Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Apr 11, 2016 13:40:12 GMT -6
I abstain on the Kimchi, given that I had never heard of it and have never had it.
The motion passes 2-0-1
|
|
Ián Tamorán S.H.
Chief Justice of the Uppermost Court
Proud Philosopher of Talossa
Posts: 1,401
Talossan Since: 9-27-2010
|
Post by Ián Tamorán S.H. on Apr 13, 2016 2:20:02 GMT -6
(Outsider just passing in the corridor hears statement)I would like to make a motion to formally declare that kimchi is delicious. (Outsider, having been forced to eat kimchi in the past, searches frantically for a bucket into which to .... )
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Apr 13, 2016 3:58:05 GMT -6
Do we have guards? GUARDS! Take away this Kimchi-hater! Go away with your kimchigotry!
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 13, 2016 5:21:25 GMT -6
Ok, as to the Assembly, my first thought is that we want to preserve our traditions -- our radical egalitarianism and much of our nomenclature. We also want to allow the two provinces to govern as a unit while also maintaining their separate interests, and to provide an opportunity for Vuode to preserve their own traditions. We also want to make this whole thing secure enough so that it doesn't break apart at the first disagreement.
Offhand, I think the most obvious way to do this is to have a simple joint Assembly -- essentially allowing Vuode to elect people to the same sort of existing body we use here -- while adding to the mix two tribunes, one from each province, with veto authority. I think might also be a good time to go back to parliamentary democracy, allowing for parties once more.
So every election, each voter from the two provinces would vote for a party and vote for a tribune for their province. How does that sound to folks?
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Apr 13, 2016 6:11:05 GMT -6
I don’t see why we couldn’t continue direct democracy in the Confederate Parliament, and have an elected vetoing “Tribune of the Peace” in the respective provinces? We would have to review our respective constitutions to see to it that both provinces are equal.
West Lothian Question: English Votes for English Laws → double majority for a bill to pass which affects England only: majority of the whole Parliament; herein, a majority of English MPs must have voted to adopt the present measure
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 13, 2016 8:57:39 GMT -6
This past election, we had three votes. That's, astoundingly, even worse than last election. I think we should go back to representation, for all the reasons that representation exists.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Apr 13, 2016 9:05:08 GMT -6
To be honest, I like direct democracy much more. Representation will not suddenly increase voter turn-out, and after all, as far as I know, voters can choose to delegate their seats to another M-M citizen. I think that is a good compromise between direct and representative democracy. After all, I'm sure that our Dandenburgeois neighbours would not want to give up their system of direct democracy, as well.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 13, 2016 9:34:18 GMT -6
Representation had much greater turnout. We had three votes this time. Last time we had the Chancery run a representative election we got literally twice as many votes during an election that saw record low turnout across the board. And that was usually what we got for those elections... at least six votes minimum, usually more. Like it or not, there is a substantial body of citizens in our province that prefer to cast a vote but not be directly involved, even to the point of personally selecting a representative. It should be as easy as possible to express your political preference.
Seriously, a 50% drop! Literally half as many people are represented in our government as under representation.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Apr 13, 2016 10:23:28 GMT -6
Maybe we could mix direct and representative democracy even further, in that we let the Chancery run our elections, but at the same time allow for MM/VD'ers to claim seats in the Confederate Parliament. I was thinking about this:
General Elections, the Confederate Parliament (CP) of the Provinces Maritiimi, Dandenburg, Maxhestic, and Vuode: MDMV (= 1905), is dissolved by whatever means.
Citizens of the Confederate Provinces can now either elect a party to represent them in the CPMDMV via Chancery, or they can claim a seat in Parliament for themselves (also via Chancery?), or they can designate a person to hold their seat (also via Chancery?).
Parties receive as much seats as votes have been cast for them, and can allocate them accordingly. What say you?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 13, 2016 11:49:57 GMT -6
Hm. If I understand this right, you're saying that we'd go back to representative democracy for each province, and then the representatives from each province would then choose to either go to the united assembly or to designate a representative? That seems strange, but okay by me.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Apr 13, 2016 13:55:22 GMT -6
No, that is not what I'm saying. Citizens of each province can either
(a) represent themselves by claiming a seat; or, (b) be represented by another person, i.e. give their seat to someone else eligible to claim a seat; or, (c) turn their seat over to a party, by voting for that party.
Parties that have received votes, i.e. seats, can distribute them amongst provincial members as they see fit.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Apr 13, 2016 15:51:36 GMT -6
That seems rather complicated, Epic.
For what it's worth, I would prefer a representative parliament system with local political parties over a direct democracy system. But, I'm not set in stone on this. I will likely vote in favour of ANY system that seems robust and workable.
It's interesting to hear that voter turnout dropped when M-M went from a representative system to a direct system, as I'm sure the same happened in Vuode. I would attribute this more to the "local election" thing though. Ie: non-Wittenberg frequenters are less likely to vote if the Chancery does not conduct the provincial election alongside the National General Election. It's the simple law of voters taking the path of least resistance.
I have a question:
How do we feel about this "West Lothian Question"? I, for one, think that if we limit things to "Vuode votes for Vuode laws" and "M-M votes for M-M laws" then we are defeating the purpose of this entire idea; that being to pool our resources to mitigate the inactivity problems caused by having a too few active citizens. My preference would be that we elect/appoint/whatever to a single chamber that legislates a singular legal code that governs both provinces, united by treaty.
ie: politically and legally, we are one. Culturally we are separate.
We could have a veto system like mentioned. I would see this working in the way that the UK's veto works within the European Union. This works in a rough way like this: The Euro parliament pass laws that take effect throughout Europe, but the UK retains a special status where our UK parliament can vote to opt out of any individually passed law. Likewise we could have each of the 2 provinces reserving the right to opt out of specific sections of the wider legal code, in the same way the UK does within Europe.
Oh and... MDMV (I REALLY REALLY LIKE THIS NAMING (MARITIIMI DANDENBURG MAXHESTIC VUODE) I LOVE IT, LOVE IT, LOVE IT).
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Apr 13, 2016 16:10:24 GMT -6
Ok, as to the Assembly, my first thought is that we want to preserve our traditions -- our radical egalitarianism and much of our nomenclature. We also want to allow the two provinces to govern as a unit while also maintaining their separate interests, and to provide an opportunity for Vuode to preserve their own traditions. We also want to make this whole thing secure enough so that it doesn't break apart at the first disagreement. Offhand, I think the most obvious way to do this is to have a simple joint Assembly -- essentially allowing Vuode to elect people to the same sort of existing body we use here -- while adding to the mix two tribunes, one from each province, with veto authority. I think might also be a good time to go back to parliamentary democracy, allowing for parties once more. So every election, each voter from the two provinces would vote for a party and vote for a tribune for their province. How does that sound to folks? I didn't read this properly first time through. But, this, sounds similar to what I mention in regards to the UK opt-out within EU thing. The tribune idea is workable, but, i'm wondering if this is simply a task for the Cunstaval? Probably not, but it's worth weighing up. So, right now we have two questions to address: 1: How do we elect to a joint assembly? 2: Should the individual units of the joint assembly reserve an opt-out veto? I'm open and undecided on question 1. On question 2, I say each province should reserve an opt-out. Nothing fancy like double majorities required for things to pass. Just a simple thing like "this RZ has passed the joint assembly, but our local tribune/cunstaval opts-out of this applying to our province".
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 13, 2016 16:27:11 GMT -6
Yes, I think we should elect to a joint assembly. Even combined, we're too small for more than one body of legislators or for any hierarchies. And I don't think that the units should have an opt-out veto. Provincial protection could come from one dedicated tribune with veto power per province. They can kill bills as a whole. This would mean that any corrupt or foolish legislation harmful to the interests of one of the two provinces would need to convince not only a majority of the joint assembly, but also the dedicated tribunes.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Apr 13, 2016 16:34:52 GMT -6
It cannot be that complicated. I mean — what is the harm in giving citizens every option available? They can still stay RUMP, or MRPT, or TNC. Or they can put in their own names, or that of someone else. I don’t think it much of a difficulty.
Would the tribunes comprise one person each?
|
|