D:na Seneschal: ike I said, mistakes happen. It has been a previous practice to publish election rules ahead of time, and that might be a good thing to start doing again. Elections are really complicated and additional eyes on the process helps.

As to your efforts in helping conduct the referendum, it's pretty unusual. I'm not aware of the Seneschal ever issuing 24-hour demands for statements to put on the ballot. It is actually extremely unusual for the government to involve itself in the administration of an election at all, for extremely obvious reasons. I'm not accusing you or insinuating anything. Because there was no public discussion of this at all, it must have been private. I would like to hear more about this private coordination and what it entailed, because again it's extremely unusual.

Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on January 10, 2021, 01:02:08 PM
My apologies. I'm not terribly familiar with ranked choice voting so I worded this thread poorly. Voters may of course rank as few or as many as they wish. One-option votes are completely valid.

Related question that just occurs to me: did all the ballots go out with these instructions on them, too?

Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on January 10, 2021, 01:02:08 PM
My apologies. I'm not terribly familiar with ranked choice voting so I worded this thread poorly. Voters may of course rank as few or as many as they wish. One-option votes are completely valid.

Glad to hear it and that you will be correcting this.  Mistakes happen, particularly with complicated things.

While you're here, I noticed that the Seneschal was soliciting 50-word statements.  The Distain says that this was on your behalf, if I'm reading his response right.  I'd be curious to know more about the coordination taking place behind the scenes, if you wouldn't mind?

Well, the demand for a statement was abrupt -- 24-hour-notice! -- and I hadn't given it any thought until I did indeed notice the choice.

But I'd like an answer, please.  Is that the official answer of the Government: that it is acting on the Chancery's behalf?

As for your real question... um, is it really a mystery as to why the crown would concern itself with a referendum on the future of the crown?

Wait a second... why is the Seneschal soliciting 50-word statements and helping to coordinate the election at all?

Quote from: xpb on January 10, 2021, 11:23:28 AM

Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on January 10, 2021, 10:36:30 AM
Voting is now open (or will be open in a little while) on the referendum. All citizens may vote either on this thread or they may vote using the database at this link: http://www.talossa.ca/files/ranked_vote.php. You will need your PSC which will be emailed to all citizens shortly.

The options are:

• Option 1: the King of Talossa shall be replaced by an elected Head of State.
• Option 2: the King of Talossa shall share power with a periodically elected Co-prince.
• Option 3: the King of Talossa shall continue to have the political powers granted by the current Organic Law.
• Option 4: the King of Talossa shall have no political powers except in cases of emergency or constitutional crisis.

Please rank/vote for at least TWO options. For example: 1st Choice(rank 1) / 2nd Choice(rank 2) / 3rd Choice(rank 3) / 4th Choice(rank 4)

The 50 word statements are available at http://www.talossa.ca/files/ranked_vote.php.
Original Hopper thread: https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=317.msg1870#msg1870

Voting will close at 19h30 Talossan Time on February 10, 2021.

Why are citizens forced to vote for options they don't support?  There is no reason why a person can vote for one option or two or three or four as they wish.

My personal vote is public as always:

Option 3: the King of Talossa shall continue to have the political powers granted by the current Organic Law.

It is the only vote I will make on this issue and I shall not rank any other option nor will anyone do so on my behalf.

This does seem to be illegal, since the law clearly states "Ranked Choice Voting shall be conducted in the following manner: ... Voters may rank as many or as few candidates as they please" (Lexh.B.14 and B.14.1).  Nothing in the recent referendum bill contradicts that, so it seems like this should still be the clear legal requirement, especially since the author of the referendum bill explicitly stated that the rules were supposed to be identical to how the Senate elections are conducted.  This also seems like a pretty big problem, since it's likely to significantly affect the results.

Took me a bit longer than that, but here it is before the end of 24 hours:
Monarchy has helped keep Talossa strong for decades, sustaining us in crises when other Talossan institutions failed.  In addition to steadiness, monarchies are quirky and interesting to Talossans.  The throne is also one of few restraints on the increasingly powerful office of the Seneschal.  Defend the crown and the king!

The Crown will also have its own statement to contribute. I'll get back to you with it tonight.

Great work!  Very impressive transclusion!

There are a few which can be found here: http://wiki.talossa.com/TalossaWiki:Library#Talossan_Language_Collection

Most helpful to you might be the rosary: http://wiki.talossa.com/La_Rosaria

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 05, 2021, 02:35:34 PM
Whereas @the Government's original choice for Interior Minister had to resign before the new Ziu even met, and whereas the Distáin has been covering the portfolio since then, and the Distáin is severely overworked, and whereas a bigger Cabinet with more voices and more capability for doing jobs is always better:

therefore I am happy to recommend to the Regent, under Organic Law VI.3, that @Adam Grigoriu be named Minister of the Interior. Note that this will mean cxhn. Grigoriu having to give up his two Permanent Secretary roles, but I'm sure we can cover for those.

Acting on nomination by the Seneschal del Regipäts Talossan:

Com'el rexhaint per la Coronă, perventüră apüntéu Adam Grigoriu àl óifisch del Ministreu del Interiör, es lo comandéu à servar el Legeu Orgänic es sieu Regeu àl miglhor da sieux capacitaes.

Acting as regent for the Crown, I hereby appoint Adam Grigoriu to the office of Minister of the Interior, and enjoin him to serve the Organic Law and his King to the best of his abilities.  Done under my hand in the name of King John, Regeu del Regipäts Talossan, this sixth day of January in the year 2020/XLI.

              —  Sir Alexandreu, Rexhaint d'Ian Regeu

I would really like to confirm this appointment immediately, but I also feel torn because I am hoping that the "pending" cascade can continue at least one more level.

In a few hours I'll be able to get to my computer and make a fancy post to confirm this appointment, so anyone who can come up with something else to add on to the cascade has that long to do so.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on January 05, 2021, 11:27:34 AM

Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on January 03, 2021, 11:27:57 PM
Nothing to fix at all, then!

Think about what I said. I want to hear your opinion on it.

Sure.

So there are a lot of virtues to our current system, with a very granular, flexible, and responsive Cosa matched with a localized, small-bodied, and long-term Senats.  Since the powers of the monarchy have been dramatically scaled back over time, and the judiciary is increasingly intermingled with the legislature, the fact that the Ziu is bicameral is one of a very small number of ways in our system to slow demagogues and corruption.  You can't take over every institution with one or even two big waves of popular support, since you need several successive elections to be in legitimate control of both chambers of the Ziu.

All of those elements would be things that I'd want to see preserved in any prospective new system, especially if the new system is being proposed primarily for aesthetic reasons (because people just like the idea of a Real Cosa more, as opposed to the virtualization of flexibly assigned seats).

Looking at what you said and thinking about it a fraction of as much as you, this seems like its main virtue would come in the reduced power of party leaders to enforce party discipline through seat allocation.  Are there other benefits?

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 03, 2021, 11:03:26 PM

Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on January 03, 2021, 10:23:17 PM
Great.  So with 100 voters, it currently takes at least two votes to get a seat.

... your maths is upside down

It is?  But didn't you just say that there were only two-person parties?

Wait, I see my mistake.  Okay then, great!  Nothing to fix at all, then!

Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on January 03, 2021, 06:07:17 PM
It would be much harder for a new party to get representation in the Cosa under your plan.  That effect would exclude new smaller parties and raise the threshold to compete with larger existing parties, such as the one you lead.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 03, 2021, 06:24:00 PM
^^^ Regent attempts to argue that 12 > 15  :o

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 03, 2021, 07:49:44 PM
Anyway, kudos for dealing with the question of the threshold. The whole question is whether there should be a threshold, not "shrinking the Cosa".

Quite a journey.  Anyway...

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 03, 2021, 07:49:44 PM
For all the talk about the glorious Talossan tradition of 1 person parties, we haven't had any of those for (*quick check*) miéida sant, since before Reunision. Even in the glorious days of the "blank cheque" ballot and RUMP dominance. We've had a few 2 person parties since then, of course, so that's the effective threshold that the popular will itself has imposed. Let's use that as our starting point.

Great.  So with 100 voters, it currently takes at least two votes to get a seat.  So while we definitely don't want to reduce the size of the Cosa seats down, we might want to increase it if we get back up to 120 voters or more (48th Cosa in 2015 had 126).  That would keep it granular enough to permit the same threshold of participation.