VOTE FREEDEMS! - King John's getting another seven years doesn't really matter.

[GV]

Whether he continues as monarch is not the real question.

The real question is our form of government and whether we want to hold *all* our officials periodically accountable. 

This includes our Head of State.

The Free Democrats of Talossa have the answer: the seven-year monarchial term as enshrined in the Historic Compromise, holding all monarchs of Talossa, present and future, accountable for the quality and competency of their work in office.

Vote for a better Talossa.  VOTEZ FREEDEMS!

GV, Senator - Fiôvâ

[DixhetFira]

I personally think Talossa should continue as a monarchy, it is called the Kingdom of Talossa after all. But "electing" a monarch is no different than electing a President. In the USA the President is elected to a 4-year term, in many other countries it is a 5-year term and the proposal here is 7 years. While that does allow for some continuity of the monarch's rule, every 7 years we are exchanging the monarchy. Again, these are just my thoughts but I would prefer to continue with the current Monarch as it was when I joined.

I realize the FreeDems are trying to find a compromise but I like it as it is and think it should stay that way. That is why I support the Balance Party.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Well, Dixhet, you haven't been around to watch how the incumbent King simply refused to do his job out of sheer pique that the Ziu passed some laws that limited his powers. He walked away for 6 months and gave his powers to the most divisive person in Talossa, someone he knew most of us can't stand. Then he came back without apology or explanation. He hasn't even spoken to his own Government since he got back.

La Sc'hinteia is absolutely right that most contemporary anti-Monarchy sentiment is simply sentiment that King John has been lazy, selfish and politically biased recently, and no longer deserves to be our Head of State. But we can't put any accountability on John without reforms to the Monarchy. Or can we? Someone tell me. We don't have a guillotine and we can't just drive him into exile.

[Ian Plätschisch]

But we can't put any accountability on John without reforms to the Monarchy. Or can we? Someone tell me. We don't have a guillotine and we can't just drive him into exile.

There's always the Simulated Coup Amendment

[esbornatfiglheu]

But "electing" a monarch is no different than electing a President.

The thing is, this is simply untrue.  Should we start calling John "President Woolley" since he was elected?  Or the old kings of Jerusalem?  Or the Holy Roman Emperor?  Elective monarchy is an old institution.  Possibly older than hereditary primogeniture. 

And if the opposition is rooted in the fixed term of the position.  7 years is a lifetime in Talossa, as with any micronation.  SCA Kings/Queens serve for fixed periods and then move on, or repeat their service depending.  Though they are chosen via trial by combat, as opposed to election.

While I support the compromise, I'm not wedded to it.  John needs to go, above all.  And the continual "Well... this new president" rhetoric is poorly-formed mieda.  It is arguing in bad faith, and I am disgusted by those that continue to do so.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

But "electing" a monarch is no different than electing a President.

The thing is, this is simply untrue.  Should we start calling John "President Woolley" since he was elected?  Or the old kings of Jerusalem?  Or the Holy Roman Emperor?  Elective monarchy is an old institution.  Possibly older than hereditary primogeniture. 

And if the opposition is rooted in the fixed term of the position.  7 years is a lifetime in Talossa, as with any micronation.  SCA Kings/Queens serve for fixed periods and then move on, or repeat their service depending.  Though they are chosen via trial by combat, as opposed to election.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, exhaustively, you can call any position the "king."  There have been kings who were elected for year-long terms, kings who were chosen by an oligarchy, pairs of kings elected to rotating terms, and many other varieties.  Tafial rightly has said that in political science terms, it's just a meaningless label -- just like president, in fact.

But talk about bad faith -- it is deliberately trying to misunderstand to grouse about how there have been periodically elected kings and so therefore it is wrong to call this a president.  But hey, guess what else is usually periodically elected?  Presidents.  It's just as valid a label.  And to a lot of us, the position of king means more than just a magical label, anyway.  It means at least some independent power not subject to partisan election, for one.  It's not as if you don't understand what Dixhet is saying, it's just that it runs contrary to your preferred branding.

[GV]

...And to a lot of us, the position of king means more than just a magical label, anyway.  It means at least some independent power not subject to partisan election, for one.  It's not as if you don't understand what Dixhet is saying, it's just that it runs contrary to your preferred branding.

That independent power went AWOL for six months.  How is this good branding for a lifetime monarchy?

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

...And to a lot of us, the position of king means more than just a magical label, anyway.  It means at least some independent power not subject to partisan election, for one.  It's not as if you don't understand what Dixhet is saying, it's just that it runs contrary to your preferred branding.

That independent power went AWOL for six months.  How is this good branding for a lifetime monarchy?

...what?  Taking you at face value and your question in good faith:  ESB was annoyed that Dixhet was describing the proposed new office as a presidency, and said it was in bad faith and that he was disgusted by it.  I was pointing out that you can call any office a president or a monarch, since in a technical sense the terms don't mean much.  I know that there's a broad effort to still call the new office a "king," since that label makes it seem like less of a change, but that's just a branding effort.  It's not "technically" correct or obvious, and Dixhet's meaning is plain in colloquial terms.

[Françal I. Lux]

But "electing" a monarch is no different than electing a President.

The thing is, this is simply untrue.  Should we start calling John "President Woolley" since he was elected?  Or the old kings of Jerusalem?  Or the Holy Roman Emperor?  Elective monarchy is an old institution.  Possibly older than hereditary primogeniture. 

And if the opposition is rooted in the fixed term of the position.  7 years is a lifetime in Talossa, as with any micronation.  SCA Kings/Queens serve for fixed periods and then move on, or repeat their service depending.  Though they are chosen via trial by combat, as opposed to election.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, exhaustively, you can call any position the "king."  There have been kings who were elected for year-long terms, kings who were chosen by an oligarchy, pairs of kings elected to rotating terms, and many other varieties.  Tafial rightly has said that in political science terms, it's just a meaningless label -- just like president, in fact.

But talk about bad faith -- it is deliberately trying to misunderstand to grouse about how there have been periodically elected kings and so therefore it is wrong to call this a president.  But hey, guess what else is usually periodically elected?  Presidents.  It's just as valid a label.  And to a lot of us, the position of king means more than just a magical label, anyway.  It means at least some independent power not subject to partisan election, for one.  It's not as if you don't understand what Dixhet is saying, it's just that it runs contrary to your preferred branding.

I just do not understand what is so heinous about an elected monarch. There is absolutely no reason why the dignity and majesty that comes with reigning cannot be maintained just because there's a new one every 7 years. It can be an entire tradition—we can renew all of our commitments to this country the moment we crown a new monarch!

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

But "electing" a monarch is no different than electing a President.

The thing is, this is simply untrue.  Should we start calling John "President Woolley" since he was elected?  Or the old kings of Jerusalem?  Or the Holy Roman Emperor?  Elective monarchy is an old institution.  Possibly older than hereditary primogeniture. 

And if the opposition is rooted in the fixed term of the position.  7 years is a lifetime in Talossa, as with any micronation.  SCA Kings/Queens serve for fixed periods and then move on, or repeat their service depending.  Though they are chosen via trial by combat, as opposed to election.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, exhaustively, you can call any position the "king."  There have been kings who were elected for year-long terms, kings who were chosen by an oligarchy, pairs of kings elected to rotating terms, and many other varieties.  Tafial rightly has said that in political science terms, it's just a meaningless label -- just like president, in fact.

But talk about bad faith -- it is deliberately trying to misunderstand to grouse about how there have been periodically elected kings and so therefore it is wrong to call this a president.  But hey, guess what else is usually periodically elected?  Presidents.  It's just as valid a label.  And to a lot of us, the position of king means more than just a magical label, anyway.  It means at least some independent power not subject to partisan election, for one.  It's not as if you don't understand what Dixhet is saying, it's just that it runs contrary to your preferred branding.

I just do not understand what is so heinous about an elected monarch. There is absolutely no reason why the dignity and majesty that comes with reigning cannot be maintained just because there's a new one every 7 years. It can be an entire tradition—we can renew all of our commitments to this country the moment we crown a new monarch!

There's nothing heinous about a presidency!  I live in one right now, as an American-Talossan.  In fact, a majority of our citizens live in a similar system, and the Republic of Talossa had a president alongside their Seneschal (one-year term, I think?).  American presidents have a four-year term, German and Indian presidents have a five-year term, Mexican presidents have a six-year term, and the Irish and Italian and Israeli and the proposed Talossan presidents all have a seven-year term.

I'm not saying that Italian people are suffering because they have a president elected to seven-year terms!  I'm not calling for Irish revolution (not about that, anyway).  I just don't think a periodically elected partisan president is the right fit for us.  I'd be happy to discuss why, if you're interested in my perspective on that.