Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Jul 2, 2015 15:52:33 GMT -6
In emails and in private and by public example, we have opposed amendments in the past. I don't know if it is was a full public campaign at any point. I guess that doesn't come up to the standard you're describing... I dont know. You're not giving any examples. It doesnt really matter who campaigns against I guess, as long as it is a decent campaign that reaches people about the sneaky irreversible amendment that is being shoved down our throats against our will. If its really that harmful and dangerous, opposing politicians will care enough to really let themselves be heard about it.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 2, 2015 16:30:25 GMT -6
I guess. I would venture that the majority has been known to threaten to "crush in the next election" those who stand in the way of such movements, though. In this thread, that happened, as a matter of fact. Even a robust and experienced majority might lose heart in the face of such things... and you're a reasonable guy known for your level headed approach! It makes me sick to think of the abuse waiting for me as we near the election, if I stood against this impassioned majority.
But maybe I'm wrong, all available evidence aside.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Jul 2, 2015 16:48:56 GMT -6
I'm the majority? I'm not even in the Ziu. Seriously though, you shouldnt confuse criticism of a position with personal abuse. I meant what I said, I hope the RUMP gets crushed (by which I meant experience a serious reduction of cosa seats) in the election because it is of vital importance that the royal veto after referenda is removed. But I hope this will be achieved by playing the ball and not playing the man. (Feel free to remind me of this statement if needed.) The government and opposition parties that support this bill should point out to the voters that a party that wants the Monarch to have veto power over their votes in a referendum does not deserve their vote. I wouldn't call that abuse though.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Jul 2, 2015 17:53:42 GMT -6
Not to beat a dead horse, but...I tried to reach a compromise, as I believe wave elections pose a conceivable threat. I would have been a lot more vocal about it, too, except that CCX made it a main point that the coalition would be supporting the Democratic Amendment. As the greenhorn I am, I was on no position to stand against the entire rest of the coalition, especially after CCX gave me a reasonable explanation of his thinking.
What? I'm having a pity party? Am not! I'm just pointing out that the option for a compromise was there, from inside the coalition, and the RUMP failed to really seize upon it.
If the RUMPers in the Cosa do pull together and stop the Democratic Amendment (and no, I am not advocating that, I want the Democratic Amendment to pass), perhaps a simpler permutation of my compromise can be reached, without having to wait and hope that the RUMP lose their blocking minority.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 2, 2015 20:50:38 GMT -6
I'm the majority? I'm not even in the Ziu. You were the first Seneschal of this coalition Government, a senator until recently, an award-winning journalist, and generally respected for your attitude and amiability. You have considerable influence as an advocate for government policy. Don't be coy Seriously though, you shouldnt confuse criticism of a position with personal abuse. I meant what I said, I hope the RUMP gets crushed (by which I meant experience a serious reduction of cosa seats) in the election because it is of vital importance that the royal veto after referenda is removed. But I hope this will be achieved by playing the ball and not playing the man. (Feel free to remind me of this statement if needed.) The government and opposition parties that support this bill should point out to the voters that a party that wants the Monarch to have veto power over their votes in a referendum does not deserve their vote. I wouldn't call that abuse though. I think it would entirely awesome if no one declares that the minority is corrupt and evil. I also think it is unlikely to the point of laughter. But I hope to be surprised.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 2, 2015 20:58:13 GMT -6
Not to beat a dead horse, but...I tried to reach a compromise, as I believe wave elections pose a conceivable threat. I would have been a lot more vocal about it, too, except that CCX made it a main point that the coalition would be supporting the Democratic Amendment. As the greenhorn I am, I was on no position to stand against the entire rest of the coalition, especially after CCX gave me a reasonable explanation of his thinking. What? I'm having a pity party? Am not! I'm just pointing out that the option for a compromise was there, from inside the coalition, and the RUMP failed to really seize upon it. If the RUMPers in the Cosa do pull together and stop the Democratic Amendment (and no, I am not advocating that, I want the Democratic Amendment to pass), perhaps a simpler permutation of my compromise can be reached, without having to wait and hope that the RUMP lose their blocking minority. A few days after I said your bill was "remarkable and excellent" and said I was thinking about how to help improve the language, you posted this: So...CCX has said that this term's coalition is backing the democratic amendment. While I think this bill is a better compromise, I still like the Democratic Amendment and would rather have it pass instead of both this amendment and the Democratic Amendment failing to get the needed 2/3. Not to mention I am a part of the coalition that is backing the Democratic Amendment (I am capable of crossing party lines sometimes, but not if the whole rest of the coalition is opposing me; then it would be pointless). Thoughts Lüc da Schir Sevastáin Pinátsch Glüc da Dhi Breneir Itravilatx or others?
P.S. this bill apparently has RUMP support, based on what AD has said. Does this mean anything to the coalition leaders? And of course by that time almost the entire leadership of the entire coalition had signed on to the Democratic Amendment, so I don't blame you. I do hope that if this amendment fails (and I hope that it does, since I think it was rushed through without actually thinking it out) then we do adopt a compromise bill along those lines, which everyone can live with.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Jul 3, 2015 7:50:03 GMT -6
I understand that you expressed your appreciation of the bill (and I'm glad you did), but there were plenty of other RUMPers who also could have helped if there was really that much concern over the Democratic Amendment.
But I won't dwell on that, because there is no reason to
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Jul 4, 2015 9:46:42 GMT -6
Thank you for this wonderful debate - which is still on-going until Monday, the 13th of this month July, mind you. And thank you, Sir Alexandreu Davinescu, for commenting upon RZ2. I have read, and I have considered your objections. You make a good point: does the King, having the right to not proclaim an amendment to the Organic Law, not create a check against abuse by the Ziu? Why, in a way, he does. However, this "check", given unto the Crown, is in this law, taken from after the referendum to between referendum and passing of the amendment's proposal. Nowadays, in Talossa, the King does not have an absolute veto over simple statutes; the Ziu can override any Royal Veto by a second vote. This will be, with the passing of RZ2 and according thereto upon ratification, the case with amendments, as well. But, amendments and statutes are not the same!, you say. They need to be protected more rigorously!, you say. Who better to do that, but the King?, you say. And I hear you. And I answer: the people. If the King rejects an amendment before ratification, and his veto is overruled by the Ziu, then it is up to the people to decide whether the King's veto is justified. But the people never have rejected an amendment!, you interject. And you would be right. But not, because our people are lazy, but because more than three-quarters of our active citizenry is highly politicised and politically intelligent. They can think, and read through the legislation, and they are capable of deciding whether a proposed amendment is a danger to the Kingdom. You should be glad, as a member of the Ziu: we have done everything right up until now! The people have never said: "Stop! Are you guys crazy? This amendment is madness, and we reject it!" Be happy about this, and accept that this change that comes with RZ2 is not stripping away the King's powers, or his check upon the Ziu, but rather giving the people the ultimate sovereignty which they retain and are due, in the spirit of Our Organic Law. One can write in the ratification ballot, below the amendment, why the citizenry should vote for it. Maybe you'd be more satisfied, if the King, or anyone else, were able to include a similar text outlining why the citizenry should not vote for a proposed amendment? Might that ease your sorrows?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 4, 2015 10:45:58 GMT -6
I agree with your summary of the train of thought right up until the end, where you protest that citizens "can think, and read through the legislation, and they are capable of deciding whether a proposed amendment is a danger to the Kingdom." While that is certainly true, there's no reason to think that the majority of the citizens, who have de jure been the ones to choose the majority of the legislature that passed an amendment, will decide to reject it based on the protests of the minority. It seems to me that most citizens will trust in the wisdom of their legislators, or not particularly bother to scrutinize, or avoid the question entirely. That's no aspersion on the wisdom of the Talossan people, only on the natural tendencies of an electorate to trust their representatives... it's human nature. And this is all the more true because the need for a check comes not from the direct or obvious problem, but the quiet change in language that seems defensible - that looks innocent. In government we should plan for villains, not hope for saints.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Jul 4, 2015 16:13:52 GMT -6
Were you not the one accusing CCX, and the proposers of this bill, of "pessimism"? So they are planning for villains, and not hoping for saints.
What do you think about the idea of a contra-argument to be included into the ballot, next to a pro-argument, when ratifying an amendment? Maybe even a contra-argument to be written exclusively by the Monarch?
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Jul 4, 2015 16:26:32 GMT -6
The authors are insufficiently pessimistic Not trying to defend anyone, but this is what AD actually said. For my own part, I would agree that the electorate tend to trust their representatives, which is exactly why an organized "no" campaign would be effective. The electorate would realize there was serious debate and concern.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 4, 2015 23:20:21 GMT -6
Were you not the one accusing CCX, and the proposers of this bill, of "pessimism"? So they are planning for villains, and not hoping for saints. What do you think about the idea of a contra-argument to be included into the ballot, next to a pro-argument, when ratifying an amendment? Maybe even a contra-argument to be written exclusively by the Monarch? Er... yeah, I said they weren't pessimistic enough I think that including a place for argument might have a very slight ameliorating effect. I'd actually much prefer just granting His Majesty the ability to delay and demand reconsideration of an amendment, either in the fashion proposed by my bill or one of the alternatives (like Ian's bill), though, since I think that stands a chance of actually helping in a real crisis.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Jul 12, 2015 14:56:28 GMT -6
Maybe we can draft such a bill for the inclusion of a place of Royal Argument to referenda, Alexandreu?
Can somebody, especially you, Alexandreu, maybe voice their opinion about 48RZ1? I am not sure about the wording of the part with the Ziu votes, and it might cause a minor... confusion, don't you think?
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Jul 12, 2015 17:03:05 GMT -6
Maybe we can draft such a bill for the inclusion of a place of Royal Argument to referenda, Alexandreu? Wasn't this the King and SoS 50 word essay act?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 12, 2015 21:18:55 GMT -6
Eh, I think the whole bill is too complicated, and the whole clause should probably just be, "Ballots may be cast via a secure online ballot with a voter receipt. These ballots need not be individually certified by the Commission. Any such ballot system shall only be permitted once the Election Commission has verified its reliability and unanimously approved the system with a public vote."
|
|