|
|
Post by Alèx Soleighlfred on Jun 25, 2018 13:55:16 GMT -6
of course nothing to excuse yourself for, thanks for this explanation :)
|
|
|
|
Post by Danihél Roðgarüt on Jun 25, 2018 15:02:33 GMT -6
Spot on, also the very fact that something one does might win a place in history is, for many, an incentive to do something in the first place. The history sets the statistics: Cosa votes, Bills, party splits or mergers etc in context. The problem is that such a history is not democratic, Ben's was outrageously biased and outrageous, which made it both unfair and fun in equal measure. If it is written by committee, how could it avoid being bland? I still think it's worth a try. Dan |
|
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 Jun 25, 2018 17:49:06 GMT -6
The problem is that such a history is not democratic, Ben's was outrageously biased and outrageous, which made it both unfair and fun in equal measure. If it is written by committee, how could it avoid being bland? I still think it's worth a try. Obviously the way we work is the way in which academic historians work; one person writes a history, another person writes their own version of events on which they have a different opinion, another person writes a third version, and intelligent readers read them all and make up their own minds. |
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jun 25, 2018 19:58:12 GMT -6
Spot on, also the very fact that something one does might win a place in history is, for many, an incentive to do something in the first place. The history sets the statistics: Cosa votes, Bills, party splits or mergers etc in context. The problem is that such a history is not democratic, Ben's was outrageously biased and outrageous, which made it both unfair and fun in equal measure. If it is written by committee, how could it avoid being bland? I still think it's worth a try. Dan Unfortunately, it's a huge investment of time and effort on behalf of the handful of people with the knowledge and capability to do it, or an even more huge investment by someone who has to research it all from scratch. And since there'd be little financial incentive and little career incentive, it would need to be purely a labor of love. Thus far, no one has matched all those qualities but Robert I. Hopefully that will not always be the case. |
|
|
|
Post by Sevastáin Pinátsch on Jul 5, 2018 7:23:07 GMT -6
[...] someone's provincial identity may be crucial to their Talossan identity. I'm in complete agreement with this. I don't want to be in a Talossa without an Atatürk. Vivre libre ou mourir!  ~ SP |
|
|
|
Post by Moritz Fernaodescu on Jul 5, 2018 9:53:08 GMT -6
I guess it's a fair point that you're making.
I mean, even Andorra which might be small on a global scale is still huge compared to Talossa.
It is however, divided into 7 parishes.
Luxembourg which is even bigger is divided into only 3 so-called administrative divisions.
So aside from the provinces that actually have any (historical) reason to be a distinct province like Fiôva or Cézembre there is little point in having so many provinces.
|
|
Lord Q
Citizen since 5-21-1998; Baron since 2-23-2006
The beatings will continue until morale improves
Posts: 1,263
|
Post by Lord Q on Jul 7, 2018 17:07:05 GMT -6
My memory is hazy, but wasn't the Senats created when we went to the Real Cosa? I don't remember if I was a cit yet.
Anyway, my question is thus: must we have provincial representation in politics? Aside from Fiova, I'm not sure any of the other provinces have that need. Not dissing on Fiova, that's just a specialized population formed under circumstances that aren't relevant to the other provinces.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Jul 7, 2018 22:04:53 GMT -6
My memory is hazy, but wasn't the Senats created when we went to the Real Cosa? I don't remember if I was a cit yet. Anyway, my question is thus: must we have provincial representation in politics? Aside from Fiova, I'm not sure any of the other provinces have that need. Not dissing on Fiova, that's just a specialized population formed under circumstances that aren't relevant to the other provinces. I'm not sure if your question is do we need provincial representation at a national level (senate) or if it's do we need provincial assemblies within the province? To answer the first, though, I think it depends on how we view and interpret the Kingdom's constitutional arrangements in regards to the provinces, for example, how much Sovereign autonomy does a province actually hold? And, how equal are the provinces as individual units? The Senate allows the provinces, as entities in their own right, to be equally represented and protected. By this, the provinces exist as a collection of equal partners that make up the country at large. If, for instance, we had a weighted Senate then you instantly dismiss the notion that the provinces are equal in status. You would then be saying some provinces are more or less equal as a partner than some others. The same holds true if you simply abolish the Senate in its entirety. Without a Senate at all we would be left with a single chamber and I imagine that under such a system we would ensure it to be made up proportionally. The problem with this is that if the provinces are to be truly a partnership of equals then proportional representation within a unicameral parliament puts smaller provinces at a severe disadvantage. A large population of Benitians, Cezembreans and Ataturks could more easily pass legislation that might be harmful to a smaller populated Maricopa. The only fix I can think of would be to ensure the population size of all provinces remains equal across the board, which while feasible, would lead to its own set of problems. Its chiefly about checks and balances. We have one chamber that is designed to proportionally represent the political will of the entire population at large while we have another chamber that represents the quasi-sovereign provinces as eight equal partners. To remove the Senate you would need to hold the opinion that the provinces are less than the Kingdom within the constitutional arrangement and that the provinces are not equal to one another as individual entities. ... If, however, your question is more to do with the provincial assemblies, then, yes and no. It's ultimately the decision of each province to decide whether they feel like forming a local assembly or not. Are they necessary? Not really, but I think they should all have one and would love to see them all active. |
|
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 Jul 7, 2018 23:13:31 GMT -6
My memory is hazy, but wasn't the Senats created when we went to the Real Cosa? I don't remember if I was a cit yet. The Senäts existed "on and off" in the pre-1997 years. Basically it was a "theoretical" upper house of the Cosa which was appointed (rather than elected) by the King just in case parties he didn't control won a Cosâ majority. It only became a permanent body, with 1 member elected from each province, with the 1997 OrgLaw which brought in the Real Cosâ. So more or less, your answer is YES. I personally don't see the need for the Senäts given that it tends to "suck up" all the most accomplished legislators out of the Cosa (which is then packed with do-nothing hand-raisers), and that it has become a "rotten borough" where - for example - the RUMP could run a wooden monkey in Florencia and the FreeDems could run a pile of lint in Fiôvâ and they'd both win. |
|
|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on Jul 11, 2018 0:33:18 GMT -6
Couldn’t we reform the Senate so that it operates on delegative democratic principles? That is, it could comprise of a representative of each of the provincial governments, sort of like the EU’s European Council. The benefit of this being that it we don’t necessarily need any extra bodies to do the jobs, and it makes the role of provincial premier even more prestigious (thus more coveted).
|
|
|
|
Post by Colonel Mximo Carbonèl on Jul 13, 2018 1:08:38 GMT -6
Free Florencia From monarchy!
Fiova Florencia should merge...
Mximo ;-)
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Jul 13, 2018 4:59:09 GMT -6
Fiova Florencia should merge... Fiova Florencia Maricopa Maritiimi-Maxhestic should emerge--the South-West Territories will rise again! |
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Jul 13, 2018 7:19:13 GMT -6
Couldn’t we reform the Senate so that it operates on delegative democratic principles? That is, it could comprise of a representative of each of the provincial governments, sort of like the EU’s European Council. The benefit of this being that it we don’t necessarily need any extra bodies to do the jobs, and it makes the role of provincial premier even more prestigious (thus more coveted). This is an intriguing idea. We could build some flexibility in it by saying something like the provincial premier "or his/her delegate, as selected in accordance with provincial law" represents the province in the Senate. So by default the premier is the senator, but a province could provide if it wants that the premier must appoint a delegate on the advice of the provincial legislature or a popular vote or whatever. |
|
Lüc da Schir
Senator for Benito
If Italy wins a Six Nations match I will join the Zouaves
Posts: 4,125 
Talossan Since: 3-21-2012
|
Post by Lüc da Schir on Jul 13, 2018 9:16:06 GMT -6
The current Senate is not broken, though, even if it's not perfect either. This just sounds like change for the sake of change. As I see it, a more valid variation would be that each province *can* pass laws to make the Senator the leader of the provincial government, and then the Senator can delegate powers to a provincial deputy.
That solves the "less bodies" argument and respects each province's particular needs; as for the provincial premier being not prestigious enough, I'm sure there are better ways of improving that than destroying the current Senate. Independent Senators would be impossible to elect, if their election depended on the whims of a partisan assembly instead of the popular vote. That is, unless the idea was to mandate each province to elect its chief executive by popular vote, to which I would be equally opposed as it would be a dramatic overstepping of provincial sovereignty.
|
|
|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on Jul 13, 2018 10:31:12 GMT -6
Couldn’t we reform the Senate so that it operates on delegative democratic principles? That is, it could comprise of a representative of each of the provincial governments, sort of like the EU’s European Council. The benefit of this being that it we don’t necessarily need any extra bodies to do the jobs, and it makes the role of provincial premier even more prestigious (thus more coveted). This is an intriguing idea. We could build some flexibility in it by saying something like the provincial premier "or his/her delegate, as selected in accordance with provincial law" represents the province in the Senate. So by default the premier is the senator, but a province could provide if it wants that the premier must appoint a delegate on the advice of the provincial legislature or a popular vote or whatever. Yeah, this is what I sort of had in mind. It allows for provincial variation then as well. |
|
