[Chancery] Results of the September 2019 referendum (prelim)

[Ian Plätschisch]

For many of the RUMP voters to be low-hanging fruit to other parties, it would first need to be possible for other parties to be able to influence them in any way. I hope that this is the case but I certainly doubt it.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I know a lot of RUMP voters, and I assure you that some of them (not all of them!) do just feel like they don't have a good alternative that advocates for some of the things that they value. If you really think royalism is important, then for whom do you vote? No one in the country even has to think about it: they know that the RUMP has stood for the monarchy for a really long time since we think it's an important part of Talossa. There are a number of issues like that where the RUMP is the only game in town.

I have always thought it was weird -- there are surely a good chunk of votes that could be snatched up by any party that started promoting that they would defend the institution of the monarchy and the Organic Law. Anyone who personally wanted outsize power could appeal to this under-served group of voters.

There are definitely some "culturally RUMP" voters too, but I think the number of voters who will vote RUMP no matter what is actually quite low (probably in the single digits). And I would suggest that I probably am in a very good position to know that. I'm one of the longest-term members of the RUMP and a former leader and former RUMP Seneschal, and even I don't fall into that category. If there was a party that better and more vigorously promoted my interests, I'd vote for it.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Sept 23, 2019 5:01:05 GMT -6 Eðo Grischun said:

(Also, take note that the "No campaign" for this referendum didn't even campaign to get the result they wanted. No emails. No active reaching out to the base. They know they can rely on this support while hardly bothering).

Not true. Hooligan sent round a campaign email in Florencia, which had the hilarious and revealing quote which is now in my signature (Governor Carbonel showed me a copy). But clearly it worked.

A question for AD. All these people whose only "thing" is monarchism and OrgLaw status quo... can we expect them to turn out in the OrgLaw amendment vote next General Election as a NO bloc, do you think? I'm not sure what "defending" the OrgLaw means - no amendments, ever? Or only certain sections are sacrosanct? Or more a "it's the vibe of the thing"?

I'm honestly confused by people who are prepared to vote to defend the King, the OrgLaw, or, yes, the existence of Florencia... but aren't involved in Talossa otherwise. I wouldn't use Eðo's "NIMBY" comparison - but these people seem to like the Talossan status quo even though it doesn't encourage them to be active in any way. And I thought "activity" was the barometer by which we measured the usefulness of our institutions.

[Eðo Grischun]

Ah. Fair enough.

It makes sense that only Florencians and Fiovians got those emails. Duh.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Sept 23, 2019 14:24:26 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

A question for AD. All these people whose only "thing" is monarchism and OrgLaw status quo... can we expect them to turn out in the OrgLaw amendment vote next General Election as a NO bloc, do you think? I'm not sure what "defending" the OrgLaw means - no amendments, ever? Or only certain sections are sacrosanct? Or more a "it's the vibe of the thing"?

I didn't say that the only things about which they are are monarchism and the OrgLaw, but there are people who care about those things, and they vote!

I think that protecting the Organic Law is probably an inchoate thing like many political goals (just like generic "reforming the Organic Law" has been promised by parties). But to me, it means protecting the fundamental institutions and principles of the Organic Law. Obviously it doesn't mean "no amendments," since I (and the RUMP) have advocated for many such. But it does mean trying to preserve the basic framework and mechanisms whenever they appear to be working, and it definitely means not chucking the whole thing in the trash and starting over with a new 2019 constitution.

In answer to your question, I have no idea. It probably depends a lot on campaigning! I haven't looked on balance at the strengths and weaknesses of the thing yet, so I don't know. Having support across the board from everybody does seem necessary, since as I recall it needs majority approval in every province. I didn't participate much in this round since the last one was exhausting, and no one contacted me about my opinion, so I couldn't tell you about likelihood based on the merits right now.

Sept 23, 2019 14:24:26 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

I'm honestly confused by people who are prepared to vote to defend the King, the OrgLaw, or, yes, the existence of Florencia... but aren't involved in Talossa otherwise. I wouldn't use Eðo's "NIMBY" comparison - but these people seem to like the Talossan status quo even though it doesn't encourage them to be active in any way. And I thought "activity" was the barometer by which we measured the usefulness of our institutions.

As for me, I'm honestly confused by people who are prepared to vote to eliminate the OrgLaw or the existence of Fiova... but aren't involved in Talossa otherwise. We'd all love for everyone to be active, but a lot of folks (increasingly) are not. Clearly "activity" isn't the only measure of an institution's usefulness (spoken as a firm supporter of our king, lol). I mean, we have a military even though it does nothing besides regularly reorganize itself (and it's been thus for decades).

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Sept 23, 2019 14:47:00 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

I think that protecting the Organic Law is probably an inchoate thing like many political goals (just like generic "reforming the Organic Law" has been promised by parties). But to me, it means protecting the fundamental institutions and principles of the Organic Law.

Which are, in your opinion...?

If you're confused about my line of questioning, I'm trying to distinguish a defence of existing Organic principles, whatever they may be, from dog-in-the-manger "those people want to change something, I don't like them, so I won't let them".

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Sept 23, 2019 17:21:29 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Sept 23, 2019 14:47:00 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

I think that protecting the Organic Law is probably an inchoate thing like many political goals (just like generic "reforming the Organic Law" has been promised by parties). But to me, it means protecting the fundamental institutions and principles of the Organic Law.

Which are, in your opinion...?

If you're confused about my line of questioning, I'm trying to distinguish a defence of existing Organic principles, whatever they may be, from dog-in-the-manger "those people want to change something, I don't like them, so I won't let them".

Well.... An empowered and independent monarchy able to act as a stable bulwark over the long-term and partially insulated from political interference; a Ziu which enacts specific and limited laws to pursue those ends delegated to it by the OrgLaw, including a responsive Cosa and slower Senats; a Government representing that Ziu as an executive able to command the support of the people as mediated through their representatives; an independent judiciary with the power of review and a long-term view that is also partially insulated from political interference; a far-reaching group of pseudo-feudal and political traditions with unusually deep roots in history (especially for our sort of nation) that establish coolness and cultural clout; a legal code and system which is accessible and within the grasp of any amateur; a set of provinces with a long history of changing identities and shifting levels of activity; a political system capable of welcoming as many people as possible to the fun of legislating and politicking while also ensuring that good changes won't be overthrown on a whim; a cultural system that is heir to the Enlightenment traditions of free inquiry and free speech. I guess I can get more into detail on any of these, as well as the specific principles and mechanisms that I see as most important to their functioning, but your question is quite broad -- akin to asking me what I value in Talossa!

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Thank you, Sir Alex, that's a pretty exhaustive and clear presentation of your political principles.

Now: I suppose what I'm wondering is if you believe that many of (a) the Florencian NO vote, (b) the RUMP voting base shares these principles. My response would be "I doubt it" - recent RUMP defector Eðo Grischun doesn't seem to think so, either.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Sept 23, 2019 19:12:59 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Thank you, Sir Alex, that's a pretty exhaustive and clear presentation of your political principles.

Now: I suppose what I'm wondering is if you believe that many of (a) the Florencian NO vote, (b) the RUMP voting base shares these principles. My response would be "I doubt it" - recent RUMP defector Eðo Grischun doesn't seem to think so, either.

I don't know if they would articulate it as such, or if they care about the exact same things that I care about. Overall political goals can vary a lot when you get down to specific individual views. Plus, often people don't bother to think about it much at all. Sometimes they don't go much further than, "I think the monarchy is cool and it's why I immigrated here rather than becoming a member of the Republic, so why would we want to get rid of it?"

Like, I'm not blind... I understand that there's a large group of conservative voters who value a lot of institutions but otherwise don't participate much. Many of them don't pay much attention to Talossa at all, and will probably only check the 50-word statements or look for a name they recognize and trust before they vote. That whole situation is really unfortunate, just like it was really unfortunate when that same conservative group constituted a supermajority of all active citizens. But citizens have equal rights, no matter how much they post on this internet message board (which many of them no longer enjoy, for... reasons). If the voters don't vote the way you want them to vote, then the solution is to persuade them, not to try to dilute or get rid of their votes. A large contingent of Talossans has lost interest. We should be alarmed, not hoping to hasten their departure by planning to change the voting system to silence their political voice.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Sept 23, 2019 11:47:30 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

If you really think royalism is important, then for whom do you vote? No one in the country even has to think about it: they know that the RUMP has stood for the monarchy for a really long time since we think it's an important part of Talossa. 

PolitiFact says: Mostly False

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Sept 23, 2019 19:52:01 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

Sept 23, 2019 11:47:30 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

If you really think royalism is important, then for whom do you vote? No one in the country even has to think about it: they know that the RUMP has stood for the monarchy for a really long time since we think it's an important part of Talossa. 

PolitiFact says: Mostly False

*shrug* I don't make our whole political culture. You might think it's unjust or disagree, but I'd wager a substantial sum that a fair scientific poll would show that Talossans believe the RUMP to be stronger defenders of the monarchy. Maybe because of the years of defense of the monarchy instead of repeatedly publicly backing efforts to reduce the powers of the throne? I don't know, I'm not an expert.

And actually, if you do think I'm wrong about that, I seriously will put money on it. I subscribe to Tabarrok's Law: "A bet is a tax on bullshit."

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Sept 23, 2019 20:40:30 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

I'd wager a substantial sum that a fair scientific poll would show that Talossans believe the RUMP to be stronger defenders of the monarchy. Maybe because of the years of defense of the monarchy instead of repeatedly publicly backing efforts to reduce the powers of the throne? I don't know, I'm not an expert.

And actually, if you do think I'm wrong about that, I seriously will put money on it. I subscribe to Tabarrok's Law: "A bet is a tax on bullshit."

Seriously, a whole lot is going on here that's hard to unpack. The point is that the old ModRad party were out-and-out monarchist themselves (and the AMP, their political descendent, seems pretty monarchist themselves). If what AD is saying is to be accurate, it must mean that the RUMP had the reputation of defending a strong monarchy, i.e. with lots of political powers.

But I'm going to put it to you that the RUMP has never been solely a political party, but a cultural movement - that whole thing of heraldry, opera, "Talossan football", parades, etc etc etc that reached its heyday in the immediate post-Abdication Kingdom. I would say that if the RUMP had a real reason to exist it was to defend the "style" of doing Talossa, which was not so much based on political principle but pretty apathetic about politics after all - which didn't mean much in the era when a permanent RUMP majority meant that political advancement was in the hands of the majority party.

In summary, I would say that AD's defence of what we might call "conservative constitutional principles" would mark him out as a small minority in RUMP history, and that therefore just a party which stood for "Traditional Monarchy" would not reach those RUMP voters who are on strike until there's another RUMP Parade or something.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Sept 23, 2019 21:16:57 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Seriously, a whole lot is going on here that's hard to unpack. The point is that the old ModRad party were out-and-out monarchist themselves (and the AMP, their political descendent, seems pretty monarchist themselves). If what AD is saying is to be accurate, it must mean that the RUMP had the reputation of defending a strong monarchy, i.e. with lots of political powers.

Yes, I think the RUMP has a reputation of defending an independent and empowered monarch. Does that seem like a controversial point to you? I'm surprised this is under dispute. There have been monarchist parties in the past, but when I look at things like the Proclamation Crisis, it was usually the RUMP defending the institution.

Sept 23, 2019 21:16:57 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

In summary, I would say that AD's defence of what we might call "conservative constitutional principles" would mark him out as a small minority in RUMP history, and that therefore just a party which stood for "Traditional Monarchy" would not reach those RUMP voters who are on strike until there's another RUMP Parade or something.

It would definitely be convenient if there was some reason why problematic voters could just be discounted in some way. If I'm just a troublesome theoretician covering up the fact that RUMP voters aren't real Talossans -- not like you or me! -- then it makes sense to just change the system so their votes matter less. They don't have real beliefs, after all... they're just voting for culture stuff. The monarchy, the idea of a long-standing Organic Law, finding joy in Talossa... all that nonsense. That doesn't count. They don't count. Not really. Not when they vote the wrong way.

Sept 23, 2019 21:16:57 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

therefore just a party which stood for "Traditional Monarchy" would not reach those RUMP voters who are on strike until there's another RUMP Parade or something.

It's certainly possible. Why do you think RUMP voters are such vile people, unable to overcome their reflexive, hateful partisanship? Unlike all other voters, they alone seem bound within this trap of their own laziness. They want to stop anyone from doing anything, and just want to see Talossa slowly strangle. Do you think it was the questionnaire we used when we recruited voters, requiring that they look deep into a hungry puppy's eyes and refuse to feed it? Just how did this significant group of Talossans become so unusual that they alone are the villains who must be defeated?

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

And this is why we can't have good political debate in Talossa.

I make a suggestion (possibly accurate, possibly pulled out of my ciúl) about what motivates the non-AD majority of RUMP voters. AD interprets it (or pretends to do so, so we can get a fight started) as a gross slur and demonization of said RUMP voters.

The broad masses can see who "lowered the tone" this time. It is precisely the above kind of "escalation" of a discussion into a verbal fist-fight drenched in the heaviest sarcasm which I think should be Thunderdomed on sight.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Sept 23, 2019 23:47:09 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

And this is why we can't have good political debate in Talossa.

I make a suggestion (possibly accurate, possibly pulled out of my ciúl) about what motivates the non-AD majority of RUMP voters. AD interprets it (or pretends to do so, so we can get a fight started) as a gross slur and demonization of said RUMP voters.

Golly, why would anyone be offended at the assertion that their entire political party -- and a significant fraction of Talossan citizenry -- is entirely unprincipled and motivated by cronyism? Maybe you should pause and think twice about whether things "pulled out of your ass" are deeply insulting before you post them? I don't think I would call it a "slur" to say that RUMP voters don't actually care about any principles, since that's rather a loaded label, but it definitely is rude.

Sept 23, 2019 23:47:09 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

The broad masses can see who "lowered the tone" this time. It is precisely the above kind of "escalation" of a discussion into a verbal fist-fight drenched in the heaviest sarcasm which I think should be Thunderdomed on sight.

I am aware that you recently decided that you should get to decree what debate is acceptable. Heavy sarcasm is apparently now too much?

---

EDIT: I'm also not particularly interested in a debate about debating and whether or not you were leveling a "slur" or if it was okay to be sarcastic. Don't derail us.

My points are these:

1. Everyone's vote is valuable and everyone's vote should count the same. It is wrong to change the voting system because you don't like the vote of a particular group. Your remedy is to persuade them, not dilute them.

2. There is a significant contingent of voters who strongly value the institutions of the monarchy and the Organic Law, and they support an exceedingly quiet and inactive RUMP because no one else even competes for their votes.