The Peculiar Nationalist Party - Manifesto and Policy

[Eðo Grischun]

The
Peculiar Nationalist Party

MANIFESTO AND POLICY

We are Peculiarists

We view Talossa as a Nation, not as a country, and we believe that the Nation of Talossa transcends the concept of physical geography. The modern era sees humanity able to connect and assemble in ways that go beyond the physical, thus we define Talossa as a nation and a polity without land and borders.

We reject the physical land claims made by Talossa. We recognise the historical significance of these claims; that the Nation was born and raised in Milwaukee, USA, but do not believe that Talossa has any legitimate, sovereign claim over that land.

We reject the validity of the Berber Hypothesis and recognise it, solely, as a work of Talossan art, thus we do not believe that a natural Talossan ethnicity exists. Rather, Talossanity is adopted by choice.


We are Civic Nationalists

We believe that to be Talossan, one simply needs to hold the desire to be Talossan and agree to adhere to the principles set out in the Covenant of Rights and Freedoms. Talossan citizenship should be open to anyone who shares the values of the Nation. We agree with Ernest Renan's definition of nationhood as the desire of a people to live together.

We believe that our Talossan identities cannot be measured against any cultural benchmark. Not one Talossan citizen is more Talossan than another. A Talossan that does not speak the Talossan language is as much of a Talossan as someone who is fluent in the language. A Talossan who is an expert in the history of Talossa is no more Talossan than a lay.

We reject the idea that to become Talossan one must assimilate into a "Talossan culture". We believe that Talossan culture is actually the sum result of what each and every citizen brings to the table. A Canadian, an Italian and a Spaniard do not drop their Canadian-ness, Italian-ness and Spanish-ness to adopt Talossan-ness. Rather, Talossa just becomes a little more Canadian, Italian and Spanish.


We are Parliamentarians

We seek to adopt a system of Parliamentary Supremacy for Talossa. The will of Parliament should always come before the will of Heads of State and of Executive Government. We seek the abolition of the Senate and the adoption of a unicameral Ziu. We would like to see an end to First Past The Post elections in favour of a system that ensures proportional representation in Parliament. We would prefer that our electoral system prevent majorities and instead encouraged more “hung Parliaments” to force coalition, compromise and cooperation within the chamber during the legislative process.


Our Legislative and Policy Programme

We seek an electoral mandate to propose legislation to enact the following policies:

• The Monarchy to become a wholly apolitical and ceremonial Head of State. 
  
• The Seneschal to be elected by the population to serve as Head of Executive Government.
  
• The complete abolition of legislative vetoes.
  
• The abolition of all statutory cabinet post except for executive functions. The cabinet should be dynamic and the Seneschal should have the freedom to create and abolish Ministries as required.
  
• The adoption of Parliamentary Supremacy.
  
• The installation of unicameral Parliament (MMP or AMS) and abolition of the Senate.
• The rejection of land claims.
• Relaxed immigration policy following the principles of civic nationalism.
• The abolition of “Immigration threads” in favour of allowing prospective citizens to fully participate in Talossa life from day one.
• A longer prospective citizenship period to be adopted before gaining the right of franchise or ability to hold public office.
• The rejection of provincial land claims. Provinces should cease operating like “States within a Union”, but should still exist as communities within the Nation. We have no desire to dismantle the already existing communities, nor remove the right of self governance of those communities. 
• An end to national representation for the provinces (abolition of Senate).
• An end to forced provincial assignment in favour of dynamic choice in community membership.
• An “abandon ship” protocol in regard to Wittenberg migration. We propose just walking away from ProBoards. Archivists can continue working on archiving after we have left.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Nov 9, 2019 7:13:59 GMT -6 Eðo Grischun said:

We would like to see an end to First Past The Post elections in favour of a system that ensures proportional representation in Parliament. We would prefer that our electoral system prevent majorities and instead encouraged more “hung Parliaments” to force coalition, compromise and cooperation within the chamber during the legislative process.

FPTP is already "ended" in Talossa insofar as it is no longer used in Senate races (the only place it would be applicable).

What it sounds like you want is for the new unicameral body to be elected in the same manner as the Cosa, since that is a proportional method. Is this the case?

The installation of unicameral Parliament (MMP or AMS) an of the Senate

What would be the regions used for MMP or AMS if the provinces were no longer used for national representation?

The abolition of “Immigration threads” in favour of allowing prospective citizens to fully participate in Talossa life from day one.

This is not at all how the immigration threads work. From day one, immigrants can, and are repeatedly told that they can, post in any thread that is not reserved for official business. An immigration threads function as a headquarters, of sorts, for that application, and gives each prospective a place where they are the main topic of discussion. It also gives existing citizens a convenient way to notice and interact with applications.

A longer prospective citizenship period to be adopted before gaining the right of franchise or ability to hold public office.

Why? A major appeal of Talossa is the ability to get right to it; you acknowledge this yourself in the previous point.

[E.S. Bornatfiglheu]

Nov 9, 2019 7:13:59 GMT -6 Eðo Grischun said:

An end to forced provincial assignment in favour of dynamic choice in community membership.

So much common ground overall, but also a question.  We toyed with the idea of provincial choice as an alternative to abolition (before landing on seniority sorting).  But a concern was that self-sorting provinces would simply turn into political affinity groups and thus wind up simply as reproductions of the political parties.  Was this a concern for you guys s well?  Or do you think benefits outweigh downsides?

[Eðo Grischun]

Nov 9, 2019 9:31:18 GMT -6 E.S. Bornatfiglheu said:

Nov 9, 2019 7:13:59 GMT -6 Eðo Grischun said:

An end to forced provincial assignment in favour of dynamic choice in community membership.

So much common ground overall, but also a question.  We toyed with the idea of provincial choice as an alternative to abolition (before landing on seniority sorting).  But a concern was that self-sorting provinces would simply turn into political affinity groups and thus wind up simply as reproductions of the political parties.  Was this a concern for you guys s well?  Or do you think benefits outweigh downsides?

Changing to a choice system alone could lead to the problems you mention. A lot of this platform needs to be looked at as a whole picture. For 'dynamic choice' to work, the removal of national representation and a shift from provincial derivatism needs to happen.

Without a Senate, I don't think it's actually a problem if birds of a political feather flock together. It'll also require that Cosa constituencies are not provincial based, which is fine if geography is removed from the way of thinking. Basically, an entire divorce of national and local.

We want to see the provinces cease being "territorial subdivisions" and an end to them acting like States within a country. We'do prefer them to act as just communities, with the freedom to grow and compete. I don't think it would be a terrible thing if some of these communities become more dominant than others, providing that dominance is divorced from national voting power.

[Eðo Grischun]

Nov 9, 2019 9:02:16 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

Nov 9, 2019 7:13:59 GMT -6 Eðo Grischun said:

We would like to see an end to First Past The Post elections in favour of a system that ensures proportional representation in Parliament. We would prefer that our electoral system prevent majorities and instead encouraged more “hung Parliaments” to force coalition, compromise and cooperation within the chamber during the legislative process.

FPTP is already "ended" in Talossa insofar as it is no longer used in Senate races (the only place it would be applicable).

What it sounds like you want is for the new unicameral body to be elected in the same manner as the Cosa, since that is a proportional method. Is this the case?

The installation of unicameral Parliament (MMP or AMS) an of the Senate

What would be the regions used for MMP or AMS if the provinces were no longer used for national representation?

The abolition of “Immigration threads” in favour of allowing prospective citizens to fully participate in Talossa life from day one.

This is not at all how the immigration threads work. From day one, immigrants can, and are repeatedly told that they can, post in any thread that is not reserved for official business. An immigration threads function as a headquarters, of sorts, for that application, and gives each prospective a place where they are the main topic of discussion. It also gives existing citizens a convenient way to notice and interact with applications.

A longer prospective citizenship period to be adopted before gaining the right of franchise or ability to hold public office.

Why? A major appeal of Talossa is the ability to get right to it; you acknowledge this yourself in the previous point.

Yeah, by FPTP I mean in regards to Cosa Majorities. I don't really know what the correct terminology would be, but I mean that the majority party shouldn't necessarily become the executive. Changing to a system where hung parliaments are encouraged plus electing the Seneschal (in ranked choice) who would lead an executive divorced from paliament is the end game. We seek the balancesame to shift to parliament vs government, rather than government always leads parliament. There will be times where the government would control parliament, but there will be times where they won't, especially in an environment where hung parliaments are the norm.

Regarding immigration threads, they don't work at all how you described though. I mean, that's the textbook definition and theory, but in practice they don't get used like that to a meaningful degree and their existence only encourages a separation between the life of a prospective and that of full Talossan participation.

I think immigration should be wildly open. Anyone that desires to be Talossan should be Talossan. We reject knowledge tests and barriers. We dont think grudges and personality clashes are enough to stop someone from feeling Talossan. And, to a certain limit, even criminal history shouldn't harm somoenes chances. With such a wide open policy, a longer prospective period is simply the compromise to allow enough time for red flag absolutes to appear.

[Eðo Grischun]

Nov 9, 2019 9:31:18 GMT -6 E.S. Bornatfiglheu said:

Nov 9, 2019 7:13:59 GMT -6 Eðo Grischun said:

An end to forced provincial assignment in favour of dynamic choice in community membership.

So much common ground overall, but also a question.  We toyed with the idea of provincial choice as an alternative to abolition (before landing on seniority sorting).  But a concern was that self-sorting provinces would simply turn into political affinity groups and thus wind up simply as reproductions of the political parties.  Was this a concern for you guys s well?  Or do you think benefits outweigh downsides?

A fair amount of common ground, yes. The major dividing points between the NPW (is it cool if we start calling you the purple peculiarists, btw?) and the PecNats is the monarchy, provinces and immigration.

You seek the abolition of monarchy and provinces. We don't want to see these things totally gone. The monarchy would be acceptable to us alongside an elected Seneschal alongside a supreme parliament and the total abolition of vetoes for all. We would like to see the provinces remain, but with national derivatism removed from the equation. I'm not sure if it's a terribly good idea for us to compare immigration policies

[Eðo Grischun]

Just for those who can't see forum signatures.

[E.S. Bornatfiglheu]

Nov 9, 2019 17:07:51 GMT -6 Eðo Grischun said:

Nov 9, 2019 9:31:18 GMT -6 E.S. Bornatfiglheu said:

So much common ground overall, but also a question.  We toyed with the idea of provincial choice as an alternative to abolition (before landing on seniority sorting).  But a concern was that self-sorting provinces would simply turn into political affinity groups and thus wind up simply as reproductions of the political parties.  Was this a concern for you guys s well?  Or do you think benefits outweigh downsides?

A fair amount of common ground, yes. The major dividing points between the NPW (is it cool if we start calling you the purple peculiarists, btw?) and the PecNats is the monarchy, provinces and immigration.

If we're the Purple Peculiarists... does that make you the Blooz?

[Eðo Grischun]

Nov 16, 2019 19:13:52 GMT -6 E.S. Bornatfiglheu said:

Nov 9, 2019 17:07:51 GMT -6 Eðo Grischun said:

A fair amount of common ground, yes. The major dividing points between the NPW (is it cool if we start calling you the purple peculiarists, btw?) and the PecNats is the monarchy, provinces and immigration.

If we're the Purple Peculiarists... does that make you the Blooz?

Bloo Pecs sounds like some kind of sporting injury.

[E.S. Bornatfiglheu]

True... hmmm...

[Lüc da Schir]

For what it's worth, on the Wiki the PNP uses the color Turquoise (#40e0d0). That admittedly doesn't roll off the tongue very much