The Consent of the People and Balanced Government Amendment

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

The Consent of the People and Balanced Government Amendment

Article XV of the Organic Law of the Kingdom of Talossa, which currently reads:

Section 1
An amendment to the Organic Law may be made by proclamation by the King where so authorized by:
-A vote of two-thirds in both chambers of the Ziu, and
-Approval of the majority of voters participating in a referendum on the question of the amendment no later than during the next scheduled general election following the approval of the Ziu.
-Proposed changes to this Organic Law that affect the representation of a province in the Senäts, or of the territory or equal sovereignty of a province, shall only be passed with the approval of a majority of participating voters in that province.
Section 2
The Covenants of Rights and Freedoms, being sacred and necessary to the defence of our free society, are entrenched provisions of this Organic Law. They may only be amended if the referendum required by Section 1 passes with a two-thirds majority of voters participating in the referendum.

shall be amended to include the following Section 3, as follows:

Section 1
An amendment to the Organic Law may be made by proclamation by the King where so authorized by:
-A vote of two-thirds in both chambers of the Ziu, and
-Approval of the majority of voters participating in a referendum on the question of the amendment no later than during the next scheduled general election following the approval of the Ziu.
-Proposed changes to this Organic Law that affect the representation of a province in the Senäts, or of the territory or equal sovereignty of a province, shall only be passed with the approval of a majority of participating voters in that province.
Section 2
The Covenants of Rights and Freedoms, being sacred and necessary to the defence of our free society, are entrenched provisions of this Organic Law. They may only be amended if the referendum required by Section 1 passes with a two-thirds majority of voters participating in the referendum.
Section 3
Should the King decline to proclaim any proposed amendment to the Organic Law under Section 1, the King shall proclaim such amendment notwithstanding his earlier refusal if:
- Both chambers of he Ziu again approve an identical amendment, a general election having intervened since the first approval by the Ziu, and
- A two-thirds majority of voters participating in the next general election vote in favour of the amendment.
The King shall not proclaim an amendment to the Covenants of Rights and Freedoms under this section unless the people approve the amendment by a three-quarters majority in the second referendum.

Article XX of the Organic Law of the Kingdom of Talossa, which currently reads:

Legislation may be enacted by the people through the Referendum. The Ziu may prepare referenda and submit these to popular vote, as it sees fit. The referendum may be advisory (a non-binding public opinion check) or may have the force of law upon its approval by a majority of those who vote on it. Referenda questions appear on the ballot during the next general election, or sooner, if the Seneschal so chooses to authorise.

shall be amended as follows:

Legislation may be enacted by the people through the Referendum. The Ziu may prepare referenda and submit these to popular vote, as it sees fit. The referendum may be advisory (a non-binding public opinion check) or may have the force of law upon its approval by a majority of those who vote on it. Referenda questions shall appear on the ballot during the next general election.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

No. Go away.

Seriously: the monarchy should not be allowed to defend itself from democratically decided changes to its own powers.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Your goal is to abolish the monarchy. This would make it harder for a strong majority to do that, even though it also closes off the capacity of His Majesty to veto amendments without further recourse. So while it may be unfortunate for you that this will hinder your pursuit of your ultimate goal, nonetheless I think it is worth proposing. Talossa is a free society, and I am a free citizen, and you can't drive me away.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

The United States constitution does not allow the Head of State any role in constitutional amendments. Why should Talossa's?

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

The United States is not a monarchy... that might be rather the most distinctive difference between the two systems. That means that there is not a monarch. The United States is also a presidential system, rather than a parliamentary one, which makes no distinction between head of state and head of government. In a country like Talossa, the head of government is the Seneschal while the head of state is the monarch.

Here, groups like the Senats have special power to dismiss organic amendments that would affect them. This power cannot be overridden at all - if a bill does not pass the Senats by 2/3, it can't amend the Senats. But an election could change the makeup of the Senats, allowing change to still overcome that hurdle. The monarchy is not regularly elected, since that's the whole point of it here in Talossa, so we need a hurdle the monarchy can impose against assaults on itself by way of something that is not as insuperable, but still effective at delay.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Jun 3, 2015 19:24:46 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

we need a hurdle the monarchy can impose against assaults on itself by way of something that is not as insuperable, but still effective at delay.

Isn't this hurdle the people who want a monarchy?  The only protection the Ziu has are the people who favor it, as MPF pointed out.  Why should the monarchy be any different?

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Because IRRATIONAL FETISHISM! Without a monarchy to defend, the RUMP would be an even sadder club than it is.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Jun 3, 2015 20:33:39 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

Jun 3, 2015 19:24:46 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

we need a hurdle the monarchy can impose against assaults on itself by way of something that is not as insuperable, but still effective at delay.

Isn't this hurdle the people who want a monarchy?  The only protection the Ziu has are the people who favor it, as MPF pointed out.  Why should the monarchy be any different?

Except that's not actually true. If you read the Organic Law, you note that any bill changing the Senats requires a 2/3 approval of that body, always, for example. There is no way to override this... the Senats has a special ability to require that with any bill affecting itself. Similarly, provincial boundary changes need provincial approval in a plebiscite. This is for the same reasons I've mentioned elsewhere: major institutional changes should not be easy. A single election shouldn't be enough to eliminate the Senats or remove seats from it or whatever, unless the Senats approves. In the same way, a single election shouldn't be enough to do something like remove the monarchy, unless the monarchy approves. That shouldn't be a permanent roadblock, though, which is why this provision here makes it only a delay of another Cosa.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

It occurs to me that I should probably explain what this bill does, since some people are new to the laws and others never read them. This is not to say that anyone here in particular doesn't understand, but explanation might remove any questions of ambiguity.

This bill removes His Majesty's blanket power to strike down amendments. That power to veto changes to the Organic Law is removed, because just governance requires the consent of the governed. A plebiscite should be able to over-rule the monarch. I think the reasons why have been discussed enough elsewhere.

But any design of good government also provides a way for institutions to defend themselves against temporary opinion. This is why the Senats, for example, is not elected every term... it is insulated from temporary public opinion. It also has the ability to protect itself, to a limited extent, from other institutions in the government. The Cosa can't get up a big swell of support before any one election (between one and six months) and shut down the Senate unless the Senate approves by 2/3, and the Cosa has no appeal to that power. The people must genuinely and over a period of a year want to shut down the Senate, and vote in people who will do that. Tempers cool and reason prevails over that longer term.

Look at right now, at the outrage, urged on by people with particular interests in tearing down the system. No long-lasting change should be made in that mindset, and the designers of many governments have recognized that issue. Accordingly, this bill also grants a "suspensive veto" - His Majesty can delay a bill and send it back to the people. This is particularly necessary because referenda always pass, at least in recent memory. The people need to know that His Majesty wants them to reconsider this. But if they do, then it passes - royal assent or not.

To be frank, this is perhaps not even enough of a brake... as I said before, referenda always pass, and I'm not sure that this would actually stop anything. But if the people really do want a change, then they must have it.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Jun 4, 2015 6:18:47 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

But any design of good government also provides a way for institutions to defend themselves against temporary opinion. This is why the Senats, for example, is not elected every term... it is insulated from temporary public opinion. It also has the ability to protect itself, to a limited extent, from other institutions in the government. The Cosa can't get up a big swell of support before any one election (between one and six months) and shut down the Senate unless the Senate approves by 2/3, and the Cosa has no appeal to that power.

Except that the King is one man, and the Cosa/Senats is an entire body of people.  The King should not have as much power as the Ziu.

Look at right now, at the outrage, urged on by people with particular interests in tearing down the system. No long-lasting change should be made in that mindset

Even in the midst of this fervor, almost nobody is calling for the abolition of the Monarchy (even the Two Cents Amendment doesn't do so)

To be frank, this is perhaps not even enough of a brake... as I said before, referenda always pass, and I'm not sure that this would actually stop anything.

What, then, is enough of a brake?  A 4/5 majority in the Ziu and plebiscite 3 times in a row?   

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Jun 4, 2015 8:25:36 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

Jun 4, 2015 6:18:47 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

But any design of good government also provides a way for institutions to defend themselves against temporary opinion. This is why the Senats, for example, is not elected every term... it is insulated from temporary public opinion. It also has the ability to protect itself, to a limited extent, from other institutions in the government. The Cosa can't get up a big swell of support before any one election (between one and six months) and shut down the Senate unless the Senate approves by 2/3, and the Cosa has no appeal to that power.

Except that the King is one man, and the Cosa/Senats is an entire body of people.  The King should not have as much power as the Ziu.

Look at right now, at the outrage, urged on by people with particular interests in tearing down the system. No long-lasting change should be made in that mindset

Even in the midst of this fervor, almost nobody is calling for the abolition of the Monarchy (even the Two Cents Amendment doesn't do so)

To be frank, this is perhaps not even enough of a brake... as I said before, referenda always pass, and I'm not sure that this would actually stop anything.

What, then, is enough of a brake?  A 4/5 majority in the Ziu and plebiscite 3 times in a row?   

The Seneschal is one person, and yet his powers are balanced against the Ziu, CpI, and the rest in many respects. Different branches of our government take different forms, and we don't weight them by population. The Cosa and Senats have the same level of power in many respects, for example, even though the Cosa has twice as many people (and could have fifty times as many, in time). The CpI has only five (three until recently!), and yet it is set against the whole Ziu (Cosa and Senats combined). The important thing is that these are different institutions - like the monarchy and its dependent offices are institutions.

As to your second point, note that this isn't, really, even that big of a conflict. His Majesty did something to which many people objected, but in a fairly anodyne way. He picked a technical point on which to bring this debate for that very reason... he didn't want to have this fight over something that was serious and might hurt the nation, he picked an issue in which this debate could actually be the focus. Imagine if he'd blocked an amendment that eliminated the secret ballot, for example - the issue would not just be His Majesty's power, but also the secret ballot. He definitely could have communicated about this far, far better, but this technical dispute was deliberately chosen to harm no one and not to be partisan at all. And yet even so, there are three different competing proposals to eliminate the current monarchy as a part of our system, replacing it with a president or a feudal/Roman adoption house-based system or a ceremonial, plus the simpler proposal to just confront the issue and club it into submission by stripping away this power.

As to your last point, this is the best compromise, I think. Three plebiscites would be farcical... here, the monarch is given only the power to demand of the people, "Are you certain?" And if they still say yes, then the change is made.q

[Françal Ian Lux]

The main issue that now have had really nothing to do with the king's actions anymore. Yes, they still relate their points to it, but they've moved on to it.
The fact is, this little "scandal" has opened people's eyes about the insecurities of our system. It has, to people's perspective, put into question the Organic Law and how much it needs reform.

[Glüc da Dhi]

Except that now even if the people say yes a second time, it might not be enough, considering that suddenly the bar has been raised.

And then there is the sneaky last clause, banning early referenda.

If we pass this bill, it would basically be telling the King that we accept his veto power. However, I may be wrong, but it looks to me as if an overwhelming majority, including a chunk of RUMP voters does not.

[Glüc da Dhi]

And with regards to the argument that referenda always pass: that is because controversial amendments make it through the cosa. Almost all parties supported the amendments that made it to the ballot last time. Parties have an option to on the ballot advise a CON vote now, alarming the people if something might be wrong. No one did. I cant remember any serious organised NO campaign on a referendum ever. No wonder they all passed. But that doesnt tell us anything about what might happen if a noteworthy faction of Talossa did have strong enough objections to an amendment to campaign against it.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Francal: I have indeed seen some extremely, um, creative proposals. Tim Asmourescu has returned after a long absence, self-imposed after he made that big criminal confession, to propose a royal house sort of feudal thing. It's interesting, although I'm not sure I want to live in a Talossa modeled after Dune. And I know Dama Miestra is proposing to just start over with a constitutional convention, and wants a republic. That's rather a bigger discussion than this bill, but I still think a monarchy is by far the best thing for T And of course, there are people with personal agendas who are just seizing this opportunity to press them.

Gluc: The last clause is just to stop anyone from gaming the system, of course. Otherwise the entire change wouldn't be possible... a referendum could just be called in two successive days. It's actually a really lousy thing that should have been eliminated long ago... way, way too easy to use in a corrupt way.