadership of the party seemed to be endorsing them. I'm happy to be mistaken on that.

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

I think that if the leader of the opposition's idea of a compromise is for there to not be any Talossan Republicans any more, he'll be waiting a long time. In Northern Ireland, the vast majority of Republicans have accepted the "Belfast Agreement" compromise for now and peaceably work towards their goals, no matter what an incalcitrant fringe might believe. That is the kind of situation I see as the best possible outcome from here.

See above.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

If one side views an outcome as an indefinite compromise, and the other views the outcome as an interim concession, only one of them can actually be correct.

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

Anyway, I've come up with a proposal to elect the King.

A convocation of the following people:
-Eight MCs, chosen by the parties in proportion to their Cosa seats (plus the Seneschal if not an MC or Senator)
-The eight Senators
-The Justices of the UC
-The eight provincial executives
-The eight officers of the Royal Civil Service
-All Talossans who have been a citizen for at least ten years

The King is elected from this group papal style; repeated single-preference votes until someone gets 2/3.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Anyway, I've come up with a proposal to elect the King.

A convocation of the following people:
-Eight MCs, chosen by the parties in proportion to their Cosa seats (plus the Seneschal if not an MC or Senator)
-The eight Senators
-The Justices of the UC
-The eight provincial executives
-The eight officers of the Royal Civil Service
-All Talossans who have been a citizen for at least ten years

The King is elected from this group papal style; repeated single-preference votes until someone gets 2/3.

I have no objection in principle to this procedure, if that's what it takes to get a broad consensus, though I haven't asked other FreeDems. I debated whether to add a 2/3 majority in my proposal, but I worried that that might lead to endless deadlock. Does the Opposition have a real problem with the candidate chosen by this method being then ratified by a referendum of the whole nation?

[GV]

Anyway, I've come up with a proposal to elect the King.

A convocation of the following people:
-Eight MCs, chosen by the parties in proportion to their Cosa seats (plus the Seneschal if not an MC or Senator)
-The eight Senators
-The Justices of the UC
-The eight provincial executives
-The eight officers of the Royal Civil Service
-All Talossans who have been a citizen for at least ten years

The King is elected from this group papal style; repeated single-preference votes until someone gets 2/3.

Apportioning the MCs will be a close thing with close decimals.

As to the ten years requirement, is this 'ten years since original naturalization with no break in citizenship'?  This will force us to do something Ben Madison never wanted to do: keep exact records as to who renounced and when and who returned and when.

One can be a provincial executive and a Senator, as I was in Fiova 2017-2018, and possibly in my Maricopa days.  Do they get two votes (hope not) or is the conclave deprived of a vote?  Multiple office-holding of all permutations must be taken into account.

This proposal seems to my mind in snowing Houston (yes, indeed) to be a good start, however.  There should be a mechanism to keep the eligible voters at an exact multiple of three.

Also, what would be your requirements to be monarch?

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

-Eight MCs, chosen by the parties in proportion to their Cosa seats (plus the Seneschal if not an MC or Senator)

Apportioning the MCs will be a close thing with close decimals.

Converting the 200 seat Cosă arrangement into an 8 seat arrangement would be pretty simple on paper, it's just that parties with less than 15 seats could end up with no representation in the 8 seat arrangement because of how the math turns out and there'd have to be a discussion beforehand whether that's acceptable or not.

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

Anyway, I've come up with a proposal to elect the King.

A convocation of the following people:
-Eight MCs, chosen by the parties in proportion to their Cosa seats (plus the Seneschal if not an MC or Senator)
-The eight Senators
-The Justices of the UC
-The eight provincial executives
-The eight officers of the Royal Civil Service
-All Talossans who have been a citizen for at least ten years

The King is elected from this group papal style; repeated single-preference votes until someone gets 2/3.

I have no objection in principle to this procedure, if that's what it takes to get a broad consensus, though I haven't asked other FreeDems. I debated whether to add a 2/3 majority in my proposal, but I worried that that might lead to endless deadlock. Does the Opposition have a real problem with the candidate chosen by this method being then ratified by a referendum of the whole nation?

I mean, there's a chance it could get deadlocked, but Popes have been elected this way for millenia and those elections have only gotten seriously deadlocked a few times.

With regard to the referendum, while I have no strong objection, I think that a level of indirection is appropriate for electing the King (I also have a hard time believing that someone who gets 2/3 of the Convocation could ever fail to get a simple majority in the referendum).

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

As to the ten years requirement, is this 'ten years since original naturalization with no break in citizenship'?  This will force us to do something Ben Madison never wanted to do: keep exact records as to who renounced and when and who returned and when.

I thought we already did that

One can be a provincial executive and a Senator, as I was in Fiova 2017-2018, and possibly in my Maricopa days.  Do they get two votes (hope not) or is the conclave deprived of a vote?  Multiple office-holding of all permutations must be taken into account. ...There should be a mechanism to keep the eligible voters at an exact multiple of three.

Also, what would be your requirements to be monarch?

Taking this into account wouldn't be so hard; nobody gets more than one seat regardless of the number of ways they qualify. This would make the number of seats in the Convocation variable, but that's OK; a threshold for a 2/3 majority can be calculated regardless.

I would not make any requirements to be King; I trust the Convocation to get it right.

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

-Eight MCs, chosen by the parties in proportion to their Cosa seats (plus the Seneschal if not an MC or Senator)

Apportioning the MCs will be a close thing with close decimals.

Converting the 200 seat Cosă arrangement into an 8 seat arrangement would be pretty simple on paper, it's just that parties with less than 15 seats could end up with no representation in the 8 seat arrangement because of how the math turns out and there'd have to be a discussion beforehand whether that's acceptable or not.

The alternative is to hold a vote in the Cosa using some kind of multiple-member system; I didn't look into that very much, but I'd love to hear your ideas given you are the resident expert on this stuff.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

The alternative is to hold a vote in the Cosa using some kind of multiple-member system; I didn't look into that very much, but I'd love to hear your ideas given you are the resident expert on this stuff.

Some methods that come to mind:

• simply scaling down from 200 to 8 as mentioned earlier, maybe using the Sainte-Laguë method as to not disadvantage small parties too much,
• some sort of STV thing, with all the pros and cons that come with it, or
• something really exotic like Proportional Approval Voting, specifically MSPAV with best ordering which would be the best choice by far if it werent so hard to calculate.

It's mostly a matter of personal preference, and convenience of calculation vs. quality of the result at the end of the day. I'd say all three of these would be equally fine.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

I have another question actually:

-Eight MCs, chosen by the parties in proportion to their Cosa seats (plus the Seneschal if not an MC or Senator)
-The eight Senators
-The Justices of the UC
-The eight provincial executives
-The eight officers of the Royal Civil Service
-All Talossans who have been a citizen for at least ten years

Which eight officers? There are more than eight offices associated with or adjacent to the Civil Service, so which ones are meant by that? Or is it because there happen to be eight different people in charge of all these aforementioned offices as of now?

[Eðo Grischun]

I have another question actually:

-Eight MCs, chosen by the parties in proportion to their Cosa seats (plus the Seneschal if not an MC or Senator)
-The eight Senators
-The Justices of the UC
-The eight provincial executives
-The eight officers of the Royal Civil Service
-All Talossans who have been a citizen for at least ten years

Which eight officers? There are more than eight offices associated with or adjacent to the Civil Service, so which ones are meant by that? Or is it because there happen to be eight different people in charge of all these aforementioned offices as of now?

- Secretary of State
- Burgermeister of Inland Revenue
- Scribe of Abbavilla
- Royal Archivist
- President of the Royal Society (University)
- Chancellor of the Bar
- Squirrel King of College of Arms
- Poet Laureate

[King Txec]

I have another question actually:

-Eight MCs, chosen by the parties in proportion to their Cosa seats (plus the Seneschal if not an MC or Senator)
-The eight Senators
-The Justices of the UC
-The eight provincial executives
-The eight officers of the Royal Civil Service
-All Talossans who have been a citizen for at least ten years

Which eight officers? There are more than eight offices associated with or adjacent to the Civil Service, so which ones are meant by that? Or is it because there happen to be eight different people in charge of all these aforementioned offices as of now?

- Secretary of State
- Burgermeister of Inland Revenue
- Scribe of Abbavilla
- Royal Archivist
- President of the Royal Society (University)
- Chancellor of the Bar
- Squirrel King of College of Arms
- Poet Laureate

What happens if one Talossan holds more than one of the 8 offices (such as myself as Secretary of State and Scribe of Abbavilla)?