Anyway, I'd like to put this up to the leader of the Opposition. The fact remains that - even if Option One wins the election - nothing will happen without an OrgLaw amendment, which will need 2/3 of the Coså (3/4 with a veto override) to happen.

So, @Senator Plätschisch or other members of the LCC or other Monarchists, please answer. Would you be any less likely to oppose an Elected Head of State if we continued to call them "King"? Or "Regent" for a permanently empty throne? If the answer is no, then all these "compromises" are a waste of time (in fact, cxhn. Andrinescù for one has already dismissed them in advance) and we might as well just go for what we want.

Quote from: Éovart Andrinescù on January 02, 2021, 10:00:14 PMAll these semantic compromises strike me as the staging grounds for a later move against the entire monarchy and its vestiges, such as the peerage.

The "peerage" is miéidă da toro. There were no Lords or Dukes or Counts or all that nonsense in KR1's Talossa 1997-2005. That was all made up in the "RUMP-led National Schism Kingdom" of 2005-11. One of the things that always gets my goat is that Woolleys, Hands, Cannons etc. became Talossans years after the founders of the Republic had become Talossan, made up all this nonsense, and then fooled future citizens into thinking it was "Talossan tradition".

There is justification for a Talossan Monarchy, if it has popular support and a qualified claimant can be found. There is no justification for a "peerage". Knighthoods are different.

I myself appreciate the work the Regent is doing on the actual substantive duties of the Monarchy rather than speechifying.  Though I don't approve of some of his moves, at least he's making moves, and some activity is always better than none.

BTW, now that we have a "Speech from the Throne" at the opening of each Ziu, can we change the name of the Independence Day Speech to... er, maybe, the Independence Day Speech?

Check out this hypothetical result where a party with 3 votes still manages to get a seat in a 15-member Cosa (it doesn't work for only 2 votes, I checked)

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 10, 2020, 11:22:36 PM
New Zealand will be coming out of lockdown starting on Thursday. We have had around 20 deaths in total; there are 100 remaining cases, mainly in nursing homes. We seem to have broken the back of this monster, and hopefully our national wealth will not suffer.

Meanwhile, Australia, the UK and the US are suffering because the growth of conspiracy theory in those countries means that the social discipline required to enforce public health measures are lacking. That's what happens when you let your population get dumbed down.

Turns out that, due to efficient and scientifically-backed action from our Government which was supported by the broad mass of the population, we not only beat COVID-19 back with only 25 deaths in total, but we actually had modest, but positive, economic growth for 2020. Only Taiwan of the developed nations can say the same.

Calculations using the last election's numbers

The Government's Coalition Agreement specified setting up a bipartisan Senäts committee to discuss possible changes to Talossa's electoral system. That was the responsibility of the Attorney-General, who is on extended leave; the Deputy Attorney-General has not yet stepped up to announce whether he's keen to take that over or not.

With that in mind, I was just reminded of my post from last year suggesting an Electoral Reform for Cosă elections which would work well with any number of Cosă seats, whether 15 or the current 200. The tradeoff is: a "realler" Cosă means an effective "threshold", beneath which the smallest parties would get no seats. It is up to the Ziu as a whole to decide whether any threshold is appropriate.

The principles are:

• A "circular" party list. Seats would now be allocated automatically by the SoS, one each to every candidate on the list, in order, and when the list comes to an end, it begins again from the beginning. Example: a party which has 5 members on the list but wins 8 seats would end up giving 2 seats to the first 3 people on the list, and 1 to everyone else. The effective change here is that it would no longer be up to party leaders to give a big chunk of seats to some MCs and maybe only 1 to others; all MCs, plus or minus 1 seat, would be equal.
• The current "1/3 allocations off list" would be changed to "a party may add 1/3 extra members, rounded up, to its list after the election". If your original list had 5 people on it you could add another 2 later. If you only had 1 person on your list, you could only add 1 later.
• Existing provisions barring MCs from individually holding more than x% of the Cosa would still exist, meaning there would be a limit to how many seats could be held by a 1-person party.
• Seats would be allocated by a rounding system known as Largest Remainder Method with a Hare quota, which is essentially the status quo.
• The basic idea is for a 15 seat Cosa, which would mean that - based on the votes from the last election - a party would need 6 votes to guarantee a Cosă seat, though depending on other results, they could possibly win one with 3 votes. If this threshold is considered too stringent, the model would work well with more MCs. If one or more parties were "tied" for the last seat, they would all get a seat and thus the Cosa would be slightly expanded.

Draft legislation:

Amendments to OrgLaw IV

QuoteSection 1 The Cosa is the national legislative assembly, and is composed of a number of seats apportioned among political parties based on their performance in the General Election. This number shall be twice the number of Senators, minus one, or a greater number than this designated by law, except that no change in the size of the Cosă shall take effect until the next General Election. The Coså may administer itself as it sees fit.

Section 4 Vacant seats occurring between elections shall be filled in accordance with law.

Amendment to El Lexhatx B.2.3

Quote2.3 The ballot must also include, for each party contesting the election, a ranked list of citizens to whom the party intends to award Cosa seats. If a party does not submit a candidate list to the Secretary of State before the election, the party leader shall be considered the only person on that party's list.

2.3.1. Pursuant to Organic Law IV.2, the Secretary of State shall apportion seats to parties on the basis of their vote totals by use of the Largest Remainder Method, using a Hare quota (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_remainder_method).

2.3.1.1. If one or more parties are "tied" for the last seat or several seats, then the Secretary of State shall be entitled to assign one seat to all of the said parties and therefore to temporarily expand the size of the Cosa to more than the number otherwise set by law.

        2.3.2. Up until 10 days after the opening of the First Clark, a party leader may amend their list by adding names to it, in ranked order after the original names. The maximum number of names that may be added is 50% of the number of names originally on the list, rounded up.

2.3.3. After all lists are finalised and before the conclusion of the First Clark, the Secretary of State shall announce the distribution of each parties' seats as follows:

2.3.3.1. One seat will be given to each candidate on the list, in ranked order.

2.3.3.2. If all members on the list have received a seat and there are still additional seats, the process in 2.3.2.1 shall be repeated until no more seats are available.

2.3.3.3. If any person assigned a seat as above either
- already has the maximum number of Cosă seats allowable;
- declines their seat(s);
these seats will be reallocated according to the criteria above. 

2.3.3.4 If a party cannot assign all of their seats under the criteria above, the additional seats are forfeited.

2.3.4. Any vacant seats occurring between elections shall be reassigned according to the procedure in 2.3.3 above.

WHEREAS Organic Law VII.5 sets a small list of which Talossans are entitled to "submit legislative proposals... for the consideration of the Ziu", i.e. to "clark Bills";

AND WHEREAS Organic Law VII.4 states that the Secretary of State is to maintain the Hopper as "a public venue for the inspection of legislative proposals before they become bills";

AND WHEREAS the word "public" in OrgLaw VII.4 is ambiguous as to exactly who is entitled to participate in the Hopper, outwith the specific power to turn legislative proposals into bills;

AND WHEREAS the sections of El Lexhatx governing the Hopper (H.6, 7, 13 and 21) do not resolve this ambiguity;

AND WHEREAS it is my general belief that maximising public participation in the legislative process is a good thing, and I see absolutely no reason why all Talossan citizens should not be entitled to participate fully in the Hopper, including submitting draft legislation, only excluding the power to actually "Clark bills";

AND WHEREAS the Regent has humbly offered his opinion over and over again that excluding Talossans from the legislative process depresses activity, and this measure will allow all citizens to help shape the law, while ensuring that the legislative power remains with elected officials and not beneficiaries of patronage of party bosses;

AND WHEREAS, while doing research for this bill, I found quite a few messes, missing sections, and notes by the Scribe of Abbavilla which should be cleaned up, no matter the substantive question of this bill;

AND WHEREAS the amendment to H.6.4 below removes the possibility of someone dredging up a "stale bill" which has remained un-proposed for months or even years and putting it on the Clark long after everyone's forgotten the issues involved;

AND WHEREAS H.13. is a noble sentiment, but the phrase "if at all possible" makes it inoperative and a waste of space:

BE IT ENACTED by the Ziu of the Kingdom of Talossa as follows:

1. El Lexhatx H.4. shall read in its entirety:

QuoteOn each Clark, the Vote of Confidence shall read as follows: "Do you wish the current Government to continue in its term of office?"

2. El Lexhatx H.6.4 shall be amended to read as follows:

QuoteIf a legislative proposal has remained in the "The Hopper" for more than 59 days, the Secretary of State may remove it it shall be considered to have been removed, though any person entitled to do so may subsequently re-publish it.

3. A new section, H.6.8, is added to El Lexhatx as follows:

QuoteAll citizens of Talossa are entitled to participate fully in discussions and debates in the Hopper, within the bounds of law and of the decisions of the administering and presiding authorities of the Hopper. Any citizen may submit a draft of legislation to the Hopper, though these shall not be considered to be "legislative proposals" within the meaning of H.6 until sponsored by one or more individuals authorised to submit legislative proposals under Organic Law VII.5, under the process contained in H.8.

4. El Lexhatx H.13, currently reading:

QuoteIf at all possible, bills presented for review in the Hopper should be translated into Talossan before being Clarked.

is DELETED IN ITS ENTIRETY and replaced with the following text:

QuoteAll bills submitted for the Clark shall be in one of the national languages.

5. The numbering of El Lexhatx H.24 is hereby confirmed, and the Scribe's note there attached is DELETED.

As to the substantive content of this proposal, I will reserve judgement until the Attorney General, Senator dal Vàl, and his Deputy, s:reu Davinescù MC, have weighed in. I would only ask the esteemed Justice to give a brief summary of what (if any) are the substantive changes brought in by this bill, as opposed to just a re-editing of what was already in there.

I would like to thank Justice Marcianüs very much for this contribution. I just want to comment on a housekeeping issue here.

While there is a small list of people who are allowed to propose legislation/put it on the Clark (OrgLaw VII.5), and Justices of the CpI are not on that list, there seems to be no limits on who can put draft proposals in the Hopper. However, my reading of OrgLaw VII.4 and El Lexhatx H.6 lead me to believe that a draft bill posted in the Hopper does not become a "legislative proposal" (qualified for being Clarked) until given approval by one of the people named in OrgLaw VII.5.

Thus:
1) I am happy to, hereby, pro forma submit the above bill as a legislative proposal under my name, to resolve all legal ambiguity.
2) The Law (organic and/or statutory) has to be revised to clarify the ambiguity I've raised above. I personally believe we should change Talossan law to make it clear that all citizens are entitled to fully participate in the Hopper and to offer draft bills - though I want to maintain the status quo of OrgLaw VII.4 as to who can actually "Clark" bills. This would be a boon for "participatory democracy".

What do others think? Will offer substantive suggestions as to this bill later.

Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on December 31, 2020, 04:27:31 PM
The Seneschal and Deputy Avocat-Xheneral declined to discuss the matter, insisting that I was "refusing" to appoint all three nominees and sharing excerpts of the conversation on the Facebook group for the Free Democrats.

OH NOES HEAVEN FORFEND

The Regent never explained why this (bolded) - me consulting with Dr Nordselva re: what he wanted to do, and keeping my political allies up to date- was worthy of comment in any way. The seemingly resentful tone of "how dare you ever tell anything what goes on in our conversations" - for me, no formal discussion between Government and Regent has a presumption of confidentiality unless explicitly established - combined with his long-term and on-going problem with the fact that other people have discussion forums where he isn't invited, is a bit creepy.

Um, yeah, sure.

As authorised by El Lexhtatx L.5, I recommend to the King of Talossa acting through his appointed Regent that Sir C. M. Siervicül be named the Squirrel King of Arms.

When he became SoS, because the two roles are incompatible

Absolutely yes

Really good to see so much enthusiasm for this important role!