Election Commentary

[Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h]

Nov 15, 2019 11:14:57 GMT -6 King John said:

For the Cosa and the Florencian Senate election: PRESENT
On the referendum: Contra

— John R

I'd be interested to know why you voted contrâ. :-)

[Glüc da Dhi]

The above post was moved from the Voting thread.

Please be reminded that the voting thread should be treated as a polling station and only be used for voting. There is plenty of opportunity for discussion elsewhere.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Thanks for the new thread, Glüc.

It's pretty obvious that the King doesn't approve of Still Into This, he vetoed it, we overrode that veto, and he's voting against it in the referendum as is his right.

(Not that I think the King should have a vote for the Ziu or in referenda, but he does now.)

[Eðo Grischun]

Nov 19, 2019 13:36:03 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Thanks for the new thread, Glüc.

It's pretty obvious that the King doesn't approve of Still Into This, he vetoed it, we overrode that veto, and he's voting against it in the referendum as is his right.

(Not that I think the King should have a vote for the Ziu or in referenda, but he does now.)

The problem with blocking the King from having a vote is that we end up implying that the King is different than the rest of us, and that when pomp and ceremony is removed, he isn't just another citizen.

John Wooley, and the Talossan Crown as an institution, does not have devine right. He is not high born. He is just another citizen whom the populace have elevated to hold that office.

That said, the King really should be refraining from voting as a matter of convention. He should keep his political opinions to himself and, like the British monarchy model, keep himself "above the fray".

So, no, we probably shouldn't be making moves to legally prevent him from having the right to vote, but we should make effort to make the practice 'socially unacceptable'. We should all be united in making it known that we find it completely unacceptable when the monarch wades into politics.

(It's also, technically, a human rights issue. We'd be denying a fellow human his fundamental and universal right to franchise.)

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

It does unduly influence other voters, methinks. Imagine: “*gasp* tHe KiNg Is AgAiNsT iT”, so those who are not familiar with Regeu Ian’s constitutionally questionable actions may think his legal opinions beyond reproach.

This problem might be solved with a compulsorily private vote. It really should be standard (and the only) practice by now.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Does Queen Elizabeth have a vote in referenda, or for the House of Commons?

[Glüc da Dhi]

Don't know about Queen Elizabeth but King Willem-Alexander does have voting rights. He makes a point not to vote though. He has also stated in the past that if votes were not secret he would vote, but cast a blank ballot (the equivalent of voting present).

[Colonel Mximo Carbonèl]

The KING can't vote against the will of his governement in a constituonnal monarchy...

End the fiasco now vote MTGA to end the monarchy ...

Mximo

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Nov 20, 2019 17:08:01 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

Don't know about Queen Elizabeth but King Willem-Alexander does have voting rights. He makes a point not to vote though. He has also stated in the past that if votes were not secret he would vote, but cast a blank ballot (the equivalent of voting present).

Well, that's a good model for Talossa - but the "PRESENT" stipulation should surely apply to referenda, too.

Actually, I would think that that should be a model that the whole Royal family should follow - as long as the monarchy is hereditary, of course.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Nov 20, 2019 17:53:22 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Nov 20, 2019 17:08:01 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

Don't know about Queen Elizabeth but King Willem-Alexander does have voting rights. He makes a point not to vote though. He has also stated in the past that if votes were not secret he would vote, but cast a blank ballot (the equivalent of voting present).

Well, that's a good model for Talossa - but the "PRESENT" stipulation should surely apply to referenda, too.

Actually, I would think that that should be a model that the whole Royal family should follow - as long as the monarchy is hereditary, of course.

This is, of course, only a problem if the rest of the royal family every cared to vote. It’s fair enough that they don’t (they never asked to be the Royal family of Talossa), but it’s definitely indicative of why the Monarchy shouldn’t be hereditary.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Nov 20, 2019 18:03:34 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

]This is, of course, only a problem if the rest of the royal family every cared to vote.

I'm sure Prince Patrick publicly voted RUMP an election or two back

[Ian Plätschisch]

Nov 20, 2019 18:39:37 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Nov 20, 2019 18:03:34 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

]This is, of course, only a problem if the rest of the royal family every cared to vote.

I'm sure Prince Patrick publicly voted RUMP an election or two back

Fun fact about Prince Patrick; all five of his posts on Witt since May 2016 have been votes of some sort.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Nov 20, 2019 18:54:18 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

Fun fact about Prince Patrick; all five of his posts on Witt since May 2016 have been votes of some sort.

In Talossan English, the collective term for posts which are only votes is a pocket

[Eðo Grischun]

Nov 20, 2019 16:58:38 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Does Queen Elizabeth have a vote in referenda, or for the House of Commons?

She has the right to vote, but never has. Interesting fact, Queen Elizabeth II is the first ever British Queen with the right to vote. Previous Queens before her reigned before women were able to vote.

[Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN]

Nov 20, 2019 21:16:02 GMT -6 Eðo Grischun said:

Nov 20, 2019 16:58:38 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Does Queen Elizabeth have a vote in referenda, or for the House of Commons?

She has the right to vote, but never has. Interesting fact, Queen Elizabeth II is the first ever British Queen with the right to vote. Previous Queens before her reigned before women were able to vote.

Correct, though The Queen is not prohibited by law, however, Parliament guidelines state it is considered unconstitutional for the Monarch or their family to vote in an election. Along with the official royal guidelines stating that the Head of State "has to remain strictly neutral with respect to political matters" and is unable to vote or stand for election.

Simply put, The Queen's ceremonial role as head of state means that she signs all bills into law, meets with foreign dignitaries and performs other duties. It's a position that brings huge potential influence without accountability to voters and means her political neutrality is considered vital. Thus, The Queen is expected to at all times remain politically neutral and to stay out of political matters entirely, she doesn't comment on elections let alone vote in them.

Another argument is that Parliament consists of three estates: the Sovereign, the Lords and the Commons. Since The Queen forms part of the Parliament, she already has a voice in Parliament and thus doesn't need an MP to represent her voice.

Along with the Queen & Royal Family, Members of the House of Lords are prohibited from voting in general elections, but can participate in local and (for now??) European votes. Prior to 1999, it was held in common law that it was the status of being a peer that precluded one being able to vote. Since 1999 (and the House of Lords Act) it is the fact of being a member of the second chamber that prevents one from voting. The Lords sit in their own right while Members of the Commons are elected by the remainder of the estate of commoners to represent them in Parliament. There is, therefore, no cause for the Lords to vote to elect representatives since they were able to sit in Parliament anyway. Further, even if they had voted, they did not belong to the estate from which the Commons was elected and which it represented.

In Talossan terms, this would be like prohibiting sitting Senators who are not facing re-election from voting, as they would be able to sit and be represented in the next Ziu regardless. Maybe that's an idea