[Official Vote] Repeal of article 3.5.7 of Book III

Following the required discussion it is formally proposed that Article 3.5.7 of Book III of the Somerset laws be repealed.
The article curently states

Quote :

Art. 3.5.7.: Only citizens of Somerset, the King and the Regent can participate in any electoral action. This is a light crime and the sentence is set in Article 2.1.3.
Definition of electoral action is and not limited to promoting a list or negative advertises of any list, in all Taverns, Somerset hall, Somerset Town Hall, Castle of Bristol, mass mail to Somerset citizens.

This poll will be open for two days

Yes, get rid of it

yes

Quote :

Article 1.1.1. : Any law proclaimed by the King of England applies to the Duchy of Somerset.
i. The duchy laws prevail over national laws if they are in contradictory.

In light of the King's recent edict that will require us to individually revise or repeal many of our laws and all the proposals we have at hand to revise or repeal many individual laws, in addition to the many complaints from citizens that the current legal corpus is confusing to read and hard to understand, in the best interests of the people of Somerset I propose we repeal the entire current legal corpus and make a decree to use the pre-existing laws we used when we split from wiltshire(the wiltshire laws) and then revise them to suit the current situation in Somerset.

No, leave it unchanged.

Not that it matters as this is no longer a democratically representative council I vote no.
Yes, yes it is the fault of the council members that resigned most if not all from my own party. I'm not saying, I'm just saying .

Shouldn't the Duchesses proposal be in a seperate thread from the official voting thread with regards to repealing this specific law?

Councillors should post here to say which way they voted or we shall have to call for a revote.

I of course vote NO as I vote for the people but as Lord Gregarious points out this is a laughable exercise in the Resistance is futile category as there is no longer a democratic process available to the people who have a crippled council of 10 and not 12.

The people voted a split and they no longer have that they have a majority they did not ask for.

Ellsbeth wrote:

I of course vote NO as I vote for the people but as Lord Gregarious points out this is a laughable exercise in the Resistance is futile category as there is no longer a democratic process available to the people who have a crippled council of 10 and not 12.

The people voted a split and they no longer have that they have a majority they did not ask for.

Then why did SNP councilors abandon the people of Somerset who elected them. Not one Lof or RP councilor left, we are still here doing our jobs. SNP should be ashamed of themselves for this mass Exodus from our Beloved England! I think it is amazingly Hypocritical for SNP to leave the "game" and then cry foul that there are not enough players to fairly play the "game". That is sad! We had 12 players till SNP left the field! This is just an anology, Council is no game!

I think those counselors who have left have explained themselves and it is not my place to answer for them.

However it is my place to represent the people. The Throne has now been approached to restore the democratic balance to this counsel to ascertain the people of Somerset who did not vote in a majority of any party will not have to live with any one party's will without benefit of equal representation.

I am sure a King who makes certain criminals are not discriminated against will make certain the people of a Duchy are equally represented as well.

I vote "yes" for repeal.

The current composition of the council is constitutionally legitimate although unfortunate. It is a result of decisions made by SNP members and they have to live with the consequences of that decision. In any event, the council was not "split" to begin with, it was 5/5/2. It was, and is, still possible to form meaningful majorities on this council.

If half of the real-life Senate decided to boycott, resign, or otherwise not show up to work, but the remainder were able to form a quorum and voted, the result would be constitutional, legitimate, and binding. Same here.

Simple solution, by the way: if anything this council does for the remainder of its term truly violates the will of the people, make it a campaign issue, win a majority, and reverse whatever action you disagree with. That's democracy.

Ellsbeth wrote:

I think those counselors who have left have explained themselves and it is not my place to answer for them.

However it is my place to represent the people. The Throne has now been approached to restore the democratic balance to this counsel to ascertain the people of Somerset who did not vote in a majority of any party will not have to live with any one party's will without benefit of equal representation.

I am sure a King who makes certain criminals are not discriminated against will make certain the people of a Duchy are equally represented as well.

It is not an interim council and from my experience the King will intefere in this situation only if it were an interim council. The King will not add to council someone not on your list!

Gregarious wrote:

Not that it matters as this is no longer a democratically representative council I vote no.
Yes, yes it is the fault of the council members that resigned most if not all from my own party. I'm not saying, I'm just saying .

Shouldn't the Duchesses proposal be in a seperate thread from the official voting thread with regards to repealing this specific law?

I vote yes for a repeal

but while everyone else is adding their two cents, I'll add mine. Does this mean, now that this is not a 'democratically representative council', that for the next 27 days, we're just going to sit around sitting on our hands twiddling our thumbs? I sure hope not!

and now for the obligatory late night (early morning) speech!

The citizens of Somerset elected the council members to represent them on important matters. no matter what we do (ie make a mistake, be inactive, resign) we are still representing Somerset. resigning from the council and leaving a space in the council may be viewed as a bad idea by some, but the rest of us were still elected to represent the people, so shouldn't we still do it, no matter what other people have done? We have to step up and take responsibility for ourselves and do our jobs properly. If you think the voters are disappointed with the council now, imagine how they'll feel if all of us just give up. Somerset has lost good friends too, but a whole County's not going to sit down and give up, so we shouldn't either .

[/strange marshy-rant]

No it does not mean any counselor has the right to cease and desist and not participate.

It means the people are not represented numerically as they voted. It means the people do not have vocal or vote power that reflects their will when they placed their votes. It means the people have to live with the majority decisions as they are made and it is very unlikely those will actually reflect the actual division of the will of the people when they have lost 2 of the members who spoke for the 43.2% of the people of Somerset as that is the percentage of votes that went to the SNP party.

Aye.

It is an unfortunate circumstance that we find ourselves in. As a council, we no longer maintain the balance that the people originally voted, as Ellsbeth has said. Anyone has the right to be disappointed that our council is two people smaller than the game dictates it should be, as I am. I, however, was a member of council who campaigned on the repeal of this law, because, as I see it, it unnecessarily violates the rights of people who have no say in who gets elected in Somerset. I would not be doing justice to those who voted for me if I voted any other way.

No where in my statement nor in my actions have I advocating not doing our job. I was frustrated with the situation we find ourselves in. I do not point fingers though I did state that it was SNP members that put us here in my own statement as so many have gleefully, to my mind, repeatedly pointed out after the fact.

None of this helps us do our job.

And none of that changes the fact that this council no longer reflects the election results.

This is not a new situation, Greg. It has been going on since there have been councils.
Last term Cue had officially elected one representative yet he did not participate, was in retreat alot, and would not resign. Thus cue was not represented on council and it was not a fair distribution of the legally elcted council seats.
LOF had Poliphilus and Teagan persecuted and prosecuted in a trumped up circus designed to drive them out of council with Poliphilus finally resigning to move to Greece, he was replaced by Vicombra who was in retreat the entire time and did not participate or resign. Teagan was inactive in council due to the persecution he endured in a public trial so 3 legally elected seats for LOF were only represented by one seat.
Last mandate was not representative of the legally elected will of the people.

Quote :

It means the people are not represented numerically as they voted. It means the people do not have vocal or vote power that reflects their will when they placed their votes. It means the people have to live with the majority decisions as they are made and it is very unlikely those will actually reflect the actual division of the will of the people when they have lost 2 of the members who spoke for the 43.2% of the people of Somerset as that is the percentage of votes that went to the SNP party.

The above quote is as equally applicable to the last council as it is to this one.
Yet I didn't hear anyone complaining last term that the council was a misprepresentation. It was only when it applied to SNP losing votes and power in council that anything was said.
Precedent has been set in the past for the situation we now face and not just from last term but it has happened before on other councils in other counties and business goes on as usual.
So instead of whining and stalling and crying how unfair it is do your job and save it for the next election.

I shall happily encourage all my friends from outside of Somerset to come and give ALL their input in the upcoming Council elections. Ells and Greg, I encourage you to do the same!

Oh I assure you counselor Chardonnay there are a great many citizens of England ready to take full advantage of the repeal of this law and to assist the citizens of Somerset in choosing their new council for the next term since it seems those who wish to repeal this law feel that outside input is needed to guide the citizens of Somerset to conclusions.

Personally I have all faith the citizenry have the intelligence to make such choices of their own accord but in case I am mistaken in my assessment I have had numerous mails of offers to come and provide enlightenment and education and I have thanked these past citizens and fellow concerned Parliamentarians of the HOP for their generous offers to step forward and speak to the issues that plague the Duchy.

The maturity level astounds me.

Indeed it has astounded me the last several council sessions as well counselor Rebo with all the material that has been removed from private chambers and that others of us have had to endure to simply do the jobs we were elected to do.



The counselors want to repeal a law? then by all means allow them to reap the efforts in full of removing this law they claim is repressive and draconian. Allow them to experience a Somerset election where those of us who have long fought to keep outside interference from disturbing the election process, open our arms to such interference. Sometimes it seems explanation of the why behind the reason for enacting a law is simply not enough. It apparently takes example to make the point.

It is like a child and a hot stove you explain why it should not be touched over and over but they insist you are treating them like a child and insist they know better and finally they simply touch it out of spite to prove to you that you are wrong and while they are nursing the painful blister they realize that there was a very valid reason that you tried to prevent them from touching the hot stove.

I'm having some difficulty reconciling the number of votes cast with the declarations of votes posted. If the ten votes cast were indeed by our ten councillors, then this proposal is passed and article 3.5.7 of Book III is repealed.

Well good it passes and I am not spamming an active thread then .

I was not on any past council, so I would not have been able to voice an opinion in those earlier situations. I believe that the SNP had absolute majority last time out though so the LoF being under represented would not be as telling as on this council where the seats were evenly distributed.

Sorry to step out of historical character for the moment, but there are few democratic examples from the real Renaissance. So some more contemporary examples are required:

Real world situation #1: Party A holds a 51/49 majority in the Senate, Party B has the Vice President (tie-breaking vote). Senator from Party A dies, governor in his state is permitted to appoint a replacement. Governor is from Party B and appoints a replacement from his own party, shifting majority control. Constitutional? Yes. Fair? Party A probably doesn't think so. Legal and binding? Yes.

Real world situation #2: Same starting situation. Senator from Party A decides to switch to Party B, swinging the majority with him/her. Constitutional? Yes? Fair? Well, that's for the people to decide the next election. Does it stick in the meantime? You bet.

Real world situation #3. Party A holds strong majority in Senate. Their states decide to secede from the Union, so they leave their seats empty. A 1/3 quorum is still maintained, but Party B now holds a strong majority. Are the votes of the rump congress still binding and valid? You bet. That's exactly what happened in the American Civil War and how the country was governed for over 5 years.

Constitutionality should not be confused with proportional representation. There are many circumstances in which a parliament that does not proportionally represent the popular vote is nevertheless legitimately constituted and legal. Otherwise any vacancy -- much less a concerted mass resignation -- would render the government inoperative. Hopefully any anomalies created by this situation are resolved by frequent elections which reconstitute the body in question -- which is precisely what will happen with our next election. In the meantime, government continues.

All the positions in our current council have been filled (or not filled) based on game mechanic rules, the equivalent of a constitution. For the next 28 days or so, I intend to participate in a functioning government. If the people object to what we do, they will elect a new council (without me) which will be free to review or repeal our decisions as it chooses. If it proves that we made a mistake, then that will be an issue for future debate and action.

I would be saying exactly the same thing if LoF members had resigned.

The laws must be voted on in game for any repeal to be official.

Again you can vote on them here all day long but for them to officially change in game they must be voted on in game and as long as 2 separate sets of the legal corpus exist you are creating a judicial issue whereby the laws IN GAME must be applied to cases tried IN GAME.

Having two sets of laws, one in game and one in forum will assure that all cases tried can be appealed to the COA and or tossed for error of law which is a waste of time for the Officers of the court and the citizens who have been wronged can see their accusers go free on a technicality of law. Something not many citizens will find appealing.