Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial
Batetz las maes, perf. —— Freelance glheþineir (I only accept Worthless Internet Points™ as payment)
Posts: 448
Talossan Since: May 12, 2014
|
Post by Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on Nov 24, 2019 12:12:42 GMT -6
Right. Iac was a non-citizen Talossan for a while.
|
|
|
Post by Audrada Rôibeardét on Nov 24, 2019 12:41:39 GMT -6
So, this has happened before.
As far as I can tell, the only difference between a Talossan citizen and a non-citizen Talossan is that a citizen can vote and hold office while a non-citizen is not allowed to vote/hold office.
I assume that a non-citizen would not be legally protected here. Let's walk this path a bit further. If a non-citizen followed all the laws of the Kingdom, would they be able to stay here? Surely you can't eject a Talossan for NOT breaking the law.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Nov 24, 2019 12:43:24 GMT -6
So an active citizen who refuses to vote/complete the census could (or rather, would) be ejected but a inactive citizen who does vote/complete the census is safe from punishment? Define "active" and "inactive".
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Nov 24, 2019 12:47:29 GMT -6
So, this has happened before. As far as I can tell, the only difference between a Talossan citizen and a non-citizen Talossan is that a citizen can vote and hold office while a non-citizen is not allowed to vote/hold office. I assume that a non-citizen would not be legally protected here. Let's walk this path a bit further. If a non-citizen followed all the laws of the Kingdom, would they be able to stay here? Surely you can't eject a Talossan for NOT breaking the law. No, it didn't happen before; Iac renounced. He didn't lose his citizenship. But he did do Talossan stuff while not a citizen. Whether or not non-citizens are protected by all of our laws is an open question, but the answer is probably no when it comes to most of the important ones. Any non-citizen could be removed from Witt whenever the Government pleased, for example.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Nov 24, 2019 13:05:25 GMT -6
Define "active" and "inactive". Okay, I have to expand on this. I would not oppose an argument that an "Active" citizen should not lose their citizenship through not voting or answering the census. But how active would you have to be?As to the applicability of Talossan law to non-citizens, I don't know whether this is the legal position, but here's my personal belief: non-citizens on Talossan forums or in Talossan "spaces" are IMHO guests in our house. While they are in our house they are under protection of our laws but also are expected to abide by them. The difference is, as is said, they can be excluded from those spaces with a much lower threshold.
|
|
Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial
Batetz las maes, perf. —— Freelance glheþineir (I only accept Worthless Internet Points™ as payment)
Posts: 448
Talossan Since: May 12, 2014
|
Post by Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on Nov 24, 2019 13:56:43 GMT -6
No, it didn't happen before; Iac renounced. He didn't lose his citizenship. [...] All citizens are Talossan, non-citizens are not Talossan but a Talossan who has lost/ surrendered their citizenship is...a non-citizen Talossan?
While we're at it, I would also count Sir Tomás as a non-citizen Talossan.
|
|
|
Post by Audrada Rôibeardét on Nov 24, 2019 14:10:56 GMT -6
I love this topic! As for active vs inactive, I would say an inactive Talossan is someone who only shows up to vote. They are not engaged in everyday Talossa. How active does one need to be? I can't put a number on that. I also can't say anything about the content they provide. If someone posted 'I like cookies' on Witt everyday, would that count as 'active'? Probably not but it would be funny.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Nov 24, 2019 14:12:25 GMT -6
Another thing that we should be discussing here is a question which I believe the Peculiar Nationalist leader Eðo Grischun has raised. Is Talossa an ethno-nationality or a civic nationality? Is "Talossan" an identity which applies even outside our legal system? I honestly think that KR1's vision of the nation was an ethnonationalist one - witness his outrage when some of us started creating our own provincial language, or later when some of the people he kicked out for doing that started studying Talossan.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Nov 24, 2019 14:16:25 GMT -6
As for active vs inactive, I would say an inactive Talossan is someone who only shows up to vote. They are not engaged in everyday Talossa. I agree in principle, but this is where it gets tricky and intersects with politics. I honestly believe in my heart of hearts that the right to vote - "legal" Talossan citizenship - should be something which is based on continued participation in Talossa as a community. The curse of people who only turn up to vote distorts Talossan politics - but I can't do anything about that, precisely because inactive Talossans almost always vote for the Monarchist parties when they turn up. But in turn, that means that they're paying attention - some people who've done nothing but vote RUMP for years and years are turning to vote ZPT now, which proves that at least they understand recent developments, or at least they can read 50-word statements. So it's difficult to dispute their continued legal citizenship. And then there's the question of what "participation" means. I myself took a break from Talossa during the 49th Cosa during burnout - I pretty much never read Witt but I kept up with the Free Democrats facebook group in case some drama happened. How long of a break can you take before we decide your right to vote is no longer operative?
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Nov 24, 2019 14:21:05 GMT -6
Interesting conversation to come up seeing as we have a party with an official stance on civic nationalism.
The PNP advocates that you are Talossan if you say you are and national identity is a choice. There is no such thing as a natural Talossan ethnicity, so of course being Talossan is simply a state of mind or a feeling.
We say that to identify as Talossan needs no effort or activity requirement. We would prefer that everyone were active in the community, but accept that Talossan identity and Talossan activity are two different things.
Citizenship is different from Nationality, though, or at least in practice right now it is. Note we have laws that state a prospective's Wittenberg account must be deactivated if citizenship is not gained within a certain timeframe. It's often been argued that prospectives are not covered by the OrgLaw protections, thus it's safe to say that neither are non-citizens that still choose to adopt Talossan nationality or identity.
Yes, you can be Talossan without citizenship, but that means no voting, no OrgLaw protections and, maybe, no Wittenberg access.
Theach PNP would like to see a two tier system.. something like permanent resident status to allow people to still be Talossan, access Witt, have some legal protections, but without the right to vote or hold office.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Nov 24, 2019 14:33:43 GMT -6
And a wee point regarding 3 strikes...
Most of the time when it's happened, The King commutes or pardons the strike. And, the pardons are not met with protest.
This only goes to show that in our hearts of hearts we all hold contempt for that law once it comes to effecting it.
We moved from 3x non voting to 3x non voting or non census. It was a compromise position. It was also a band aid. It's time we investigate and explore alternatives.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Nov 24, 2019 14:52:57 GMT -6
As for active vs inactive, I would say an inactive Talossan is someone who only shows up to vote. They are not engaged in everyday Talossa. I agree in principle, but this is where it gets tricky and intersects with politics. I honestly believe in my heart of hearts that the right to vote - "legal" Talossan citizenship - should be something which is based on continued participation in Talossa as a community. The curse of people who only turn up to vote distorts Talossan politics - but I can't do anything about that, precisely because inactive Talossans almost always vote for the Monarchist parties when they turn up. But in turn, that means that they're paying attention - some people who've done nothing but vote RUMP for years and years are turning to vote ZPT now, which proves that at least they understand recent developments, or at least they can read 50-word statements. So it's difficult to dispute their continued legal citizenship. And then there's the question of what "participation" means. I myself took a break from Talossa during the 49th Cosa during burnout - I pretty much never read Witt but I kept up with the Free Democrats facebook group in case some drama happened. How long of a break can you take before we decide your right to vote is no longer operative? The former demonstrates what I was saying before and what caused me frustration when trying to figure out what party for which to vote. There was simply no pro monarchy, pro organic law party to seriously vie for the votes of people who supported both of those things strongly. A new party with a leader who has been mostly inactive and which had no endorsements has started snapping up a ton of those votes simply because they're the only game in town for a lot of folks. It will be interesting to see if any of the large parties or some new party tries to appeal to that electorate. I mean, essentially any ambitious and active person with one or two friends could probably get a large chunk of the vote entirely simply by appealing to that bloc. That's assuming that JP doesn't turn the ZPT into a whole new big thing, of course.It's a fascinating development that would probably never happen in a larger country where more power and money was at stake in elections. Essentially what we see is a significant chunk of the electorate just not being contested by choice. That's remarkable! In the UK, if you could get 10 or 15% of Parliament simply because you are the only party willing to appeal to that group, some ambitious and active group would have scooped up those voters. We have the political science equivalent of a $20 bill lying on the sidewalk, here. More on topic, I would be fascinated to know if there was literally anyone who would say that being Talossan required citizenship. Indeed, I thought a lot of this debate was settled a long time ago. People in the Republic belonged to the same nationality even when they didn't belong to the same group, for example. Citizens here were explicit and emphatic about that, in fact, both in normal discourse and in legal proclamations. The disagreement here seems to be more about one of bookkeeping, that marvelous three vowel pairs word. As I understand it, the argument in favor of three strikes is that we need to know who is a citizen and who is not. Without some form of regular contact to keep track, we would have no way of knowing if someone was even alive. That does make sense to me, sort of. Would anyone be open to extending the window out to a 10-year span, instead? That might square the circle.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Nov 24, 2019 15:10:06 GMT -6
The former demonstrates what I was saying before and what caused me frustration when trying to figure out what party for which to vote. There was simply no pro monarchy, pro organic law party to seriously vie for the votes of people who supported both of those things strongly. A new party with a leader who has been mostly inactive and which had no endorsements has started snapping up a ton of those votes simply because they're the only game in town for a lot of folks. It will be interesting to see if any of the large parties or some new party tries to appeal to that electorate. I mean, essentially any ambitious and active person with one or two friends could probably get a large chunk of the vote entirely simply by appealing to that bloc. That's assuming that JP doesn't turn the ZPT into a whole new big thing, of course.It's a fascinating development that would probably never happen in a larger country where more power and money was at stake in elections. Essentially what we see is a significant chunk of the electorate just not being contested by choice. That's remarkable! In the UK, if you could get 10 or 15% of Parliament simply because you are the only party willing to appeal to that group, some ambitious and active group would have scooped up those voters. We have the political science equivalent of a $20 bill lying on the sidewalk, here. More on topic, I would be fascinated to know if there was literally anyone who would say that being Talossan required citizenship. Indeed, I thought a lot of this debate was settled a long time ago. People in the Republic belonged to the same nationality even when they didn't belong to the same group, for example. Citizens here were explicit and emphatic about that, in fact, both in normal discourse and in legal proclamations. The disagreement here seems to be more about one of bookkeeping, that marvelous three vowel pairs word. As I understand it, the argument in favor of three strikes is that we need to know who is a citizen and who is not. Without some form of regular contact to keep track, we would have no way of knowing if someone was even alive. That does make sense to me, sort of. Would anyone be open to extending the window out to a 10-year span, instead? That might square the circle. Crap, another AD post I agree with 100%. The Seventh Seal has no doubt been broken. As to the first part: I gather that AD is bemused that an inactive citizen can just pay his fee and get a good chunk of the vote by being the only party making GOD SAVE THE KING noises. I get that this seems unfair if you think that "being active" is something that should appeal to the voters. But: 1) it was the inactive citizens who derailed the F-F provincial merger even though there was a clear majority of active citizens in favour of it, and I don't think AD was upset about that. "Is inactivity bad? I think not!" - Lord Hooligan
2) there is an established Talossan English phrase for parties like the ZPT, and that is "do-nothing vote sponge". That's how KR1 described the 1980s-era Liberal Party, which was run by his former high-school teachers and was always among the biggest parties even though its leaders were inactive. (To some degree the same could be said for Colonel Carbonél's parties, which always get small but real backing because he's not afraid to be a fire-breathing Republican). 3) if by "appealing to that bloc" AD means campaigning, how exactly do you do that when most of those people don't actually participate in Talossa outside of a vote every 8 months? The fact is that the active citizenry are overwhelmingly "AMP and further left" in political viewpoints. The Chancery only give out email addresses at election time. You can't build a real party out of inactive citizens unless you know them personally, on Facebook, or other extra-Talossan means. You might as well do what the Senator from Florencia has done, it seems to work.
As to the second part: personally if I had my way I would abolish 3 strikes and there would be only one requirement for continued citizenship of Talossa: make sure we have your up-to-date contact details, i.e. respond when we contact you every couple of years. But it was Captain Mick Preston who hotly declared that he would never, ever answer a Census on principle, so we kept 3 Strikes as an alternative. And now that the good Captain is no longer active, maybe we should go back to that.
|
|
|
Post by Audrada Rôibeardét on Nov 24, 2019 15:54:38 GMT -6
Republicans were sort of non-citizen Talossans because they didn't have Kingdom citizenship. They were Republican citizens and still Talossan, right?
Does that mean if a group of Kingdom citizens broke away again, they would still be Talossans? Despite being non-citizen Talossans?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Nov 24, 2019 16:24:03 GMT -6
The former demonstrates what I was saying before and what caused me frustration when trying to figure out what party for which to vote. There was simply no pro monarchy, pro organic law party to seriously vie for the votes of people who supported both of those things strongly. A new party with a leader who has been mostly inactive and which had no endorsements has started snapping up a ton of those votes simply because they're the only game in town for a lot of folks. It will be interesting to see if any of the large parties or some new party tries to appeal to that electorate. I mean, essentially any ambitious and active person with one or two friends could probably get a large chunk of the vote entirely simply by appealing to that bloc. That's assuming that JP doesn't turn the ZPT into a whole new big thing, of course.It's a fascinating development that would probably never happen in a larger country where more power and money was at stake in elections. Essentially what we see is a significant chunk of the electorate just not being contested by choice. That's remarkable! In the UK, if you could get 10 or 15% of Parliament simply because you are the only party willing to appeal to that group, some ambitious and active group would have scooped up those voters. We have the political science equivalent of a $20 bill lying on the sidewalk, here. More on topic, I would be fascinated to know if there was literally anyone who would say that being Talossan required citizenship. Indeed, I thought a lot of this debate was settled a long time ago. People in the Republic belonged to the same nationality even when they didn't belong to the same group, for example. Citizens here were explicit and emphatic about that, in fact, both in normal discourse and in legal proclamations. The disagreement here seems to be more about one of bookkeeping, that marvelous three vowel pairs word. As I understand it, the argument in favor of three strikes is that we need to know who is a citizen and who is not. Without some form of regular contact to keep track, we would have no way of knowing if someone was even alive. That does make sense to me, sort of. Would anyone be open to extending the window out to a 10-year span, instead? That might square the circle. Crap, another AD post I agree with 100%. The Seventh Seal has no doubt been broken. As to the first part: I gather that AD is bemused that an inactive citizen can just pay his fee and get a good chunk of the vote by being the only party making GOD SAVE THE KING noises. I get that this seems unfair if you think that "being active" is something that should appeal to the voters. But: 1) it was the inactive citizens who derailed the F-F provincial merger even though there was a clear majority of active citizens in favour of it, and I don't think AD was upset about that. "Is inactivity bad? I think not!" - Lord Hooligan
2) there is an established Talossan English phrase for parties like the ZPT, and that is "do-nothing vote sponge". That's how KR1 described the 1980s-era Liberal Party, which was run by his former high-school teachers and was always among the biggest parties even though its leaders were inactive. (To some degree the same could be said for Colonel Carbonél's parties, which always get small but real backing because he's not afraid to be a fire-breathing Republican). 3) if by "appealing to that bloc" AD means campaigning, how exactly do you do that when most of those people don't actually participate in Talossa outside of a vote every 8 months? The fact is that the active citizenry are overwhelmingly "AMP and further left" in political viewpoints. The Chancery only give out email addresses at election time. You can't build a real party out of inactive citizens unless you know them personally, on Facebook, or other extra-Talossan means. You might as well do what the Senator from Florencia has done, it seems to work. As to the second part: personally if I had my way I would abolish 3 strikes and there would be only one requirement for continued citizenship of Talossa: make sure we have your up-to-date contact details, i.e. respond when we contact you every couple of years. But it was Captain Mick Preston who hotly declared that he would never, ever answer a Census on principle, so we kept 3 Strikes as an alternative. And now that the good Captain is no longer active, maybe we should go back to that.
It makes perfect sense that even a party with relatively little activity can pick up a good chunk of the vote if there's no competition. It's not unfair. It's kind of amusing since it's so exactly how the system is supposed to work: identify an underserved voter bloc and appeal to their preferences. If the Freedocrats or Ampersands made a shift, they could pick up more of those votes themselves. As far as I can tell, no existing party made any move to appeal to a big voter bloc that was up for grabs, so it's not as though they deserve those votes more by sheer virtue of being more active. Based on policy alone, it was initially a hard decision for me! If I had the inclination and energy to start back up with Talossan political organizing, I'd just run the same RUMP playbook. Build your own contact list, reach out ahead of time to find out what people want and then talk to them about it, and build party loyalty. I guess it requires canvassing, but that's not like some crazy thing in Talossa. It's how real political organizing is done in most places. Like I always say (in my offline life), "If you didn't bring a clipboard, then it was just a party." Anyway, what you propose is essentially just a slimmed-down census of contact information alone, and I'm not sure it would be much better in a philosophical sense. How do you feel about my idea of just extending the deadline for response out to a decade? It would still keep the voter list broadly reflective of folks with at least an intermittent interest in Talossa, but without a lot of these negative aspects. A bill could even be written to combine with your idea, so as long as a voter either votes, responds to a census, or confirms their contact information within a decade, they aren't ejected.
|
|