[Chancery] Results of the September 2019 referendum (prelim)

[Glüc da Dhi]

The preliminary results of the September 2019 referendum on the proposed merger of Fiôvâ and Florencia are as follows:

Total
Turnout: 26
Per: 11
Contra: 12
Abstain: 3

Fiôvâ
Turnout: 12
Per: 7
Contra: 2
Abstain: 3

Florencia
Turnout: 14
Per: 4
Contra: 10
Abstain: 0

Results will be posted on the database at some point in the future, but likely not today.
Members of the Electoral Commission for the 53rd Cosa election will be contacted some time this week.
Thanks to S;reu Furxheir for his help with the conduct of these elections and providing these results.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Ha ha ha ha. Well, that's the rather soggy end to more than six months activism, legislative planning, judicial battle and high-octane debates.

Kudos to the people of Florencia for coming out to save their independent province, and to establish the precedent that a province might like it just fine having a completely inactive government, much like Tolkien's Shire. It certainly makes me feel better about Fiova having ground to a similar halt. Lord Hooligan's strong defence of "inactivity", however, surely spells the end of the RUMP as a political party, an entity which since its very beginning has rated "being active" as the main, if not the only, way to judge a Government. Commiserations to Governor Carbonel, who did his best.

I have no more grand plans for provincial mergers, so I suppose I will let it lie there (although I should point out that, as long as 53RZ1 remains on the books, another referendum could overturn the current one?). That said, I hope that this has given strong hints to the people who want to enact further provincial mergers. There is currently no law on the books saying that the people of each province must have a say in provincial mergers - just the Ziu and the local legislatures. I hope we've established a precendent here that nothing is going to succeed without active buy-in from even the inactive segments of the population.

Finally, I would say that the real negative impact of the abortive merger is the continuing "rotten borough" nature of the Senats. While under Mencei da Schir the "upper house" is certainly well run internally, it is also far from having democratic legitimacy, as long as the provinces the Senators "represent" exist in name only. I am now more than ever interested in moving towards a unicameral MMP Cosa.

Also, Senator Platschisch is probably right that merging two non-contiguous provinces was silly, anyway.

Thanks to everyone for participating.

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

Who the hell lives in Florenciă anyway?

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Sept 22, 2019 19:00:32 GMT -6 Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun said:

Who the hell lives in Florenciă anyway?

The Royal family, the Hooligan family, and the Ventrútx family.

Hope this helps.

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

Is there a song that goes something like Not surprised, ooooh, I am not surprised. / Shoulda seen this coming, oooh, I am not surprised.? Because it'd be very damn handy just about now.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Sept 22, 2019 18:50:24 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

although I should point out that, as long as 53RZ1 remains on the books, another referendum could overturn the current one?

Indeed, that law should be overturned or added to el Lexhatx or have a timer put on it. There are now two bodies of statutory law: the legal code and that single standalone law. And since the laws are no longer being recorded on the wiki, there's no way for anyone to even know it exists unless they were around now and remember it (or if they somehow happen upon it while clicking through one Clark after another). Sloppy.

That said, I hope that this has given strong hints to the people who want to enact further provincial mergers. There is currently no law on the books saying that the people of each province must have a say in provincial mergers - just the Ziu and the local legislatures.

Doesn't there have to be a referendum because of Org.XV? Isn't that what that referendum was for?

Finally, I would say that the real negative impact of the abortive merger is the continuing "rotten borough" nature of the Senats. While under Mencei da Schir the "upper house" is certainly well run internally, it is also far from having democratic legitimacy, as long as the provinces the Senators "represent" exist in name only.

This sounds like you're saying that the votes of active citizens count more than the votes of less active citizens, and so you want to dilute the voting power of less active citizens in favor of active ones. I mean, they're full citizens and voters, of course, but they're lesser voters and so they shouldn't get equal representation. They're Talossans "in name only."

I think this is probably not just wrong under our Organic Law and wrong as a matter of smart policy, but also wrong under most forms of ethics.

Obviously it's wrong under the OrgLaw. Not going to go deep into it, but equal representation isn't qualified in our democracy on the basis of how often you post on an internet bulletin board. And it's also probably not a smart move for legislators to start choosing their voters. But it's also just wrong. Being a full Talossan citizen means that you have the franchise. Dieter Vercáriâ seldom posts, but his vote is the same as mine.

[Eðo Grischun]

Sept 22, 2019 20:25:27 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Sept 22, 2019 18:50:24 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Finally, I would say that the real negative impact of the abortive merger is the continuing "rotten borough" nature of the Senats. While under Mencei da Schir the "upper house" is certainly well run internally, it is also far from having democratic legitimacy, as long as the provinces the Senators "represent" exist in name only.

This sounds like you're saying that the votes of active citizens count more than the votes of less active citizens, and so you want to dilute the voting power of less active citizens in favor of active ones. I mean, they're full citizens and voters, of course, but they're lesser voters and so they shouldn't get equal representation. They're Talossans "in name only."

I think this is probably not just wrong under our Organic Law and wrong as a matter of smart policy, but also wrong under most forms of ethics.

Obviously it's wrong under the OrgLaw. Not going to go deep into it, but equal representation isn't qualified in our democracy on the basis of how often you post on an internet bulletin board. And it's also probably not a smart move for legislators to start choosing their voters. But it's also just wrong. Being a full Talossan citizen means that you have the franchise. Dieter Vercáriâ seldom posts, but his vote is the same as mine.

Nice spin, but the Senate doesn't represent individual voters. The Talossan Senate (like the US Senate does with States) gives "the provinces" equal representation as entities in their own right; it does NOT provide equal representation between individual voters. In reality, the Senate is the instrument diluting and inflating the value of certain voters. A voter in a province with 30 voters has a vote that is a third more powerful than a voter in a province of 20 voters.

I'm not sure how I feel about unicameralism for Talossa right now, but I do know that countries are able to have a unicameral parliament with multiple member, proportional representation electoral systems and that those countries do not have any democratic deficits for having that system. Today I learned that countries like Denmark, Finland, New Zealand, Portugal and about another 70 or 80 countries, not to mention the devolved unicameral parliaments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, are all operating parliament systems that are just wrong under "most forms of ethics".

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Sept 22, 2019 20:25:27 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

And since the laws are no longer being recorded on the wiki,

I have to call you out on this drive-by snark against the Scribe of Abbavilla, Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h. If you have something to say to him, have the decency to say it to his face. Or make a complaint to Cresti Nouacastra-Läxhirescu, the Attorney-General, who supervises the Scribery. Or offer to help.

[Eðo Grischun]

Sept 22, 2019 18:50:24 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

...Lord Hooligan's strong defence of "inactivity", however, surely spells the end of the RUMP as a political party...

You say this right after witnessing what just happened? This referendum proves just about everything that's ever been said about 'Loyalty Parades'. The RUMP has a 'silent following' that has zero interest in taking an active part in helping to further and better this nation, but will appear in a moment's notice to squash anything that threatens to change the things they built long ago. Typical Tory, NIMBY behaviour.

As long as someone is willing to pay the registration fee and get the name on the ballot, the RUMP could do just about anything right up to taking a squat over Talossa's face and would still be returned to parliament with a considerable share of the vote.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Sept 23, 2019 3:24:10 GMT -6 Eðo Grischun said:

As long as someone is willing to pay the registration fee and get the name on the ballot, the RUMP could do just about anything right up to taking a squat over Talossa's face and would still be returned to parliament with a considerable share of the vote.

Maybe; but who'd take the seats?

Seriously, you can't extrapolate from referendums to party politics. A whole bunch of people came out of the woodwork to vote to keep Florencia alive who clearly didn't vote for the last Nimlet, in which pro-merger parties had a majority. I doubt those people's interest in Florencian or national party politics will survive till the general election, or even breakfast.

[Eðo Grischun]

Sept 23, 2019 3:49:54 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Maybe; but who'd take the seats?

Seriously, you can't extrapolate from referendums to party politics. A whole bunch of people came out of the woodwork to vote to keep Florencia alive who clearly didn't vote for the last Nimlet, in which pro-merger parties had a majority. I doubt those people's interest in Florencian or national party politics will survive till the general election, or even breakfast.

Agreed, it's impossible to extrapolate exact future election results from an issue referendum, but just looking over the general election results for the past couple of terms it appears that Florencian RUMP voters will vote RUMP for the national Cosa while abstaining on the local Nimlet vote. Pro-merger parties only have the majority at a local level because most RUMP voters just don't vote locally. 10 people voted the referendum down in Florencia, which is a comparable number to that of national-level RUMP voters for that province for the 51st and 52nd Cosas. It appears to have dipped a little just in the 53rd. The No-voters in this referendum are, by and large, the same RUMP voters that have always been. (Also, take note that the "No campaign" for this referendum didn't even campaign to get the result they wanted. No emails. No active reaching out to the base. They know they can rely on this support while hardly bothering). There's simply no indication that they would stop voting the same way. Those ~10 Florencian voters would still vote RUMP regardless of it being on the ballot or not and regardless of there being enough candidates or not, and unless the 53rd is an outlier/blip there's nothing to say they won't show up to vote in a couple months time.

The death of the RUMP will not be because of lack of electoral support, but, as you rightly notice, from lack of candidates. But, even with that said, under the current system you only need a 2 or 3 people to hold around a quarter to a third of the Cosa.

[Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h]

Sept 23, 2019 3:10:06 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Sept 22, 2019 20:25:27 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

And since the laws are no longer being recorded on the wiki,

I have to call you out on this drive-by snark against the Scribe of Abbavilla, Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h. If you have something to say to him, have the decency to say it to his face. Or make a complaint to Cresti Nouacastra-Läxhirescu, the Attorney-General, who supervises the Scribery. Or offer to help.

Granted, I have a lot to catch up on regarding all those tables and bills. Perhaps, AD, you would care to help a brother out here? I will get the Sept. Clark stuff on El Lex this week.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Sept 23, 2019 2:21:12 GMT -6 Eðo Grischun said:

Sept 22, 2019 20:25:27 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

This sounds like you're saying that the votes of active citizens count more than the votes of less active citizens, and so you want to dilute the voting power of less active citizens in favor of active ones. I mean, they're full citizens and voters, of course, but they're lesser voters and so they shouldn't get equal representation. They're Talossans "in name only."

I think this is probably not just wrong under our Organic Law and wrong as a matter of smart policy, but also wrong under most forms of ethics.

Obviously it's wrong under the OrgLaw. Not going to go deep into it, but equal representation isn't qualified in our democracy on the basis of how often you post on an internet bulletin board. And it's also probably not a smart move for legislators to start choosing their voters. But it's also just wrong. Being a full Talossan citizen means that you have the franchise. Dieter Vercáriâ seldom posts, but his vote is the same as mine.

Nice spin, but the Senate doesn't represent individual voters. The Talossan Senate (like the US Senate does with States) gives "the provinces" equal representation as entities in their own right; it does NOT provide equal representation between individual voters. In reality, the Senate is the instrument diluting and inflating the value of certain voters. A voter in a province with 30 voters has a vote that is a third more powerful than a voter in a province of 20 voters.

I'm not sure how I feel about unicameralism for Talossa right now, but I do know that countries are able to have a unicameral parliament with multiple member, proportional representation electoral systems and that those countries do not have any democratic deficits for having that system. Today I learned that countries like Denmark, Finland, New Zealand, Portugal and about another 70 or 80 countries, not to mention the devolved unicameral parliaments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, are all operating parliament systems that are just wrong under "most forms of ethics".

The Senate represents voters in their provinces. It's not spin to say that each citizen is represented by one Senator, and that right is not qualified by their activity level! It is not proportional, but that has nothing to do with activity -- that's by design, and done to mimic the same purpose in the United States. Don't conflate the two. If you want to say that active citizens should get more of a vote than inactive ones, then just say it.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Sept 23, 2019 3:10:06 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Sept 22, 2019 20:25:27 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

And since the laws are no longer being recorded on the wiki,

I have to call you out on this drive-by snark against the Scribe of Abbavilla, Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h. If you have something to say to him, have the decency to say it to his face. Or make a complaint to Cresti Nouacastra-Läxhirescu, the Attorney-General, who supervises the Scribery. Or offer to help.

I have already called this to people's attention multiple times, and we all had a conversation about it. It continues to be a problem that grows by the month. I don't harp on about it because that would just be annoying, but it is specifically a problem in this instance, when we're talking about keeping track of individual laws.

Also, I am a citizen of Talossa and I feel like I should be able to point out problems in governance even if I'm not personally going to go and fix them.

Sept 23, 2019 5:57:33 GMT -6 Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h said:

Sept 23, 2019 3:10:06 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

I have to call you out on this drive-by snark against the Scribe of Abbavilla, Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h. If you have something to say to him, have the decency to say it to his face. Or make a complaint to Cresti Nouacastra-Läxhirescu, the Attorney-General, who supervises the Scribery. Or offer to help.

Granted, I have a lot to catch up on regarding all those tables and bills. Perhaps, AD, you would care to help a brother out here? I will get the Sept. Clark stuff on El Lex this week.

I am afraid I don't have time or energy to help you with this. We're now going on two years of backlog, so it's just too much for me right now. Who else is in the Scribery? Is there anyone else? You could try to find someone, perhaps, whose job would specifically just be this?

I do appreciate and value the work you do as both Archivist and Scribe, and it's good you're keeping el Lexhatx up to date, by the way. Thank you for that. Those are both thankless tasks that mostly go unappreciated.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Sept 23, 2019 5:01:05 GMT -6 Eðo Grischun said:

Sept 23, 2019 3:49:54 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Maybe; but who'd take the seats?

Seriously, you can't extrapolate from referendums to party politics. A whole bunch of people came out of the woodwork to vote to keep Florencia alive who clearly didn't vote for the last Nimlet, in which pro-merger parties had a majority. I doubt those people's interest in Florencian or national party politics will survive till the general election, or even breakfast.

Agreed, it's impossible to extrapolate exact future election results from an issue referendum, but just looking over the general election results for the past couple of terms it appears that Florencian RUMP voters will vote RUMP for the national Cosa while abstaining on the local Nimlet vote. Pro-merger parties only have the majority at a local level because most RUMP voters just don't vote locally. 10 people voted the referendum down in Florencia, which is a comparable number to that of national-level RUMP voters for that province for the 51st and 52nd Cosas. It appears to have dipped a little just in the 53rd. The No-voters in this referendum are, by and large, the same RUMP voters that have always been. (Also, take note that the "No campaign" for this referendum didn't even campaign to get the result they wanted. No emails. No active reaching out to the base. They know they can rely on this support while hardly bothering). There's simply no indication that they would stop voting the same way. Those ~10 Florencian voters would still vote RUMP regardless of it being on the ballot or not and regardless of there being enough candidates or not, and unless the 53rd is an outlier/blip there's nothing to say they won't show up to vote in a couple months time.

The death of the RUMP will not be because of lack of electoral support, but, as you rightly notice, from lack of candidates. But, even with that said, under the current system you only need a 2 or 3 people to hold around a quarter to a third of the Cosa.

It is true that there are a large number of voters who feel like the RUMP best represents them. This is perhaps because there is no competition for the RUMP on a bunch of issues. For example, if you really value the Organic Law, which other party can you choose? It was the RUMP that most vigorously opposed discarding the Organic Law.

It's pretty low-hanging fruit, electorally speaking -- ripe for some other party to pick off more voters by advocating for some of the things that they value.