The Ham Sandwich Amendment

[Munditenens Tresplet]

The Ham Sandwich Amendment

WHEREAS, fairly recently, I expressed my opinion to some people that Talossan voters would always vote to approve whatever referendum is sent their way by the Ziu, and

WHEREAS, in my opinion, this seemingly automatic approval doesn’t necessarily reflect the actual beliefs of citizens regarding a referendum, and

WHEREAS, I boldly claimed that, if sent to the people in a referendum, they would vote in favor of a ham sandwich, and

WHEREAS, the ham sandwich idea is coined from the commonly held belief that a prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, in case one was unaware, and

WHEREAS, I said that I’d offer such an amendment to prove my point, and

WHEREAS, here it is, NOW

THEREFORE, Should it be proposed by a two-thirds majority of the Cosa, a majority of the Senats, and thereafter approved by a majority of voters participating in a referendum on the question of the amendment,

OrgLaw Article II shall be amended to create a new Section 11, which shall read as follows:

The National Sandwich of Talossa shall forever be 'n sä́ndwitsch da stinc, or a ham sandwich.

Uréu q'estadra så:

Munditenens Tresplet (Senator, Maricopa)

[Ián B. Anglatzarâ]

A comment from the Republic that was:

Executive Order No. 080204
Talossan National Cuisine
I, Ián Anglatzarâ, President of the Republic, hereby declare the following to constitute the
National Cuisine of Talossa:

1. The national lunch food of the Talossan Republic is the
Stubborn Sandwich.

2. The national hot drink of the Talossan Republic is
Talossan Cider.

3. The national sweet snack of the Talossan Republic is the
Talossa Bonnet.

At all public celebrations where food and drink is served, at least one dish from the
National Cuisine shall be served, or the occasion will forever be remembered as
culinarily unpatriotic.

Upon the countersignature of the Seneschál of the Republic of Talossa, this order shall be
transmitted to the Parlamînt and published in the National Register.

The President of the Republic of Talossa
Ián Anglatzarâ
4 February 2008
countersigned by Dp. Dieter N. Vercáriâ, Seneschál

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Remind me: what was a Stubborn Sandwich?

[Deleted]

Yeah, and what's Talossan cider made of?

[Munditenens Tresplet]

And what is a Talossan Bonnet?

[Lüc da Schir]

And what is an "Ián Anglatzarâ"? Is that part of the Talossan Cuisine too?

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Jan 26, 2017 16:02:37 GMT -6 Munditenens Tresplet said:

And what is a Talossan Bonnet?

The Talossa Bonnet is apparently an adaptation of a snack called an "Easter Bonnet", comprising mainly of a marshmallow melted onto a cookie and decorated in patriotic Talossan colours. The full details of these snacks were given on Wittenberg X at the following posts:

Stubborn Sandwich: www.talossaonline.com/1.31693.0.html
Talossan Cider: www.talossaonline.com/1.31181.0.html
Talossa Bonnets: www.talossaonline.com/show.php?fid=1&id=23475

Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h, can you fetch up these threads for us?

[Ián B. Anglatzarâ]

Jan 27, 2017 1:16:40 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Jan 26, 2017 16:02:37 GMT -6 Munditenens Tresplet said:

And what is a Talossan Bonnet?

The Talossa Bonnet is apparently an adaptation of a snack called an "Easter Bonnet", comprising mainly of a marshmallow melted onto a cookie and decorated in patriotic Talossan colours. The full details of these snacks were given on Wittenberg X at the following posts:

Stubborn Sandwich: www.talossaonline.com/1.31693.0.html
Talossan Cider: www.talossaonline.com/1.31181.0.html
Talossa Bonnets: www.talossaonline.com/show.php?fid=1&id=23475

Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h, can you fetch up these threads for us?

web.archive.org/web/20081121121630/http://www.talossaonline.com/1.31693.0.html
web.archive.org/web/20081121132833/http://www.talossaonline.com/1.31181.0.html

Can't find the last one.

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

Butter? Butter in a watery drink? Butter? What is this travesty?

[Glüc da Dhi]

I'm not sure this would be a good test. The ideological case against a Ham Sandwich, while stronger than the case in favour, is pretty weak, as there are no direct negative consequences. So why would the amendment passing prove that people wouldn't vote against an amendment that is actually harmful?

[Munditenens Tresplet]

Feb 8, 2017 13:25:48 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

I'm not sure this would be a good test. The ideological case against a Ham Sandwich, while stronger than the case in favour, is pretty weak, as there are no direct negative consequences. So why would the amendment passing prove that people wouldn't vote against an amendment that is actually harmful?

What would be a good test, then? Surely it wouldn't be a great idea to offer a bill which does in fact have extremely negative consequences just to prove a point, especially when I believe that the public would also rubber stamp that too.

By the way, if there is any question as to why it is a Ham Sandwich, you can understand a bit better here.

[Glüc da Dhi]

I don't think it's surprising that amendments tend to pass. For an amendment to have the support of 2/3rd of MCs but less than a majority of the population is unlikely. If you look at the last election, a majority of voters voted using the dababase. From there it's easy to come across the text of the referenda. For those who didnt bother reading them (and I'm afraid that happens, just like there will be people who don't bother reading party manifesto's or finding out anything about their party's candidate for Senate.), they still will have been confronted for every amendment with a very clear argument in favour of the amendment, and the most generic clause possible against the amendment. Maybe parties should to more to inform their voters about the amendments.

[Glüc da Dhi]

But yeah, gathering evidence to support either assumption will be difficult, maybe impossible. If a bill would be really considered harmful by a majority, I am confident someone will be able to mount an effective campaign against it, but we can't know for sure untill it happens.

[Munditenens Tresplet]

Feb 8, 2017 13:48:25 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

I don't think it's surprising that amendments tend to pass.

It isn't that they tend to pass, they always pass.

For an amendment to have the support of 2/3rd of MCs but less than a majority of the population is unlikely.

Not necessarily true. Not everything that MCs do during a Cosâ term are detailed in a party's manifesto, which as you later note, some people don't even read anyway. Some members of the public may just be filling in every box on their ballots without any detailed reasoning. While I believe it is a problem in all respects, it is much more so a problem regarding Organic Law, which over the years has been treated as basically a repository for any kind of law anyone wants passed, and the voters accede to everything causing this huge bulky document for which we've formed committees to make huge reforms to it.

If you look at the last election, a majority of voters voted using the dababase. From there it's easy to come across the text of the referenda. For those who didnt bother reading them (and I'm afraid that happens, just like there will be people who don't bother reading party manifesto's or finding out anything about their party's candidate for Senate.), they still will have been confronted for every amendment with a very clear argument in favour of the amendment, and the most generic clause possible against the amendment. Maybe parties should to more to inform their voters about the amendments.

I agree that parties should take advantage of this more, and I think it should be opened up for anyone who wants to submit statements, like for ballot initiatives in some states, where the state prints a pamphlet that includes any argument for or against (within reason) a given initiative. This may be one avenue where it helps the public to decide which way to go a bit better. But adding 50 word statements and the use of electronic ballots haven't been around but for a couple years, if that. This was a problem long before we ever amended the law to allow for 50 word statements to be added to ballots. Plus, would someone who routinely votes for Party X really care or give weight to what Party Y says to do about an amendment?

[Glüc da Dhi]

Feb 8, 2017 13:59:27 GMT -6 Munditenens Tresplet said:

Feb 8, 2017 13:48:25 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

I don't think it's surprising that amendments tend to pass.

It isn't that they tend to pass, they always pass.

That's true as far as I can remember, but then again, I can't remember any case when a referendum really should have failed.

For an amendment to have the support of 2/3rd of MCs but less than a majority of the population is unlikely.

Not necessarily true. Not everything that MCs do during a Cosâ term are detailed in a party's manifesto, which as you later note, some people don't even read anyway.

People being informed about their party's position is only what of why that's unlikely. Just as relevant is that MCs are themselves a large sample of the population as a whole. If politicians from RUMP to FreeDem agree on something, how likely is it that a majority would have a totally different opinion?

Moreover, in the case of the most controversial amendment during the previous election, Members of the Ziu who voted in favour of the amendment themselves formed a quarter of all the voters in favour. If it had passed 47-45 instead, that number would have been almost a third.