Lüc 3.0 [da Schir for Benito]

[Lüc da Schir]

Azul, fellow Benitians,

as I have anticipated in my semi-retirement thread¹, I am happy to announce I am running for the privilege of representing our beloved Province of Benito in the Senate for another term.

I have been honoured to represent Benito in the Senate from 2014 onwards, constantly being at the forefront of parliamentary activity - in the Ziu at-large and in the Senate in particular - through the introduction and passage of legislation that matters², the regular attendance³ and the constant striving to turn the Senate into a model parliamentary body⁴ and the province of Benito into a major national player. I am committed to keeping up Benito's national profile through my continued involvement in running Senatorial business, directly and indirectly.

I am honoured to accept the endorsement of the Moderate Radicals, but as I've mentioned before, if elected I will take advantage of my planned leave from any leadership role or executive office by adopting an independent and provincially minded agenda. Gone will be the constraints of the Seneschalsqab and the impartiality that is necessary with the role, I will return to be a champion of all Benitians and strive for more participation and involvement.

Yours, Lüc

---

(1: Where I didn't actually resign from the Seneschalsqab, as my opponent wrongly mentioned.)

(2: Such as budget bills, electoral commission reform, electoral procedure reform... It's all in here.)

(3: I have only missed a single vote in my entire parliamentary tenure.)

(4: I'm referring to the effort to bring Standing Rules into the Ziu, a nonpartisan attempt to revamp activity and get us a proper set of bylaws.)

[Lüc da Schir]

Now, I would like to address a couple of things.

The first is that yes, I had campaigned for a long time to make provinces more geographically based, rather than mere voting clubs. This was done as a long term project to encourage the development of distinctive provincial cultures, say provinces adopting second languages or citizens meeting IRL. It also had other end goals, such as rebalancing immigrations between provinces, which was something we'd have liked to see, but not the main objective, as it's natural and unavoidable that some provinces/states have more citizens than others.

It wasn't just a personal project, but rather one shared by my party and MZs of other parties and provinces, meaning that if I abandoned the bill, someone else would just have Clarked it instead, guys who cosponsored like Carlüs, Txec, Cresti, Glüc or others who explicitly supported the bill in discussions like Anglatzara.

Bear in mind that the feedback only came when the bill was ready to be Clarked and was basically 99% ready, with a lot of thought being put into things such as
1) making sure that not too many people would be displaced
2) displaced people would be free to decide what to do in terms of choosing their province
3) future immigrant intake would be somewhat balanced between provinces

4) provinces would retain most of their catchment areas

5) provinces would have some sort of geographic contiguity and hopefully common traits

and much, much else.

I admit I underestimated the late complaints about the bills - to me and according to the spirit of the actual Talossan law, the rationale was that catchment areas were a mere tool to assign citizens to provinces, NOT the actual boundaries of the provinces. To people who complained, instead, finding oneself in the catchment area of another province is tantamount to being moved in a different province. In an analogy, when I become a citizen, I'm "virtually" residing in Benito's physical territory - it's not like Benito's boundaries get stretched to include my house, wherever it may be in the world. This may be perceived as a philosophical difference rather than a substantial one, and it's probably my misinterpretation of this aspect of the complaints that led me to ultimately going forward with Clarking the bill.

I very much respected my dear friend Iason's efforts to "keep Ohio Benitian", as he was the only one who came forward and argued his point. I told him that it was too late to alter the bill in such a drastic way that it would have affected most of the other provinces, basically contradicting what I had been arguing all along (most of the five points I have listed before). My compromise was two-fold:

1) I would have abstained on the bill and refrained from sponsoring it around. You can see in the Senate threads that I did not support my own bill, and on the Database I did indeed not vote for it.

2) Should the bill fail, I would have resubmitted it, bringing back NA catchment areas for Benito and Fiova.

Ultimately, the bill received no opposition in the Senate and only 12 CONs in the Cosa, with cross party support, which to me pretty much vindicated my efforts. Then, Iason ran against me on an Ohio is Benito platform, a referendum on my own bill basically, and I prevailed by quite some margin. So far, it may look like I acted like a robot, but the truth is that it pained me immensely to be torn between supporting party (and coalition) policy and my own personal ideas, and between siding with some long time friends like Iason and Vitx. Which is also why I was kind of shocked to see this kind of pictures

being floated around in the Benito FB forum. Oh well.

[Lüc da Schir]

So back to actual solutions. Another point of the compromise, which I did not actually publicly suggest back then because public opinion was generally going towards things such as
1) No closing provinces to immigration, ever
2) No rule on changing province if you move more than 1000 miles, or whatever

was to allow people to petition for an immigrant, who is a friend or relative and lives close by, to be assigned to the same province as their family member/friend. The problem back then was that the discourse later shifted from bills on provinces, the semi-permeable wall, etc., to bills on electoral reform such as IRV, the EC, etc.. But I can say with confidence that I would have supported such a bill back then and I would generally support it now if it was proposed in the next Cosa.

[Vitxalmour Conductour]

I like you, Lüc. Thank you for anticipating my question and addressing it.

[Vitxalmour Conductour]

Jun 15, 2018 4:53:49 GMT -6 Lüc da Schir said:

the truth is that it pained me immensely to be torn between supporting party (and coalition) policy

This is a key line, that I unfortunately have a personal issue with, as I have mentioned in the Benito facebook page.
A senator represents a province, not a party. The Cosa is the place for someone who wants to represent a party.

I don't know if that would have changed anything. We were only 3, which is only a meaningful number of voters in a Talossan provincial election. I knew then that the bill would pass, I think even a show of conciliation, like letting someone who wasn't the senator from the only province actively protesting the bill be the one to Clark it, might have helped. The issue for me at the time was the seeming lack of caring for our position, which you have addressed. I bear no grudge toward you.

[Lüc da Schir]

Jun 15, 2018 5:14:55 GMT -6 Vitxalmour Conductour said:

Jun 15, 2018 4:53:49 GMT -6 Lüc da Schir said:

the truth is that it pained me immensely to be torn between supporting party (and coalition) policy

This is a key line, that I unfortunately have a personal issue with, as I have mentioned in the Benito facebook page.
A senator represents a province, not a party. The Cosa is the place for someone who wants to represent a party.

I don't know if that would have changed anything. We were only 3, which is only a meaningful number of voters in a Talossan provincial election. The issue for me at the time was the seeming lack of caring for our position, which you have addressed. I bear no grudge toward you.

Vitx, I hope you can forgive me for answering to your complaint against parties with party policy... but anyway, you can now see why I, along with my party, have long wanted to get parties out of the Senate, in a certain way, such as for example:

- making endorsements meaningless (instead of a MRPT Cosa vote also counting as a vote for me, in the absence of an explicit Senate vote)

- introducing IRV so that partisanship makes less of a difference

- introducing the Standing Rules (Senate) Act in such a way that it is completely nonpartisan

This is also why I have stressed the fact that I'm now running unbound from any leadership roles and I'm very excited to get back to work in this new condition. I ran for Senator in August 2014 with no particular expectations that I would soon become Prime Minister, and I equally ran again coming off of a historic low in my party's support, again not expecting that we would more than double our seats and I would become Prime Minister again. It's an odd coincidence, but it's a matter of fact that both times I was forced to give less attention to the province. I would also probably prefer the PM to be a MC rather than a Senator, for instance. Had I knew that we were in for such a successful string of results, I would likely have left the representation of Benito to someone more unbound from national matters.

[E.S. Bornatfiglheu]

Jun 15, 2018 3:43:40 GMT -6 Lüc da Schir said:

(1: Where I didn't actually resign from the Seneschalsqab, as my opponent wrongly mentioned.)

And in this, you have my apology.  I misremembered while writing, and it was not my intention to misrepresent your place or status during the election period.

But if I may ask, in regards to your excitement at being able to represent our province without party and national government entanglements, why have you waited until now to do this?  Why accept the Seneschalsqab in the first place when you knew it would run you directly upon the rocks?

I'm a member of a party as well, and so not completely unpartisan in my thinking, but what lead you to that course of action in the first place?

[Lüc da Schir]

Jun 15, 2018 5:57:34 GMT -6 E.S. Bornatfiglheu said:

Jun 15, 2018 3:43:40 GMT -6 Lüc da Schir said:

(1: Where I didn't actually resign from the Seneschalsqab, as my opponent wrongly mentioned.)

And in this, you have my apology.  I misremembered while writing, and it was not my intention to misrepresent your place or status during the election period.

Ah, no biggie. No apology needed.

But if I may ask, in regards to your excitement at being able to represent our province without party and national government entanglements, why have you waited until now to do this? Why accept the Seneschalsqab in the first place when you knew it would run you directly upon the rocks?

I'm a member of a party as well, and so not completely unpartisan in my thinking, but what lead you to that course of action in the first place?

I think you're largely mischaracterising what I said. I'm not sure serving as Seneschal and Senator "ran me directly upon the rocks", quite the opposite, indeed. I regret not engaging more in recent times, yes, but I still think I did a pretty good job representing Benito. I've had the pleasure to chat with constituents from time to time and have always welcomed input, if not actively sought it in recent times. I admit I was a little let down by the absence of any substantial discussion when I did poll for opinions on the board, and that was back when I was trying to get some activity going with all the bicameral Chancellery stuff.

Anyway, let's try and address your specific questions. "Why have you waited until now to do this" is easy: I had first sought both jobs (MRPT leadership and Senate seat) in the absence of any qualified alternative or indeed any opposition on the ballot. I sought reelection to both because I thought I was doing a good job, I loved aspects of both jobs (crafting policy, debating...) and I had a long list of stuff I still wanted to get done; you already know my reasoning for stepping down from the semi-retirement post. Then, the rocks part, which I again totally disagree with. And the second question I think I've answered it already.

[E.S. Bornatfiglheu]

S:reu da Schir... should we arrange some sort of debate between the two of us? Give ourselves the opportunity to get our policy and whatnot out for our voter.

[Vitxalmour Conductour]

Jun 18, 2018 17:24:19 GMT -6 E.S. Bornatfiglheu said:

...Give ourselves the opportunity to get our policy and whatnot out for our voter.

Hey, this is Benito, not Vuode, we have a couple of those.

[E.S. Bornatfiglheu]

Jun 18, 2018 18:33:24 GMT -6 Vitxalmour Conductour said:

Jun 18, 2018 17:24:19 GMT -6 E.S. Bornatfiglheu said:

...Give ourselves the opportunity to get our policy and whatnot out for our voter.

Hey, this is Benito, not Vuode, we have a couple of those.

Apologies.  I should have used the plural when referring to "voters."  Though it might be a touch thin on the ground if we take macronational factors into consideration.  But, at the end of the day, what can you do?

[Vitxalmour Conductour]

Jun 15, 2018 4:53:49 GMT -6 Lüc da Schir said:

...if I abandoned the bill, someone else would just have Clarked it instead, guys who cosponsored like Carlüs, Txec, Cresti, Glüc or others who explicitly supported the bill in discussions like Anglatzara...

This would have been far preferable. The results were inevitable, being ignored was not.

Jun 15, 2018 4:53:49 GMT -6 Lüc da Schir said:

...provinces would have some sort of geographic contiguity and hopefully common traits...

"catchment areas were a mere tool to assign citizens to provinces, NOT the actual boundaries of the provinces."

Jun 15, 2018 4:53:49 GMT -6 Lüc da Schir said:

...I admit I underestimated the late complaints about the bills...

Ignoring things often leads to underestimating them.

Jun 15, 2018 4:53:49 GMT -6 Lüc da Schir said:

...To people who complained, instead, finding oneself in the catchment area of another province is tantamount to being moved in a different province...

That is not at all what any of the arguments were about.

Jun 15, 2018 4:53:49 GMT -6 Lüc da Schir said:

...I very much respected my dear friend Iason's efforts to "keep Ohio Benitian", as he was the only one who came forward and argued his point...

This is completely false. I came forward and was met with crankiness and circumvention from my senator.

Jun 15, 2018 4:53:49 GMT -6 Lüc da Schir said:

...Ultimately, the bill received no opposition in the Senate and only 12 CONs in the Cosa, with cross party support, which to me pretty much vindicated my efforts...

Congratulations. Your efforts as a party leader and Seneschal were successful. I agree, I think you did a good job as both. I would vote for you for either, given the opportunity. It is a shame you have sought to focus on the one job you failed had a spotty record at rather than the ones you were successful at.

Jun 15, 2018 4:53:49 GMT -6 Lüc da Schir said:

...Then, Iason ran against me on an Ohio is Benito platform, a referendum on my own bill basically, and I prevailed by quite some margin...

I did not see at as solely a referendum on your own bill, but on your attitude and behavior as senator, which, whether you won again or not, was out of line and unfortunate.

Jun 15, 2018 4:53:49 GMT -6 Lüc da Schir said:

...So far, it may look like I acted like a robot...

No, robots aren't clouded by emotion. A stereotypical robot would have engaged his constituency without annoyance and explained his position. Perhaps you spoke to other Benitians privately, and we were of a minority opinion. But you never told us. Instead, you reacted like we were personally offending you and proceeded to ignore a sizeable portion of your constituency. To this day, you misrepresent our arguments and dismiss us, while excusing your very un-senatorial behavior.

It would have been extremely easy to fulfill your party and personal goals without trampling on the trust of people who voted for you, either by recusing yourself from clarking the bill or by debating us in a non-adversarial way. You chose to betray our trust and failed to represent all of Benito.

[Vitxalmour Conductour]

And also, because I still think you think this is all over what you actually voted, I will repeat:

May 4, 2016 16:37:46 GMT -6 Vitxalmour Conductour said:

Also: I'm not ignoring your compromise offers (well, not maliciously anyway.) I don't believe it is within my rights to barter one-on-one with my Senator. I am but one of your constituents. You have a duty to all of them. I made you aware of my opinion, as did Iason, and now Eiric. Hopefully, any other Benetians that support or oppose this proposal have informed you as well. You were elected because a majority of Benito trusted you to make the best choice for the most Benetians. You are the one to decide your vote and I will not engage in debate over what your vote will be. Sure, I'll tell you what I think it should be, but you have to take the myriad 'shoulds' and make one 'will.' I trust you to make the right choice. I hope I agree with that choice, but I don't demand it.

This isn't about your vote. It is about your attitude and your refusal professionally engage with your voters. I adore Lüc da Schir the Benitian. I respect Lüc da Schir the soon-to-be-former Seneschal. I have a problem with Lüc da Schir the Senator caused entirely over the way he handled one disagreement, not because of his stance on that disagreement..

[E.S. Bornatfiglheu]

So... no debate then?

[Lüc da Schir]

Apologies, everyone, I have just gotten back from a written exam. I did skim some of what was written this morning but I had no time to write a proper answer. I will try and get back to everyone as soon as I can.