Democratic Way to Remove Monarch

[Ian Plätschisch]

II.3, which currently reads:

Article 3. Deposition
In the event that the Monarch is determined by a medical authority to be incapable of executing their duties, or if they are otherwise deprived of their natural liberty due to crimes committed in another sovereign State, or if they are convicted of high crimes to be determined by the Ziu by a two-thirds vote of both houses and immediately certified by a two-thirds vote in a referendum, the Monarch shall be deemed to have abdicated the Crown.

is amended to read:

Article 3. Deposition
In the event that the Monarch is determined by a medical authority to be incapable of executing their duties, or if they are otherwise deprived of their natural liberty due to crimes committed in another sovereign State, or if they are convicted of high crimes to be determined by the Ziu by a two-thirds vote of both houses and immediately certified by a two-thirds vote in a referendum, the Monarch shall be deemed to have abdicated the Crown.
At any other time, two-thirds of both houses may vote to depose the Monarch, and a referendum on the question shall be put to the people during the next General Election. If two-thirds of the people vote to depose the Monarch, the succeeding Ziu may again vote by a two-thirds majority of both houses to depose the Monarch, and another referendum on the question shall be put to the people during the next General Election. If two-thirds of the people vote to depose the Monarch, the Monarch shall be deemed to have abdicated the Crown.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Why? The monarch should be thoroughly insulated from public opinion... that's the whole point of the role in our system. It's someone chosen by popular election who is accountable to their own conscience and (under extreme circumstances) to the elected government. In times of panic or emergency or the like, they think about what is best for the country, not their party or their favored policies or whatever. For example, when Iusti was revealed to be what he was, and a wave of moral panic got everyone freaking out -- seriously, remember how everyone was freaking out? -- the King was able to calmly call for careful consideration, even as he took some decisive action. That was a hard thing to do, under the circumstances, since there are unscrupulous people who might declare that the monarch was protecting him or the like. No one ever lost points for overreacting to a thing like that! It worked out and has been praised in the time since, but something of the sort might be much less popular in the future, and this procedure would allow for the monarch to be removed in the span of a month -- exactly what we do not want!

[Ian Plätschisch]

The Monarch should indeed be insulated from public opinion, which is why it would take much longer than a month to remove him. I'm quite unsure how you reached that number. Even if the first removal bill was passed in the final clark of a Cosa, the ensuing referendum passed, the next government lasted exactly one Clark (as theoretically MCs could vote against the VoC to hasten the removal process, even though this would be unlikely), and the final referendum passed, that would take at minimum five months:

Month 1 - Clark from 1st to 21st of the month, first removal bill passes
Month 2 - Election starts on the 15th, first referendum
Month 3 - Election ends on the 1st; government formation
Month 4 - Clark from 1st to 21st of the month, second removal bill passes, VoC fails
Month 5 - Election starts on the 15th, second referendum
Month 6 - Election ends on the 1st; Monarch removed

Besides, all four votes require supermajorities.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

The bill specifically says that the vote can be made at any time. It looks like it would take a minimum of two months; you're right that one month is incorrect. I admit that it's unlikely that things would happen at the most rapid possible pace, but why permit it as an option? At minimum, this should be fixed.

Month 1 - The Ziu passes the first removal bill any time within the first two weeks of the month and dissolves, sending the bill to referendum and starting new elections. The election starts on the 15th and ends at the end of the month.
Month 2 - The Ziu is seated, passes the second removal bill within two weeks, and dissolves, sending it to referendum. The election starts on the 15th and ends at the end of the month. Monarch is removed.

It is good that a supermajority is required, but monarchs should be more insulated. I am open to this approach in theory, but we really need to work on this to keep it from being dangerous. Why not start by specifying a specific amount of time that must pass between the different votes?

[Ian Plätschisch]

Nov 28, 2018 21:34:30 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

The bill specifically says that the vote can be made at any time.  

No, the bill specifically says the referenda have to be at the next general election.

Month 1 - The Ziu passes the first removal bill any time within the first two weeks of the month and dissolves, sending the bill to referendum and starting new elections. The election starts on the 15th and ends at the end of the month.

Month 2 - The Ziu is seated, passes the second removal bill within two weeks, and dissolves, sending it to referendum. The election starts on the 15th and ends at the end of the month. Monarch is removed.

Both of these "months" are actually two months worth of activity; the Ziu is allowed three weeks to pass a bill, and elections start the month after the final Clark. Plus, you are ignoring the month in between; the first Clark cannot start on the election deadline! That is five total.

It is good that a supermajority is required, but monarchs should be more insulated. I am open to this approach in theory, but we really need to work on this to keep it from being dangerous. Why not start by specifying a specific amount of time that must pass between the different votes?

I would be open to adding a provision stating that the second referendum must not take place within, say, six months of the first one.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Ooh, I see. You're right, I was miscalculating badly! Thanks!

I'd love it if you could indeed put that prophylactic time delay in, though. I'd also suggest one final other alteration: make the final decision by the people 3/4 support. That will change this from "elect a king" to "emergency removal of a king," I think.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Nov 28, 2018 23:17:01 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Ooh, I see. You're right, I was miscalculating badly! Thanks!

I'd love it if you could indeed put that prophylactic time delay in, though. I'd also suggest one final other alteration: make the final decision by the people 3/4 support. That will change this from "elect a king" to "emergency removal of a king," I think.

At that point, though, it would be easier to just amend the Organic Law itself.

In fact, looking again at the amendment procedures, I would rather not even put in the mandatory time delay, because that would also make this procedure harder than amendment.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

You make a good point. Let's lock down this constitution from dramatic and fast changes, as well. All of the same arguments apply and we'd be neglecting the same safeguards.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Dec 4, 2018 18:16:38 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

You make a good point. Let's lock down this constitution from dramatic and fast changes, as well. All of the same arguments apply and we'd be neglecting the same safeguards.

Remember that the King gets to approve amendments to this Organic Law as well (or at least significantly delay the passage of amendments he doesn't like).