Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Feb 14, 2020 7:09:36 GMT -6
I seem to recall that an IRV-elected Seneschal was included on the MRPT Manifesto; times have changed I guess. You're not wrong. The MRPT manifesto did include some of Glüc's ideas which I never particularly liked, such as that and weighted Senate voting. This is also a pretty ironic remark considering you were the one who broke away, and yet dangled on my face the prospect of AMP being a moderate radical party everytime you needed a vote. If you think adopting IRV for Seneschal makes you moderate radical, then you forgot that our central tenet was sensible, moderate reforms that are not for their own sake. Most of what I've seen from you is the exact opposite. Sorry, I definitely wasn’t trying to be accusatory, I was just making a throwaway remark about there being more opposition to this bill than I expected.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Feb 14, 2020 8:38:14 GMT -6
Even today, that could happen. Actually, correct. However, I still posit that by introducing a Cosa election for the office of Seneschal it would be more likely that we see results like what I mentioned above (as well as what Ian mentioned above above). Objection. Speculation. This is not F A C T, merely opinion .
|
|
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 Feb 14, 2020 8:46:20 GMT -6
Another possibility that this Resolution would allow for would be for a Seneschal to not be a party leader. In any government composition scenario, be it a coalition, minority government or straight up majority, it is always one of the party leaders who would take the Seneshalsquab. If this proposal is passed into law then we could see situations where the largest party opts for the party leader to not be Seneschal, but rather put forward one of their party member subordinates. It would allow for a party (or multi-party alliances, such as the Free Democrats) to have someone focus on executive governance, while having a different person focusing on inner-party leadership without the stresses and distractions that come with being Prime Minister. But again, that happened in 2016 with Cresti being PM over AD. And it could happen again, as long as there is the will to do so, but that has to come from within a party, not through the Ziu. This bill wouldn't make it any more likely to happen.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Feb 14, 2020 8:59:27 GMT -6
Another possibility that this Resolution would allow for would be for a Seneschal to not be a party leader. In any government composition scenario, be it a coalition, minority government or straight up majority, it is always one of the party leaders who would take the Seneshalsquab. If this proposal is passed into law then we could see situations where the largest party opts for the party leader to not be Seneschal, but rather put forward one of their party member subordinates. It would allow for a party (or multi-party alliances, such as the Free Democrats) to have someone focus on executive governance, while having a different person focusing on inner-party leadership without the stresses and distractions that come with being Prime Minister. But again, that happened in 2016 with Cresti being PM over AD. And it could happen again, as long as there is the will to do so, but that has to come from within a party, not through the Ziu. This bill wouldn't make it any more likely to happen. I think it would make it more likely. We are talking about an often forgotten about or dismissed technicality of law (to certain degrees) which is in the back of our minds vs bringing the thought of w h o should be PM to the front of our minds at the beginning of every single cycle. (but, of course, I am just talking about one of the aspects of this proposal (and probably the least important one) )
|
|
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă
Puisne (Associate) Justice of the Uppermost Court
Fraichetz dels punts, es non dels mürs
Posts: 4,063
Talossan Since: 9-23-2012
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Feb 14, 2020 9:15:11 GMT -6
Forgive my American ignorance but what is IRV?
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Feb 14, 2020 11:19:38 GMT -6
Forgive my American ignorance but what is IRV? Instant runoff vote (also known as alternative voting (AV) or ranked choice)
|
|
Açafat del Val
Citizen of Talossa
Posts: 112
Talossan Since: 10-15-2017
|
Post by Açafat del Val on Feb 16, 2020 10:24:17 GMT -6
I oppose this idea not in principle but in practice. Succinctly: if we want that the Seneschal be elected democratically, then we should make many other complimentary changes to the Organic Law; to change this one part but not others is going to make the OrgLaw even messier than it already is. Less succinctly: the objections raised by Lüc da Schir are valid ... I'm really not excited about this, to re-state opinions I wrote elsewhere. The current system works fine in my opinion, and it's really inexcusable for an acting, retiring Seneschal to overstay his welcome for such a long period of time, which is a lot when compared to our tiny timeframes. ... and I point out that it will only complicate post-election power shuffles if we add Seneschal elections on top of it. The only viable thing to do, in my mind, is the following: -- The Seneschal is elected by the Cosa. -- The Túischac'h is elected in parallel on the same ballot (fewer 'elections' is better). -- The time between general elections is extended by 2 or 3 Clarks (again, fewer 'elections' is better). -- The first Clark of every new Cosa is limited to all of these procedural items, e.g. the Seneschal election, and has no other business. -- An automatic recess of one month intervenes between the first and second Clark, so that the newly elected Seneschal has the time to form a government, a program, and a budget. -- The second Clark of every new Cosa may entertain other business now, but as a matter of process must include a vote by the Cosa to approve the government, budget, etc. But see how this complicates things more? And it's impossible to overcome the concerns of lame-duck Seneschals without huge changes to the OrgLaw. If we wish to remove political involvement of the King, then unfortunately it cannot be done with half-measures. Under the framework of the OrgLaw we are all better off by keeping the King's power to appoint the Seneschal where or when necessary, and it's not like he can appoint just anyone in the status quo anyways. Again, if there is a desire to make the Seneschal for 'democratic', then we necessarily need to change the OrgLaw as a whole.
|
|
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 Feb 17, 2020 18:10:47 GMT -6
Here's a counterproposal. Change the new Lexhatx section proposal to read something like:
Not tied to the Clark, so you can be done with it quickly, no unnecessary complex voting system. Look, I have absolutely no preference between this system and the IRV system. The Coalition Agreement was for a proposal for the Seneschál to be elected by the Cosa to be brought before the Ziu, and I am happy to endorse whichever system will get a Senäts majority. And if the FreeDem senator from Florencia is against the bill in general, maybe I should defer to the Senator from Benito to get the numbers. Like I say, I'm completely neutral on the mechanics.
|
|
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 Feb 18, 2020 2:22:35 GMT -6
Discussion among the Coalition parties has revealed that we are happy to use the Senator from Benito's "petition" mechanism if it will get this bill a Senäts majority.
|
|
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 Feb 25, 2020 15:24:59 GMT -6
WHEREAS the current Government agreed to submit various Organic Law reforms to the current Ziu, including a provision for the Seneschál to be nominated by the Cosa prior to appointment by the King;
AND WHEREAS the following seems the most likely procedure to enable this to happen;
BE IT ENACTED by the King, Cosa and Senäts of Talossa in Ziu assembled as follows
1. Organic Law VI.2, which currently reads:
shall be amended to read as follows:
2. The following new section shall be added to El Lexhatx, at the beginning of Title D, with following sections to be renumbered accordingly::
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Feb 25, 2020 19:03:58 GMT -6
Can you get rid of the lettered subsections so it is just one section?
|
|
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 Feb 26, 2020 3:45:38 GMT -6
I now see the Lexh bit is supposed to go at the beginning of Title D. So D.1.4, which says "Following any number of petitions, presented as per D.(x).1" should be edited to read "D.1.1". (Same for D.1.5).
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Feb 26, 2020 4:05:08 GMT -6
Under that act, who is an “eligible person”?
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Feb 26, 2020 7:05:47 GMT -6
Can you get rid of the lettered subsections so it is just one section? Why are you so against subsections? They're actually quite useful and easy to follow if done right. One large section is cumbersome to read.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Feb 26, 2020 10:28:43 GMT -6
That's not to say I like 2.3.2.1. I would prefer a uniform system 1.A.i.c, for example, so we'd always know 1 is the top level, A is the first sub, Roman is the second sub, and lower case letter is lowest sub (I don't think we should encourage a fifth layer; even four is pushing it)
|
|