|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 22, 2015 18:21:32 GMT -6
As Sir Cresti has pointed out before, this bill concerns assignment, not reassignment. If a major event occurred, mid-term reassignment protocols could be set by a party as they see fit, within the bounds of what is Organic, of course I edited a bit to make my point more clear -- sorry, it's rude to edit while other people are writing, I know!
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 22, 2015 18:22:54 GMT -6
Generally, it's a good idea to assume that any objections Sir Alexandreu raises are not made in good faith. They are only meant to derail.
|
|
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 Oct 22, 2015 18:25:37 GMT -6
Excellent! The leader of the most backwards-assed reactionaries in Talossa just made a passive aggressive claim that I am a fascist. Read yer Talossan history: while Nazis are evil, fascists are cool and funny. But keep in mind that when Sir Alexandreu talks about the rights of minorities, he means the rights of the boys' club minority which ruled this Kingdom from the Abdication to Reunision. The equivalent of Louis XVI's aristocracy.
|
|
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 Oct 22, 2015 18:27:07 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 22, 2015 18:39:27 GMT -6
Actually, I explicitly said I wasn't calling you a fascist in my last post. I'm still not calling you one. I'm only pointing out that a refusal to compromise is a dangerous thing, as is a political "war" that brooks no compromise but must end only in victory.
It's fascinating to hear about my enormous power and privileges, though, and how I am a scary Other who must not be listened to. What a powerful position the minority is!
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Oct 22, 2015 18:52:07 GMT -6
Generally, it's a good idea to assume that any objections Sir Alexandreu raises are not made in good faith. They are only meant to derail. This is not a sustainable way to run a government. How are we supposed to get anything done if we are constantly suspicious of other legislators? I take the "Moderate" part of my party name seriously, and act accordingly. And unless we twiddle out thumbs, wishing upon a star that the RUMP will lose it's blocking minority, it is a mathematical impossibility to pass an amendment against unified RUMP opposition, and thus impossible to achieve some of our goals. Perhaps I suffer from halo error, but I like to think that people who comment on my proposals are trying to help the nation as a whole and perhaps me as a legislator.
In regard to your scenarios, AD, that is why there is 1/3 of seats that don't have to be pre-assigned. To say that Cosa Lists are equitable to "Issue Lists" is reducto ad absurdum; To enforce such a thing would be nearly impossible, and such "issues" are orders of magnitude more unpredictable than seat assignments. And don't forget about seat reassignment possibilities.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 22, 2015 19:55:04 GMT -6
I definitely agree that you compromised and came up with something that is... well, not ideal, but much better. But with due respect, I don't think my other examples were at all unreasonable. It would be very easy to have a list of common positions (monarchy, open provinces, etc.) and say that democracy demands parties pre-commit to issues the same way this bill asks us to pre-commit to MCs. It might not be very enforceable, but a list could still be demanded in the names of transparency and accountability. It's a fairly close comparison along the exact same principles, and it should give us pause to think about that, at least.
|
|
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 Oct 22, 2015 21:03:47 GMT -6
Note he had no issues with a totally unforeseen Royal Veto of an OrgLaw amendment approved by 2/3 of the Ziu and the people in referendum. This is untrue. He called for calm and coolheaded discussion of the issue, but he also called for change. I say that as one who really had no problem with the status quo. I supported the 3/4 Majority Amendment only reluctantly. That was never Sir Alexandreu's position. He was quite adamant that the law had to change--and to be honest was, I think, a little disappointed in me that I didn't immediately agree with him on that. My apologies to Sir Alexandreu if I've been too free in referring to our private discussions on the day of the infamous veto.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 22, 2015 21:09:20 GMT -6
No worries. But you're not going to convince her that I'm anything short of a Machiavellian genius of malice, using bribery and threats to maintain my opulent lifestyle and endless special privileges. Hide your Senators and lock up your MCs!
EDIT: And I wasn't disappointed, just surprised. Checks and balances go all around... a strong monarchy is central to the future of Talossa, but can't be held infallible. Just as there must be an opportunity for His Majesty to play his role as a stable pillar of tradition (also: monarchy is fun) and check the powers of the Ziu and corts and Government, so too do they need to have their own opportunity to balance him. I guess it's a question of degrees, since there were still many checks on the royal power, but unlimited veto is a pretty enormous degree. I don't think the 3/4 Majority is the best possible (obv, since I proposed my own alternative that no one liked), but we did need something.
Still, we wouldn't be much of a party if we had no differences or interesting discussions about this sort of thing! As always, I respect your opinion enormously, Cresti.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Oct 22, 2015 21:36:51 GMT -6
It would be very easy to have a list of common positions (monarchy, open provinces, etc.) and say that democracy demands parties pre-commit to issues the same way this bill asks us to pre-commit to MCs. It might not be very enforceable, but a list could still be demanded in the names of transparency and accountability. It's a fairly close comparison along the exact same principles, and it should give us pause to think about that, at least. A mandatory "Issue List" would practically be direct democracy, only with additional bureaucracy in the middle. The point of parties is so people don't have to be knowledgeable on every single issue. However, with the candidate lists, at least voters would know who would be deciding for them.
I am pausing to think about this (or else I wouldn't have responded), but I still hold that, with all due respect, your analogy isn't great.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 22, 2015 21:50:45 GMT -6
Fair enough! What about the second example? They're not really analogies, since they're concrete situations that could happen and which try to get at the same principles.
For convenience: "A second example: a majority party governs itself by simple majority votes when making internal decisions. They want to require every party to govern itself this way. A minority party that has internal caucuses opposes this... who is "inherently democratic?" In this case, too, voters should be able to choose which party mechanisms they favor, and use their vote as a way to express their preference. The government shouldn't get to decide what choices the voters are permitted."
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Oct 23, 2015 4:12:19 GMT -6
I am probably making a huge mistake by posting this, but it is NOT true that the RUMP has a blocking power on amendment.
The sum of all RUMP Cosa member, if they ALL vote against an amendment can block an amendment, but the RUMP itself can't block any amendment.
What's the difference? If you propose an amendment that the RUMP is against, it doesn't mean that ALL of the RUMP Cosa Members will vote against it, or even that they will all vote period...
Just this list Clark, 22 of the RUMP seats didn't vote. Since the RUMP has 69 seats, it means only 47 voted.
That left 131 non-RUMP Cosa Members. If all of the 131 voted PER, and the 47 Votes CONTRA, you would have gotten 74% of the vote your way.
In short, don't blame the RUMP for failing to propose, every Clark, your amendments they are blocking. Blame your lack of persistence...
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Oct 23, 2015 5:23:46 GMT -6
Fair enough! What about the second example? I think it would be more accurate to that all parties were required to post how they make their decisions, not mandating all of them to make decisions the same way. After all, parties can pick whoever they want to hold seats; they will be responsible at the ballot box. I am probably making a huge mistake by posting this, but it is NOT true that the RUMP has a blocking power on amendment. The sum of all RUMP Cosa member, if they ALL vote against an amendment can block an amendment, but the RUMP itself can't block any amendment. What's the difference? If you propose an amendment that the RUMP is against, it doesn't mean that ALL of the RUMP Cosa Members will vote against it, or even that they will all vote period... Just this list Clark, 22 of the RUMP seats didn't vote. Since the RUMP has 69 seats, it means only 47 voted. That left 131 non-RUMP Cosa Members. If all of the 131 voted PER, and the 47 Votes CONTRA, you would have gotten 74% of the vote your way. In short, don't blame the RUMP for failing to propose, every Clark, your amendments they are blocking. Blame your lack of persistence... True, I suppose. But then the only recourse is proposing an amendment over and over until some of the RUMPers forget to vote.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 23, 2015 5:33:07 GMT -6
Fair enough! What about the second example? I think it would be more accurate to that all parties were required to post how they make their decisions, not mandating all of them to make decisions the same way. After all, parties can pick whoever they want to hold seats; they will be responsible at the ballot box. But the bill doesn't allow them to make that decision when they want, or to change their minds. It does mandate a particular process. Anyway, I am satisfied you understand my perspective, at least, even if you don't agree with it. I appreciate your time, especially since we had this whole discussion and reached a compromise, and then suddenly I thought of some new ideas. Thanks for indulging me.
|
|
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 Oct 23, 2015 6:08:20 GMT -6
The sum of all RUMP Cosa member, if they ALL vote against an amendment can block an amendment, but the RUMP itself can't block any amendment. What's the difference? If you propose an amendment that the RUMP is against, it doesn't mean that ALL of the RUMP Cosa Members will vote against it, or even that they will all vote period... This is very true. More important than the occasional failure to vote (like me on the most recent Clark, shame on me) is the fact that RUMP MCs have voted as a monolithic block on only 4 out of 20 bills so far this term.
|
|