A Joint Statement on 55RZ21

[Tierçéu Rôibeardescù]

... and the NPW delegation to the Cosă just abstained on this bill that the Party promised to vote for.

could you be more specific on "this bill"? am i missing some colloquial english thing, like "this bill" = "some unnamed bill"?

and i am not sitting in cosâ now ;) i always tried to get along the line, even we were frequently reminded by eiric what was part of the agreements. is it a conspiracy or just bad communication?

55rz1, The "talossa shall chose its king act"

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

I am told by the NPW leader, Senator ESB, that he assumed his Cosa delegation would know which way to vote, considering that that was how they voted last Cosa and they'd made a public commitment, and he didn't want to be an annoying micromanager. Well.

The lesson I have learned is that you just can't trust parties to keep to commitments in Talossan politics unless there are significant penalties for non-compliance - and our electoral system means a party can stay in the Cosa forever, even if everyone else hates them for treacherous weasels, with only their own votes.

[Ián S.G. Txaglh]

... and the NPW delegation to the Cosă just abstained on this bill that the Party promised to vote for.

could you be more specific on "this bill"? am i missing some colloquial english thing, like "this bill" = "some unnamed bill"?

and i am not sitting in cosâ now ;) i always tried to get along the line, even we were frequently reminded by eiric what was part of the agreements. is it a conspiracy or just bad communication?

55rz1, The "talossa shall chose its king act"

cofusado o_O you mean 56RZ1? cos 55RZ1 was "the tidy up your STUFF act", and originally it was 55RZ21.

[Ián S.G. Txaglh]

I am told by the NPW leader, Senator ESB, that he assumed his Cosa delegation would know which way to vote, considering that that was how they voted last Cosa and they'd made a public commitment, and he didn't want to be an annoying micromanager. Well.

The lesson I have learned is that you just can't trust parties to keep to commitments in Talossan politics unless there are significant penalties for non-compliance - and our electoral system means a party can stay in the Cosa forever, even if everyone else hates them for treacherous weasels, with only their own votes.

so, bad communication it is. almost all problems can be solved when people talk. if you are unhappy with NPW voting, wouldn't it be better to speak to its representative than complain in public? i am not much of a real politician, but what i know so far, taking internal dirty laundry making into public never wins political points ;)

[anglatzara]

... and the NPW delegation to the Cosă just abstained on this bill that the Party promised to vote for.

I just give up on Talossan politics, as long as there's no way for a party to be put out of the Cosă in an election. There is just nothing to stop people making agreements and then just tearing them up without reason, logic, or explanation. You can't make multi-party deals in such circumstances and therefore doing anything "important" is impossible.

Which is why we desperately need to downsize the Cosa.

[Tierçéu Rôibeardescù]

... and the NPW delegation to the Cosă just abstained on this bill that the Party promised to vote for.

could you be more specific on "this bill"? am i missing some colloquial english thing, like "this bill" = "some unnamed bill"?

and i am not sitting in cosâ now ;) i always tried to get along the line, even we were frequently reminded by eiric what was part of the agreements. is it a conspiracy or just bad communication?

55rz1, The "talossa shall chose its king act"

cofusado o_O you mean 56RZ1? cos 55RZ1 was "the tidy up your STUFF act", and originally it was 55RZ21.

yes my bad

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

... and the NPW delegation to the Cosă just abstained on this bill that the Party promised to vote for.

I just give up on Talossan politics, as long as there's no way for a party to be put out of the Cosă in an election. There is just nothing to stop people making agreements and then just tearing them up without reason, logic, or explanation. You can't make multi-party deals in such circumstances and therefore doing anything "important" is impossible.

Which is why we desperately need to downsize the Cosa.

As I've said elsewhere, one of the reason Talossa's politics are so "immobile" is that our institutions have a built-in conservative bias, made doubly strong by the Royal veto. It is a mammoth task to get anything to change if the King or conservative forces think it diminishes their power. And those conservative forces will die in a ditch over preserving a Cosa which encourages party splintering and no-one can ever be voted out because they make obstruction of the political majority into a positive good.

An alternative to a smaller Cosa would be an explicit threshold ("you must gain X number of votes to get any seats"). It would still require an OrgLaw amendment but it would put paid to the "granularity" argument. Then we could argue firmly over where political accountability is a higher good than "everyone should get to play legislator".

[Ian Plätschisch]

It is a mammoth task to get anything to change if the King or conservative forces think it diminishes their power. And those conservative forces will die in a ditch over preserving a Cosa which encourages party splintering and no-one can ever be voted out because they make obstruction of the political majority into a positive good.

I really don't see how one connects to the other here. If a party splinters and thereby loses support in the next election, then sure, they might not lose every last one of their seats, but they should lose a considerable number of them, right?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

It is a mammoth task to get anything to change if the King or conservative forces think it diminishes their power. And those conservative forces will die in a ditch over preserving a Cosa which encourages party splintering and no-one can ever be voted out because they make obstruction of the political majority into a positive good.

I really don't see how one connects to the other here. If a party splinters and thereby loses support in the next election, then sure, they might not lose every last one of their seats, but they should lose a considerable number of them, right?

Sorry, I may have misphrased that. I didn't mean "splintering" in the sense of "breaking up", I meant it in the sense of "encouraging large numbers of micro parties", in the way stereotypically associated with Israel and pre-1994 Italy. As you know, to get monarchy reform through we had to negotiate a deal with at least 5 parties in this Cosa, and 2 of them (in whole or part) reneged on the deal without explanation, and there's nothing we can do about it because you only need to vote for yourself to get seats.

There is a real disconnect in Talossa between those who think democracy means "the majority will should prevail, with respect for minority rights", and those who think it means a kind of eternal status quo where minorities can block any serious reform (and let's face it, a Monarchy is the ultimate minority).

[Françal I. Lux]

A smaller, more efficient Cosa would also allow for people to take on other interests in Talossa other than politics. "Not everyone gets to play legislator" is definitely a understatement given the events of recent weeks.

Our institutions are crumbling all around us while more and more people flee for the hills like we're nearing the end. Apathy has seeped in everywhere even in CURRENTLY ELECTED members of the legislature. We need to pass meaningful reforms NOW, not just half-measures—those won't cut it anymore. I swear it's like the twilight days of a great civilization around here nowadays. How many of us are left? How many more of us have to lose interest before we decide to take the hard but necessary step of making meaningful change?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

I'd suggest dampening down on the apocalyptic stuff. There were eleven active Talossans in 1991. We don't want to give encouragement to the demagogues who yell stuff like "if you don't enact MY programme in full right now IT'S ALL OVER FOR TALOSSA!!!" I should also point out that it's Northern Hemisphere summer and people are at the beach.

The argument for a Cosa which requires more than your own vote to enter must be one about the ability of voters to hold politicians accountable - not one of activity. We had a Real Cosa 1997-2003 and I don't think it changed much activity-wise.

[Glüc da Dhi S.H.]

Not opposed to reducing the size of the Cosa, but I will say that if having more parties is preventing coalitions from deciding on major constitutional reform in a backroom deal rather than through debate in the Ziu I can only see that as a good thing.

At the very least more parties also means more MCs who are thinking for themselves rather than just go along blindly with whatever the party leader says.

[Glüc da Dhi S.H.]

The TNC and NPW voting against their pledge was quite surprising. I can imagine quite frustrating for someone on the other side of the debate, though I suppose many monarchist LCC voters were equally upset last term when the LCC decided to support the bill (which was decidedly not-conservative and not-monarchist) in the first place.

Not sure what to think of the abstain vote now. Although its true it was said each MC would get a free vote, the list of MCs during the election used to include Danihel Txechescu and the campaign, the promise to come up with an alternative and the word "Conservative" in the party name will surely have led many voters to believe that the party wouldnt be voting for a bill that basically left no part of the Talossan monarchy remaining, other than the name. Then again, I wasn't an LCC voter this time around, so maybe I'm wrong. Instead next election I'll have to explain to KLüP voters why we failed in convincing Lüc to become King. Our highly ideological and devoted base might not take that all too well.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Not sure what to think of the abstain vote now. Although its true it was said each MC would get a free vote, the list of MCs during the election used to include Danihel Txechescu and the campaign, the promise to come up with an alternative and the word "Conservative" in the party name will surely have led many voters to believe that the party wouldnt be voting for a bill that basically left no part of the Talossan monarchy remaining, other than the name.

I think you answered your own question. I'm not privy to internal Beaver debates, but the decision of the party majority on the constitutional issue (and maybe even on sitting in government with the hateful FreeDems?) is probably why s:reu Txechescu is not an MC. And the large vote for Balançéu and Dien (together doubling the LCC performance) surely shows where the single-issue GOD SAVE THE KING voters went and why they're unlikely to feel betrayed by the LCC keeping scrupulously to their election commitments.

Anyway, elections should have consequences. There was a certain Baron who complained, a few Cosas back, that for 9 out of the last 10 Cosas (or some number like that) the same parties had been in government. This is going to happen in a society which is very deeply divided (almost 50-50) over a basic constitutional issue, and where a party can only fall out of the legislature if its own members unanimously give up on it. So: let's make every party which wants Cosa seats work for it.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

At the very least more parties also means more MCs who are thinking for themselves rather than just go along blindly with whatever the party leader says.

You say "thinking for themselves", I say "going rogue on their commitments and what they were elected for".

The argument that individuals breaking with their previous commitments and collective decisions is a good thing, to be applauded, is an essentially conservative one because it insinuates that collective action - of the type needed to make changes in a democracy - is a bad thing. I don't expect for a moment that Dixhet Fira, to pick a name at random, will suddenly become a Republican. It would be insulting to even consider it, IMHO. Party cohesion is necessary for things to change in a democracy, and to smear party cohesion as being "not thinking for yourself" is an argument which betrays an inherent conservatism.