Law on how Talossans become inactive or legally dead

[Ián Tamorán S.H.]

Although it is not part of the primary aim of this suggested bill, should we not, in our laws, also remember that we have not just the "legally deceased" but also the (alas) actually deceased? I, for one, would like our dear departed Sir Fritz von Buchholtz to be a Talossan for ever, and in no way struck from our rolls. And I would suggest, further, that we should always take into consideration this inevitable departure from our nation, and treat our actually deceased citizens as always on our membership roll, though not (of course) on our voter roll.

[Glüc da Dhi]

Jan 30, 2020 15:58:25 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

BE IT ENACTED by the King, Cosa and Senäts in Ziu assembled that:

1. A new section shall be added to El Lexhatx D.8.5 (on the electoral database) as follows:

8.5.8. Citizens who do not respond to a Census shall be removed from the Electoral Database.
8.5.9. Any citizen who has been removed from this Database for any reason shall be restored to the Database at their own request.

There are still plenty of citizens who vote but don't fill in every census (perhaps because some party leader contacted them?) I think allowing party leaders to contact those who have given permission has been a good thing for our democracy. Should we count not responding to a single census as withdrawal of permission (especially if that citizen voted last time)?

2. A new section shall be added to El Lexhatx D.8.8 (on the contact information database) as follows:

8.8.6. Citizens who do not respond to a Census shall be removed from the Contact Information database.
8.8.7. Any citizen who has been removed from the Database for any reason shall be restored to the Database at their own request.

No objection I guess, but can I make an even more radical suggestion here? Admittedly, the infrastucture has been somewhat lacking but the option was listed on the ballot last time and as far as I can tell not a single person used it. At the same time, if you really want your contact details available to every citizen, why not just post it in the chatroom? We could even make a thread there or on the immigration board. This doesn't really require any law, so we could scrap D.8.8 in its entirety.

3. A new section shall be added to El Lexhatx C.1.2.2. (on the census):

1.2.2.5 A citizen who does not respond to three successive censuses over a period of at least seven years shall be considered to be legally deceased, until such time as they respond to a Census.

I'm going to guess this bit is inorganic (unless you amend the OrgLaw to make it Organic of course).

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Feb 15, 2020 18:23:26 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

Jan 30, 2020 15:58:25 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

BE IT ENACTED by the King, Cosa and Senäts in Ziu assembled that:

1. A new section shall be added to El Lexhatx D.8.5 (on the electoral database) as follows:

There are still plenty of citizens who vote but don't fill in every census (perhaps because some party leader contacted them?) I think allowing party leaders to contact those who have given permission has been a good thing for our democracy. Should we count not responding to a single census as withdrawal of permission (especially if that citizen voted last time)?

I prefer to make an incentive for filling out the Census. Remember the whole point of the Census: it is not to gather facts and figures on Talossans, but to ensure their contact details are correct. If the central records are not correct, then the electoral database will not be correct a fortiori.

3. A new section shall be added to El Lexhatx C.1.2.2. (on the census):

I'm going to guess this bit is inorganic (unless you amend the OrgLaw to make it Organic of course).

I'll want to see more evidence behind that "guess". This is a direct calque from the English Cestui que vie Act of 1666, which said that if someone was out of contact/overseas for 7 years they were "legally dead" and their heirs could divide their estate. Given our resources, I see no other way of actually moving someone off the citizen rolls whether they are physically dead or no longer want anything to do with Talossa. (For example, I never saw a death certificate for our friend Xhorxh Asmour, but I was told he had passed on, and he certainly hasn't contacted anyone to counteract that belief.)

[Glüc da Dhi]

I thought the plan was to wait until the accompanying OrgLaw amendment had been proposed/discussed?

Feb 16, 2020 16:37:23 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Feb 15, 2020 18:23:26 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

There are still plenty of citizens who vote but don't fill in every census (perhaps because some party leader contacted them?) I think allowing party leaders to contact those who have given permission has been a good thing for our democracy. Should we count not responding to a single census as withdrawal of permission (especially if that citizen voted last time)?

I prefer to make an incentive for filling out the Census. Remember the whole point of the Census: it is not to gather facts and figures on Talossans, but to ensure their contact details are correct. If the central records are not correct, then the electoral database will not be correct a fortiori.

In most cases that's not true, because a large majority of voters uses either database or mail to vote, which confirms their email addresses are correct. I also try to contact anyone whose ballots bounce to get their update email address, so in most cases we know these emails are correct. Additionally it's not like if someone skips one census but filled in the previous one that it immediately means all their info is out of date.

This database does serve a purpose (more so than the government email thing I would argue), not just for individual citizens but for democracy, as higher turnout allows for a wider range of voices to be heard. Why would we gut it on such a slim basis as a single missed census?

I'm going to guess this bit is inorganic (unless you amend the OrgLaw to make it Organic of course).

I'll want to see more evidence behind that "guess". This is a direct calque from the English Cestui que vie Act of 1666, which said that if someone was out of contact/overseas for 7 years they were "legally dead" and their heirs could divide their estate. Given our resources, I see no other way of actually moving someone off the citizen rolls whether they are physically dead or no longer want anything to do with Talossa. (For example, I never saw a death certificate for our friend Xhorxh Asmour, but I was told he had passed on, and he certainly hasn't contacted anyone to counteract that belief.)

Hmm, it seems based on the twelfth convenant (which I now think should probably be rewritten to specify that the census/voting orglaw clause is meant by relevant electoral or census law, because it offers a rather flimsy protection of our rights this way) my guess was technically wrong. Still, I think it would be very much against the spirit of the OrgLaw if the Orglaw says you can lose your citizenship by not responding to a census OR voting to have a law that basically removes your rights as a citizen by not responding to a census only. Really this should be an OrgLaw amendment so we can have a real discussion about this.

As for the comparison with people who are actually deceased, perhaps it can be argued that because we can't be 100% sure that we should keep sending ballot emails or whatever. Still I don't think it's a good comparison at all, because I see no reason, if such sad news is being reported to not in good faith assume that it is true, while the current proposal would involve declaring people legally dead who are likely not dead, and who may even be posting on witt and voting in elections. To declare someone who is obviously not dead legally deceased in order to take away their voting rights seems like a pretty bad idea to me.

If you really want this, my suggestion would be to do the orglaw amendment. I'm still not fully convinced we should be removing voting citizens from our rolls, but at least that would be a more proper way to deal with it.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Yipes. Thanks for reminding me I'd forgotten the OrgLaw amendment. Corrected.

[Glüc da Dhi]

Feb 28, 2020 19:34:45 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Yipes. Thanks for reminding me I'd forgotten the OrgLaw amendment. Corrected.

So to be clear, you only just changed the proposal to include an orglaw amendment, but we're still voting on it?

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Feb 29, 2020 5:38:03 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

Feb 28, 2020 19:34:45 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Yipes. Thanks for reminding me I'd forgotten the OrgLaw amendment. Corrected.

So to be clear, you only just changed the proposal to include an orglaw amendment, but we're still voting on it?

Why not?

A lot of people seem to think there are rules about the Hopper which don't actually exist. A lot of people also seem to think that opposition in the Hopper should disqualify a bill from being Clarked.