Legislation for the people, legislation for non-MZs!

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

This is a topic, which has arisen in the "Please Be Seated"-Amendment's discussion.

As a compromise to making the Cosa smaller, I asked whether, for the sake of proper representation of the people in legislation, a kind of "People's Right to Legislative Initiative" might be introduced. I have since come to think of it, and no matter if the Cosa seats numbers are reduced, I find this a marvellous idea for more participation. It would also be a great democratic tool for the people to have.

It would basically allow the people to force the Ziu to ponder a legislative question, and if significant interest (over 50%) is found, the Right to the Initiative would compel the Ziu to vote on such an initiative bill.

It would go something like this:

1) Drafting of ideas, or complete bill
2) Gathering of support (however the petitioners wish to do so: signatures, votes, etc.)
3) Submission of Initiative to the Ziu
4) Discussion in public, and discussion in the Ziu; optionally subsequent sponsoring of the initiative, and voting thereupon.

--- in case the Initiative passes the significance threshold* ---

5) fully drafted bill must be Clarked and voted upon, after a period of discussion. The bill need not (but may) be sponsored in this case. The sponsor will be styled "the Initiators", or something the like, in any case. (So take that you have a Significant Initiative Bill with no MZ-sponsor, then it is just Uréu q'estadra så: the Initiators. And a Significant Initiative Bill with me as a sponsor would be: U:Q'E:S: The Initiators, da Lhiun (Senator-MM))

* The significance threshold would be reached, if gathered support from the citizenry comprises over 50%. However, only fully drafted bills which are fit to become law have the Clark-compelling effect. Otherwise, only a quorum of... let's say 10%!... has to be reached, and the rest is irrelevant.


Anybody have some comments on this?

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

It's an interesting idea. I'm not necessarily opposed, but given the percentage of the population that's in the Ziu (and the percentage that is inactive) it seems almost inconceivable that a petition with the requisite number of supporters to force the Ziu to consider a bill would not include at least one MZ who could go ahead and Clark the bill without going through the initiative process.

[Ian Plätschisch]

I don't see how the Ziu could be "forced" to discuss a bill. If they don't want to, MZs just won't post anything.

Are you saying that an initiative needs 10% support for the Ziu to have to discuss it, and that if 50% of people support a fully drafted bill, the Ziu has to vote on it?How is a bill ever supposed to get 50% of the population's support when much of the population is largely inactive? Even 10% might be a bit of a struggle.

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

Aug 19, 2015 15:21:23 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

I don't see how the Ziu could be "forced" to discuss a bill. If they don't want to, MZs just won't post anything.

Are you saying that an initiative needs 10% support for the Ziu to have to discuss it, and that if 50% of people support a fully drafted bill, the Ziu has to vote on it?How is a bill ever supposed to get 50% of the population's support when much of the population is largely inactive? Even 10% might be a bit of a struggle.

Well, it would be brought into the Hopper — that is how the Ziu would be compelled to discuss. It's not a "say something about this" per se, but more a "look, this idea here is something that you should ponder in your official capacity".

Okay, maybe now: but it is my hope and belief that Talossa will not remain ever so small. And maybe, non-MZs can be passionate enough to annoy other citizens into activity with their campaign; I don't know?! It could open a whole new branch of legislation to the people, without the whole politics-and-party-affiliation-stuff.

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

Aug 19, 2015 15:17:30 GMT -6 Sir C. M. Siervicül said:

It's an interesting idea. I'm not necessarily opposed, but given the percentage of the population that's in the Ziu (and the percentage that is inactive) it seems almost inconceivable that a petition with the requisite number of supporters to force the Ziu to consider a bill would not include at least one MZ who could go ahead and Clark the bill without going through the initiative process.

I completely agree with you. But it is my hope that Talossa will grow, y'know. I am trying to look a little bit further down the line, here. But I can certainly see your reservations, and their grounds.

I just love direct democracy very, very much; although I must concur that it MAY be dangerous. But this could be a nice and neat compromise.

[C. Carlüs Xheraltescù]

I actually quite like the idea. If a petition reaches a certain number of signatories, I think it's entirely proper for the Ziu to consider it. Would love to work on developing the policy with you

[Ian Plätschisch]

I suppose I would be open to something like this, but I don't think an initiator could ever be expected to have such a large campaign as to attract 50% of the population, and also somehow not attract a single MZ. Lower the threshold and propose the idea again in 2 or 3 years. We have almost no need for it now.

[Lüc da Schir]

I already proposed such a bill back in February 2014 - talossa.proboards.com/thread/9344/gets-bill-amendment?page=1

Back then of course there wasn't much support for popular legislative initiative, so it's good to know that more people now seem to support such a move.

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

Aug 19, 2015 16:48:05 GMT -6 Lüc da Schir said:

I already proposed such a bill back in February 2014 - talossa.proboards.com/thread/9344/gets-bill-amendment?page=1

Back then of course there wasn't much support for popular legislative initiative, so it's good to know that more people now seem to support such a move.

You are right, of course. Maybe the reason for this "broader support" is that the Initiative would need broader support from citizens itself. I had said, in the aforementioned thread that:

I would like to see maybe a Bill co-sponsored by other non-Ziu citizens (let's say 4 or 5) and by at least one MC, in order to be eligible for submission to the Clark?

i.e., my thought process was the same (save that, as CCX had pointed out then, it would really not make sense to require an MC/MZ to support it, too). Not any one citizen should be able to submit proposals unilaterally, but there should be a foothold in the people's mindset for this proposal.

I hope you're not too upset about the course of events. :c

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

I think the initiative process could be as simple as allowing a petition signed by 10-20% of voting-eligible citizens force a bill to be clarked.

[Munditenens Tresplet]

My concern with this idea is the premise that forcing a citizen's bill or initiative to be Clarked ignores the fact that the Ziu likely would vote anything and everything down. Why? Because if a citizen's bill fails to even get the support of a single MZ, which is the only requirement for a bill to be Clarked via the normal process, why would a majority of MZs turn out to vote in favor of the bill once a vote has been forcibly called?

I think we should take a step back and reexamine the direction we would want a citizen's initiative process to go. Rather than have citizens craft a bill to put forward in the Ziu, something that citizens arguably could do anyway as long as they have an MZ to back their idea and post their bill for them (which happens often in legislatures), why not allow citizens to draft an initiative that could be placed on the ballot to be voted on by everyone? We could require a level of support (perhaps 20-25%), require a point of contact, and if there is support for it, even require a nominal fee to place it on the ballot in order to discourage frivolous measures. The party accompanying statement law that currently applies only to referenda placed on the ballot by the Ziu could also be amended to encompass citizen placed ballot measures as well, if there was support to do so.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Aug 19, 2015 23:37:48 GMT -6 Munditenens Tresplet said:

Rather than have citizens craft a bill to put forward in the Ziu, something that citizens arguably could do anyway as long as they have an MZ to back their idea and post their bill for them (which happens often in legislatures), why not allow citizens to draft an initiative that could be placed on the ballot to be voted on by everyone? We could require a level of support (perhaps 20-25%), require a point of contact, and if there is support for it, even require a nominal fee to place it on the ballot in order to discourage frivolous measures. The party accompanying statement law that currently applies only to referenda placed on the ballot by the Ziu could also be amended to encompass citizen placed ballot measures as well, if there was support to do so.

True. I was thinking of that too. That's how the initiative process works in most U.S. states that have it, including my native state of California. If supporters of an initiative are able to get 20% of the people to sign a petition, not counting MZs, I'd say a fee isn't necessary to prove the proposal is serious enough to be placed on the ballot.

[Lüc da Schir]

Aug 19, 2015 17:12:35 GMT -6 Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun said:

Aug 19, 2015 16:48:05 GMT -6 Lüc da Schir said:

I already proposed such a bill back in February 2014 - talossa.proboards.com/thread/9344/gets-bill-amendment?page=1

Back then of course there wasn't much support for popular legislative initiative, so it's good to know that more people now seem to support such a move.

You are right, of course. Maybe the reason for this "broader support" is that the Initiative would need broader support from citizens itself. I had said, in the aforementioned thread that:

I would like to see maybe a Bill co-sponsored by other non-Ziu citizens (let's say 4 or 5) and by at least one MC, in order to be eligible for submission to the Clark?

i.e., my thought process was the same (save that, as CCX had pointed out then, it would really not make sense to require an MC/MZ to support it, too). Not any one citizen should be able to submit proposals unilaterally, but there should be a foothold in the people's mindset for this proposal.

I hope you're not too upset about the course of events. :c

I'm not, don't worry Your proposal was quite valid, but still back then the bill didn't have the numbers to make it through the Ziu, edited or unedited, so I simply decided to let it go for a while.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Here is the discussion from the last time the bill was proposed:

talossa.proboards.com/thread/9344/gets-bill-amendment

One notable difference is that this bill requires a significant percentage of the population to support the bill. My main objection at the time was that bills might be submitted as a nuisance, but this change answers that. Not saying I'll support it, but I won't come out against the idea, either.

A wide variety of people, however, took the stance that -- in principle -- only an elected legislator should ever be allowed to submit bills. So a bill to this effect might have an uphill climb.

[Françal Ian Lux]

I have always been a proponent of this idea. I would only suggest that bills proposed by citizens require the support of a legislator to properly table the bill in the Ziu. This would allow citizens to discuss and edit bills as they please, but maintain the integrity of our legislative process. This is what most representative governments have in place.
Just an idea, if we could have a subforum where citizens and law makers could unofficially discuss bills and/or issues demanding attention, legislators could take action and adopt a bill/idea from the subforum and properly propose it as a bill in the Hopper. This allows for a system to be established while still maintaining what we hope to accomplish here.