General Election - June - July 2009

[Daniel Filan]

It's OK if you want to count my vote twice.

[Sevastain Barclamíu]

Sorry for my lack of posting lately (have been reading posts every now and then!)

Anyway,
-1- For Cosa: FGP
-2- provincial: FGP

39RZ20- yes

39RZ21- yes

That right?

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Jun 15, 2009 5:42:15 GMT -6 Dréu Gavárþic'h said:

A note for all citizens from a grumpy CÚGer: When voting on 39RZ20 and 39RZ21 you would be advised to vote either "per" or "contra" rather than "üc" or "non"--this is something that's been happening in the Ziu as well, and it's time we put a stop to it!

Actually, the ballot question reads "shall the Organic Law be amended according to..." So that's a yes-or-no question and the proper answer is üc or non. In the Ziu, you're right, members should be voting per or contra.

[Sir X. Pol Briga]

My ballot is cast as follows, assuming that the emailed copy from yesterday is amended to have the proper

Cosa: PP
Cezembre: CRO
39RZ20: UC
39RZ21: UC

I also note an error on the ballot sent via email 15 June under instructions to voters:

PÄRTS 2: ELEZIUN ÀL SENÄTS (Solamînt las Provînçùns da Cezembreés Mussolini)
PART 2: ELECTION TO THE SENATE (Cezembreand FlorenciaProvinces only)

The top of the ballot listing

PART 2: SENATE (Maricopa &Maritiimi-Maxhestic solamînt/only)

is correct, but the later instructions seem to have encountered editing errors.

As per the Election Information Page - the next time that there will be an election in Cezembre for Senator will be approximately October 2010, unless of course 39RZ20 would be enacted (which I favor with my vote above) and subsequently there was a successful recall election under those provisions.

[Xhorxh Asmour]

Jun 16, 2009 1:55:29 GMT -6 Sevastain Barclamíu said:

Sorry for my lack of posting lately (have been reading posts every now and then!)

Anyway,
-1- For Cosa: FGP
-2- provincial: FGP

39RZ20- yes

39RZ21- yes

That right?

I guess it's not right. The FGP is not participating in the election.

[Owen Edwards]

Theoretically, one can vote for any party as a write-in - and if the FGP is registered (financially), it can still distribute the seats at the end of the election.

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

I sent an email outlining the typo this morning

[Joseph Walkland]

For Cosâ: PP
For Province: CRO
39RZ20: Për
39RZ21: Për

[Eðo Grischun]

Jun 16, 2009 9:04:28 GMT -6 Xhorxh Asmour said:

Jun 16, 2009 1:55:29 GMT -6 Sevastain Barclamíu said:

Sorry for my lack of posting lately (have been reading posts every now and then!)

Anyway,
-1- For Cosa: FGP
-2- provincial: FGP

39RZ20- yes

39RZ21- yes

That right?

I guess it's not right. The FGP is not participating in the election.

Exactly what Owen just said. I imagine it will be a situation similar to the LRT.

[Albrec'ht Cheleir]

39RZ20 - The Senate Reform Amendment Contra

39RZ21 - The WTF Amendment Per

Voting for Xhorsh and RUMP

[Xhorxh Asmour]

Thanks a lot, ol' pal!

[Mr. Tony Weckström]

For the Cosa, I vote DPD / PDP.
For the province, I vote [DPD / PDP[/b].
For 39RZ10, the Senats Reform Amendment, I vote ÜC
For 39RZ21, the WTF Amendment, I vote ÜC

Tony Weckström
President of the DPD/PDP party
Ex-Royal Ambassador to the Republic of Finland

[Eugene Oh]

My vote is as follows:

Cosâ party: RUMP
Province party: RUMP
Senäts Reform: PER
WTF Amendment: PER

[Prince Patrick]

For the Ziu: RUMP
For the Nimlet: RUMP
Concerning the ratification of 39RZ20, the Senäts Reform Amendment: NON
Concerning the ratification of 39RZ21, the WTF Amendment: ÜC

Fellow Talossan's,

Please stop voting for 39RZ20!! Do not reform the Senate!! I beg you to think this over. It is a very bad amendment.

The purpose of this amendment, it seems, is to make the Senäts more “democratic”. I will do my best to explain why this is a bad idea.

Talossa is not a democracy. We don’t want it to be a democracy. I have heard the King say that democracy is sixteen wolves and a dozen sheep voting about what to have for dinner. That is not what we want in Talossa. We want responsible, representative government. Responsible representation and democracy have some similarities, but if a government becomes too democratic it can no longer be responsible in its representation. That is to say, if the entire government is swayed by the temporary passions of the society, it begins to irresponsibly represent those temporary passions rather than the wisdom and reflection that a government should responsibly represent.

If the wolves muster a majority in a democracy, the government sacrifices part of its population.

Talossa has a bicameral legislature for exactly that reason. The Senäts was designed to reflect the more refined wisdom and principles of Talossa. The Cosa is designed to reflect the political changes and passions in society. The Senäts is specifically intended to be less democratic because Senators are not subject to immediate recall every election. This is a good thing: there may be times when some legislation seems like a good idea to a majority of the Cosa and a good idea to many Talossans, but seems like a really bad idea to those Talossans who have been around a long time. It is in those situations that the Senäts does its job the very best. The Cosa is not stupid, or ignorant, or anything like that, but it is younger, and it cannot (because of its institutional design) reflect the wisdom and refined societal view reflected by the Senäts.

If the wolves in Talossa muster a majority, the Senäts will protect the sheep. That is its job.

The Senäts has worked very well for a very long time. I know that there are some who are disappointed over and over by the votes in the Senäts, and I know that there are those who would like to see a system where it is easier to pass laws. However, we must all acknowledge that Talossa has been run well under the current system. We must also acknowledge that the Senäts is an important part of why Talossa has been run so well.

However, what really alarms me about this amendment, is that while its supporters may have principled reasons for offering their support, it seems that the primary motivation for the amendment is a temporary political situation. This fact is alarming and sad. We should never, never change the structure of our government based on temporary political situations.
I have reason to believe that certain party members think the passage of this amendment would enable them to replace a Senator with whom they strongly disagree with a new Senator from their party. As I explained above, I don’t like messing with tradition, changing institutions that have done well thus far, or trying to make our government more democratic. However, I really don’t like the idea that all of these things would be done to satisfy a temporary political whim. Not only is it a bad idea theoretically, but it will prove, in the future, to disserve those who desire its passage now. (As an illustration: about eight years ago Democrats in Colorado (a moderately small state in the U.S.) advocated an amendment that would split Colorado’s electoral votes. These Democrats knew that Coloradans would largely vote for the Republican Presidential candidate and under the traditional system all of Colorado’s electoral votes would go to that candidate. Thankfully for all Coloradans, Democrats included, that amendment failed. Aside from all of the political theory spouted above, just think how silly Coloradan Democrats would feel if nearly half of their electoral votes needlessly went to the Republican candidate in this past election.)

No, fellow Talossans: we should not allow an amendment to change a traditional institution based on temporary political whims. We should not change an institution that works well. As I see it, the Senäts reflects the view of Talossa in slightly more refined manner than the Cosa, like the U.S. Senate to its House of Representatives or (in the good days) the House of Lords to the House of Commons.

We are bicameral. Let’s be proud of it. More democracy is not a good thing in this situation and the amendment is made even worse because of the motivations which are behind it. I implore you my fellow faithful subjects not to surrender to temporary whims. Please vote against reform in the Senäts. Please vote FOR responsible representation over whimsical democracy.

If you think California is the best governed state in its Union, then vote to reform. If you think that Liberia is governed better than Germany, then vote to reform. If you think that the wolves will play nice, then by all means vote to reform. But if you want a responsible, representative government in Talossa such as we have enjoyed all these years, then I implore you to vote AGAINST reforming the Senäts.

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

The SoS respectfully asks that everyone post only votes on this thread. We have other threads for commentary and discussion.

In that there is a potential field of 113 voters that just might want to use this thread, the SoS is gonna get real grumpy having to cherry pick votes from commentary really, really soon.

Thanks! (smiles)