Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă
Puisne (Associate) Justice of the Uppermost Court
Fraichetz dels punts, es non dels mürs
Posts: 4,063
Talossan Since: 9-23-2012
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Sept 6, 2014 18:40:29 GMT -6
Though if Owen knew he was going to be at a conference, maybe he shouldn't have accepted a spot on the commission. Nevertheless, the current system is broken (UC and Commission). I'd love to work with someone who might have ideas on how to fix it.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Sept 6, 2014 18:42:49 GMT -6
And Cresti's call for the return of the public ballot - i.e. the continuation of the corrupt system which led to nine terms of RUMP one party government - makes me really reconsider my previous estimation that he was the RUMP leader with the most principles and the least amoral power-hunger. Seriously, due: it makes you look really disgusting. I've always supported the public ballot in Talossa as a matter of principle, since before the RUMP ever got in power, and I'm not about to apologise for it now. Eiric understands the arguments for public ballots (though he does not agree with them), as does Owen. If you want to portray this as some kind of amoral opportunism on my part, go ahead. I think it says more about you than it does about me.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Sept 6, 2014 18:49:33 GMT -6
It says so much about you that your party got 9 absolute majorities on the trot when people had to come out and wave their party colours; and that you lost power when we gained the secret ballot. Amoral. Power-hungry.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 6, 2014 19:18:13 GMT -6
It says so much about you that your party got 9 absolute majorities on the trot when people had to come out and wave their party colours; and that you lost power when we gained the secret ballot. Amoral. Power-hungry. 44RZ3.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 6, 2014 19:22:32 GMT -6
Oh, darn it! Sorry, my reading comprehension is lousy. The first time I looked at Miestra's post, I thought it said, "It says so much about you that your party wrote, led, and passed the bill that instituted the secret ballot as an option here in the Kingdom of Talossa. I am glad that you did that, even though I personally don't want to permit public voting at all. Hey, what was the name of the bill that got that actually done?" I need glasses.
|
|
|
Post by E.S. Bornatfiglheu on Sept 6, 2014 19:35:43 GMT -6
And Cresti's call for the return of the public ballot - i.e. the continuation of the corrupt system which led to nine terms of RUMP one party government - makes me really reconsider my previous estimation that he was the RUMP leader with the most principles and the least amoral power-hunger. Seriously, due: it makes you look really disgusting. I've always supported the public ballot in Talossa as a matter of principle, since before the RUMP ever got in power, and I'm not about to apologise for it now. Eiric understands the arguments for public ballots (though he does not agree with them), as does Owen. If you want to portray this as some kind of amoral opportunism on my part, go ahead. I think it says more about you than it does about me. I am becoming relatively ambivalent in regards to the nature of the ballots cast. I cast mine privately given the fact that I'd rather not tarnish any of the parties with my support, given my (well deserved) recent lambasting in media outlets. But I am beginning to ponder as follows: The public ballot (a la Mill) is a method of engaging the citizen as a legislator, however briefly. It fosters a far more deliberative form of democracy. The secret ballot, generally a democratic cornerstone, is a method of allowing the citizen to go to the polls and then return to their private life, allowing the gears of government to turn without them. Some of the public voters (given a glance at their Witt history) have not been on the board since the previous election. When they cast their vote and then, quite simply, returned to their private lives. I didn't really go digging too much, but this was true in a couple of cases. What I am finding interesting is that they have, essentially, engaged in the exact behavior that is the purpose of the secret ballot while casting their vote publicly. This is a product of Talossa's deeply Peculiar nature. In a territorial-sovereign nation, you cannot get away from your friends and neighbors completely. Privacy is harder to maintain. Yet in Talossa, privacy is as easy as popping off the board and not bothering to let anybody know. Ie, there is a greater element of the voluntary in Talossa than in our larger brethren. Public ballots do allow for loyalty tests, of a sort, and would seem to be absolutely vital to a project like the IND or the PC. The question is, does this amount to a form of "to the victor go the spoils" of the Jacksonian Democrat (ie, your vote buys you one or more seats from our party) or instead a simple filter for converting one's private franchise into public influence? And if the latter is popular enough, why not take steps toward direct democracy?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 6, 2014 19:46:15 GMT -6
I've always supported the public ballot in Talossa as a matter of principle, since before the RUMP ever got in power, and I'm not about to apologise for it now. Eiric understands the arguments for public ballots (though he does not agree with them), as does Owen. If you want to portray this as some kind of amoral opportunism on my part, go ahead. I think it says more about you than it does about me. I am becoming relatively ambivalent in regards to the nature of the ballots cast. I cast mine privately given the fact that I'd rather not tarnish any of the parties with my support, given my (well deserved) recent lambasting in media outlets. But I am beginning to ponder as follows: The public ballot (a la Mill) is a method of engaging the citizen as a legislator, however briefly. It fosters a far more deliberative form of democracy. The secret ballot, generally a democratic cornerstone, is a method of allowing the citizen to go to the polls and then return to their private life, allowing the gears of government to turn without them. Some of the public voters (given a glance at their Witt history) have not been on the board since the previous election. When they cast their vote and then, quite simply, returned to their private lives. I didn't really go digging too much, but this was true in a couple of cases. What I am finding interesting is that they have, essentially, engaged in the exact behavior that is the purpose of the secret ballot while casting their vote publicly. This is a product of Talossa's deeply Peculiar nature. In a territorial-sovereign nation, you cannot get away from your friends and neighbors completely. Privacy is harder to maintain. Yet in Talossa, privacy is as easy as popping off the board and not bothering to let anybody know. Ie, there is a greater element of the voluntary in Talossa than in our larger brethren. Public ballots do allow for loyalty tests, of a sort, and would seem to be absolutely vital to a project like the IND or the PC. The question is, does this amount to a form of "to the victor go the spoils" of the Jacksonian Democrat (ie, your vote buys you one or more seats from our party) or instead a simple filter for converting one's private franchise into public influence? And if the latter is popular enough, why not take steps toward direct democracy? Currently, the option does exist for people to represent their own idiosyncratic views in the Cosa. For example, the TWP is a one-person party, and it received two seats (since those seats represent the share bestowed by one vote). There have been previous efforts to effectively ban that, but it is a current option. However, you do have to pay the registration fee. Some have argued that this is a reason to remove the fee, and others that this is a reason to cut the number of Cosa seats drastically. The former allows anyone to essentially represent themselves, while the latter prohibits that entirely. There are good arguments for both, although I think that it's hard to eliminate the only source of consistent revenue the nation has without a plan for replacing it (short of "we'll hold fundraisers," which presents a host of problems). On the whole, I am glad we do have a way for parties like the former CRO or current TWP to represent singular and unusual views, either intentionally or to lay the groundwork for a new way of thinking.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 6, 2014 19:48:48 GMT -6
Incidentally, you may not know this, but the ZRT did not suffer for its affiliations with you after you left. Even though many of your fake citizens had voted for them and one of the fakes was even a ZRT MC, no one used it to attack their party. If you had voted publicly for them again, I don't think anyone would think less of the ZRT for it. You are an enfranchised citizen of the Kingdom of Talossa, and can vote for anyone you choose. Every vote is just as valuable as another.
That's our position, anyway. Some disagree.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Sept 6, 2014 20:47:19 GMT -6
The public ballot (a la Mill) is a method of engaging the citizen as a legislator, however briefly. It fosters a far more deliberative form of democracy. The secret ballot, generally a democratic cornerstone, is a method of allowing the citizen to go to the polls and then return to their private life, allowing the gears of government to turn without them. Some of the public voters (given a glance at their Witt history) have not been on the board since the previous election. When they cast their vote and then, quite simply, returned to their private lives. I didn't really go digging too much, but this was true in a couple of cases. What I am finding interesting is that they have, essentially, engaged in the exact behavior that is the purpose of the secret ballot while casting their vote publicly. This is a product of Talossa's deeply Peculiar nature. In a territorial-sovereign nation, you cannot get away from your friends and neighbors completely. Privacy is harder to maintain. Yet in Talossa, privacy is as easy as popping off the board and not bothering to let anybody know. Ie, there is a greater element of the voluntary in Talossa than in our larger brethren. Public ballots do allow for loyalty tests, of a sort, and would seem to be absolutely vital to a project like the IND or the PC. The question is, does this amount to a form of "to the victor go the spoils" of the Jacksonian Democrat (ie, your vote buys you one or more seats from our party) or instead a simple filter for converting one's private franchise into public influence? And if the latter is popular enough, why not take steps toward direct democracy? MUCH too wordy, Eiric. All you're supposed to say is: "The only conceivable reason to support a public ballot is to coerce the cooperation of the RUMP Loyalty Parade to ensure the perpetual rule of a corrupt RUMP majority. J. S. Mill must have been a RUMP stooge planted via illegal use of the Talossan Time Machine."
|
|
|
Post by E.S. Bornatfiglheu on Sept 6, 2014 21:05:26 GMT -6
MUCH too wordy, Eiric. All you're supposed to say is: "The only conceivable reason to support a public ballot is to coerce the cooperation of the RUMP Loyalty Parade to ensure the perpetual rule of a corrupt RUMP majority. J. S. Mill must have been a RUMP stooge planted via illegal use of the Talossan Time Machine." I shant go that far. Particularly in terms of giving a bunch of grubby monarchists credit for developing a time machine. However, it strikes me as disingenuous to deny that, by and large, the RUMP lands its substantial majorities in the realm of public ballots. Or, rather, that there isn't at least a tinge of self interest in the party's enthusiastic embrace of the institution. After all, what works works. Cui bono and all that. For example, were there any RUMP mainliners (not just voter or member, but potential MC, or Senator, etc) who voted via secret ballot who then did not go and participate in the "loyalty parade?" If so, then how does the party work to ensure loyalty on the part of this individual? What the political theorist in me wants, more than anything, is to find a way to test these suppositions that get tossed around every election. Is the public ballot a tool of party coercion? Would the results really be different if the ballot was completely public? Completely secret? Unfortunately, or current data is bound to be rife with sampling bias, as those supporters of secret balloting tend to be clustered at one end of the ideological spectrum and public partisans at the other.
|
|
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă
Puisne (Associate) Justice of the Uppermost Court
Fraichetz dels punts, es non dels mürs
Posts: 4,063
Talossan Since: 9-23-2012
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Sept 6, 2014 21:11:49 GMT -6
I voted privately...I didn't participate in the loyalty parade...what do you say to that?
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Sept 6, 2014 21:28:59 GMT -6
I'd say that I have a lot of respect for you, and when I castigate the RUMP leadership as amoral and power-hungry, I certainly don't mean you.
But the arrogance of the RUMP leadership faction whom I refer to as the "Beagle Boys" is shown by the communications they've sent to other party leaders - not me, of course, but leaked by patriotic citizens. The idea that ModRad or LibCon MCs would support the BBs back into power for the 21st century equivalent of "trinkets and beads" is just breathtaking. The RUMP offer nothing that reformist-monarchists want, nor even indicate that they understand why others want reform. It shows that the RUMP leadership faction - like the Bourbons in France - have learned absolutely nothing about why they lost power and why they have come to stink in the nostrils of other parties. Hint: it's not Miestrâ's sp00ky mind control powers.
|
|
|
Post by M.T. Patritz da Biondeu on Sept 6, 2014 21:35:57 GMT -6
Hint: it's not Miestrâ's sp00ky mind control powers. It's not?!
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Sept 6, 2014 21:41:58 GMT -6
SHUT UP FOOL
BRING ME SOME SOCKS NICE ONES
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Sept 6, 2014 21:43:05 GMT -6
Also, AD's smug "you're welcome" on the secret ballot, as on El Lexhátx, is like Pinochet demanding credit for restoring democracy to Chile. He wouldn't have done it in a million years without the sacrifice and hard work of his political opponents.
|
|