Shireroth

IC: I. C.

Section C: Heir to the Throne.

a. Before the end of zir reign, the Kaiser must pick a successor from among all living individuals eligible by birthright.
b. Should the Kaiser die or abdicate the throne, the Kaisership shall pass to zir successor.
c. Should no heir have been chosen, the successor shall be the closest related living individual eligible by birthright.

To be changed to.

Section C: Heir to the Throne.

a. Before the end of zir reign, the Kaiser must pick a successor from among all living individuals eligible by birthright.
b. The Landsraad may vote to reject the designated heir, at which time a new heir must be chosen.
c. Should the Kaiser die or abdicate the throne, the Kaisership shall pass to zir successor.
d. Should no heir have been chosen, the successor shall be chosen by the Landsraad with consultation of the Arbiter.

This would not strip the Kaiser's power to appoint an heir, but it would grant more power to the nobles of Shireroth, and thus it's people in who shall rule next. It is my hope to use this as just one of many changes that will encourage participation in the nation. I didn't make it an outright confirmation vote, in case the Landsraad was MIA.

One problem: what if the Landsraad can't decide on a successor within a fixed timeframe? Would it then fall to rule by the Landsraad?

Steward. As always.

It works.

It would stop a serious civil war should the Kaiser choose a horridly unpopular heir.

Of course, an heir designated in a will could be rejected by the Landsraad.

Bravo!

Yeah.. that does create a hole I was hoping for some input on. I gave the Landsraad full appointment power at that point, but it felt an odd and abuse prone solution.

If the Kaiser appoints an heir posthumously, the Landsraad can reject the heir, appoint another, or anoint the Steward.

Or accept the heir and yell HUZZAH.

I don't see what was wrong with the Kaiser choosing their own heir. It encouraged people to be active and helpful all the time if they wanted the throne, cuz you never knew when a Kaiser would get bored / get ousted and possibly pick you next.

Regarding unpopular heirs, well, if everyone in the country really hates the thought of someone becoming an heir, what the heck are they doing here anyway?

People really didn't want me.. or Mike... but there was no real issue with us in the nation. and the Kaiser can still pick an heir, the Landsraad can just go "Hell no!", if they need to.

And here we see Shirerithian solution 1C: Superficial tinkering with the Charter.

Harvey Steffke wrote:Regarding unpopular heirs, well, if everyone in the country really hates the thought of someone becoming an heir, what the heck are they doing here anyway?

There was the whole incident with Hesam and Jacobus, and the heir after that, and people thinking that other people had promised things that they claimed not to have etc. Civil war ensued multiple times. Having a Landsraad veto seems a good way to avoid that.

I still think it's a step in the wrong direction. I could make a case against ANYONE being a bad Kaiser, anyone at all. All people have their downsides in some form or another. The key is to not focus on them and to instead build a micronational community with a stable, friendly population. Even the person we think would make the worst Kaiser in the world could surprise us, and there is already the precedent for massive uprising uprooting them if they do a terrible job. But giving the masses the OPTION of rejecting a Kaiser at the start of their reign seems like a bad move. I know I'd be alienated if I had waited a few years to be named Kaiser only to have a bunch of people I thought were my friends tell me "Hell no!" Well, assuming I could legally become Kaiser and wanted the position, but yeah.

So what you're saying is instead of vetoing a Kaiser before he starts, we should give the Landsraad the privilege to vote him out of office?

I'm actually more inclined to that, I think, than than I am to vetoing an heir before they actually become Kaiser.

It's one thing, after all, to kick someone out if they screw up massively; it's another to kick someone out pre-emptively because you SUSPECT they will. I understand the reasoning, mind you, because a horribly bad Kaiser could do a lot of damage before being deposed; but going into things presuming they will before they can is, perhaps, a bit harsh.

I would propose something along the lines of the Landsraad being able to depose the Kaiser, so long as they had a high/unanimous vote, and/or the approval of the Arbiter. Alternatively, the Kaiser could be declared unfit to rule or something instead of deposed, with power passing to the Steward until said Kaiser got zir act together.

I'll ponder an alternative to this along those lines while at work and come back with it later.

Malliki Tosha wrote:And here we see Shirerithian solution 1C: Superficial tinkering with the Charter.

Can anything ever make you happy? I try to get some thought put into decentralizing the charter, and it's "superficial tinkering"?

I can edit law. I can't edit people. That has to happen on it's own. But I can try to listen to them and find solutions to the things that make them upset.

.......Anticans.........

Well, it is superficial tinkering, since most of the "reforms" are already there in practice. Instead of doing a complete rework from the ground up, something Shireroth is sorely in need of, once again the leadership pulls out solution 1C. It's getting a bit old.

It's getting a bit old.

The old that is strong does not wither,

Um, Jacobus. Not exactly the best use of that quote.

Nobody's perfect. And the "getting old" is gettin' old.