Dear Tom and egamma,
First of all thank you for your response. Second i would like to tell u egamma i am roleplaying in the game so nothing personal towards you or anything 
.
No problem at all, I enjoy making Oriolton a livelier place to play.
As far as the referendum is concerned it would be rather awkward for the people in a realm having to answer to every question may arise to a nobles head. And that does not concern of course the question that egamma presented which was logic and good structured.
What i mean is that by making the choice of referendums viable even in monarchies is taking the power from the authorities and places it in the hands of every noble. The right to disagree of course is the right of everyone but there is an option for disagreeing and protesting and also a choice for a noble to join a rebellion and try to shake up the government.
What i am saying is that the referendum is the safe card. A noble disagrees, protests or causes unrest rebelling without any consequences, punishments, because what he does is legit, when rebelling and many times protesting is not.
For example in our realm considering of course the roleplaying and assuming theoretically that the character Gerrin wants to shake up things but does not want to be blamed about it (which i think not, but lets consider it) he calls a referendum without consequences for him self (like banning or else) and raises an opposition. As we know, and i know that well, since i have played way back from 2003 till i stopped for some years, an open discussion without the pressure of the election is way better and doesnt divide a realm. In fact here Gerrin proposes also a law to that matter, which if the referendum succeeds creates a discrepancy between executional power and the power of the nobles. That is why i believe that in republics and democracies a referendum should have as prerequisite the backing up of a certain number of people (which would make it rather difficult and complicated since all would vote 2 times for a matter but that would be also better since someone would consider 2 times getting in that process) and in other policies there should not be a referendum at all
Sorry if that letter is too long and i thank you in advance for reading it (or not )
Well, his name is GeLLin, not Gerrin, but that's besides the point.
Full context:
Duke Margrave Spearhead Reapers wanted General Duke Margrave Travis Grayham to either step down as General or step down as Duke/Margrave. There was a 'wiki law', that is not present in the Ruler's Bulletin or the Judges Bulletin, that stated that nobles should not hold multiple positions. This has since been replaced (I just checked) with this:
Previously, there were long-standing conventions limiting the number of titles any one noble or family could accrue to themselves as a result of abuses and tragedies that had befallen Oritolon in the past. These conventions have since fallen out of fashion however as Oritolon has sought to ensure that the best and most committed nobles are no longer dissuaded from taking high office.
Spearhead wants the old law enforced, mostly because Grayham is of a different religion (one that doesn't say "The Path is not a theocratic religion" on its wiki page and temples). Gellin thinks Grayham should be able to maintain his three positions (G/D/M) because he was elected to two of those (G/M) and Reapers himself has two positions (D/M) and the third duke in the realm is Judge/Duke/Margrave.
So, Gellin started a referendum for a new law, that basically said that either Grayham got to keep all his positions, or Reapers and the Judge had to lose all but one of their positions.
Personally, I think it was a clever bit of politicking, but Grayham caved under the pressure and announced that he would step down as General. Gellin will probably resign as Vice-Marshal in protest.
