I claim my seat.

Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on May 17, 2021, 01:45:30 PM

Quote from: Eðo Grischun on May 17, 2021, 11:55:49 AM
@Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM

I see you are removing PSCs from Witt ballots. The following rule needs updated in the election thread:

"4 ) Voters will be able to vote on Wittenberg publicly A single vote thread will be created for casting votes on Wittenberg. If you have received your vote code (PSC), you are requested to cast your vote in that thread WITH your PSC."

Thanks for pointing this out. Much of the overall rules were copy/pasted from previous elections. There is nothing wrong with using the PSC as a new one is generated with each election. I just feel it is useful if I remove the PSC after verifying for security.

I agree, I just wanted to make sure I was following the rules. Given we use the PSC to reset passwords on the database, I think it's probably best if this wasn't a rule to begin with...if you as SoS needed more verification of someone voting on Witt for some reason, you could request the PSC by PM.

Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on May 16, 2021, 10:20:34 AM

Quote from: Françal I. Lux on May 16, 2021, 01:47:21 AM
I'd like to request a change of province. I have flown the coop from rural Middle Tennessee to the bustling cities of the San Francisco Bay Area. I believe I'll be in the Province of Maricopa now. I'd be happy to update any and all information with the office of the Secretary of State.

Done. Welcome to Maricopa.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toV8Lb9h0Vs

Do voters need to put their PSC on their Witt vote? I saw the note that it shouldn't be revealed, but the rules for casting a ballot say that it needs to be included.

Part 3: Cosa
DIEN - The Independent Monarchist

Part 5: Referendum
55RZ5 - AUS
55RZ22 - PER
55RZ23 - PER

Edited only to add PSC: (edited by SoS - should never reveal PSC as the Chancery already can access it)

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 03, 2021, 09:09:54 PM
But if the "substantive issue" is whether the Historic Compromise is wide enough, I challenge the LCC (and the other monarchist parties, though I doubt they'll answer) to set what additional terms they would require to add to 55RZ21 so that it would be an acceptable compromise in their terms.

From my perspective, there are no additional terms that could make 55RZ21 an acceptable compromise. I don't believe that we can have a compromise on this issue that would satisfy everyone, or one that would completely end the debate on the monarchy.

If the people adopt 55RZ21, then they clearly feel that an elected head of state is the right path forward for Talossa. I disagree, but I would respect that decision. But I would not want to call the elected head of state the King (or Queen) of Talossa. They should be referred to what they are: a President, and we should then take steps to restore the political powers that should be given to a head of state who is now subject to the changing winds of the populace. If Talossa desires a republic, then we should have a republic.

It feels to me, someone who admittedly hasn't been present nearly enough since we made the switch from ProBoards, that 55RZ21 is the proposed solution to two distinct issues: The monarchy debate, which I addressed above, and the debate with our current monarch. I can understand why a Republican would want to support this compromise, but I cannot understand it from the perspective of a Monarchist. Even if I were to agree that we should depose the King for his lack of activity--and to be clear, I don't--then shouldn't the solution be to hold a convocation and elect another lifetime monarch? (Perhaps bringing back hereditary monarchy in the process?)

I would like to register the following party:

Name: The Independent Monarchist
Initials: DIEN
50 Words or less: If you support a true, independent voice, feel free to vote for me, Munditenens DIEN Tresplet. I promise not to miss a vote.
Party Leader: Munditenens Tresplet
Cosa list: Refused.

I never received a new ballot by email, though I did receive an email stating I would be receiving a new ballot. I did vote my original ballot by ranking second and third options that I would not have chosen had I not been required to choose multiple options.

I would like to cast my only vote as follows:

Rank 1: Option 3: the King of Talossa shall continue to have the political powers granted by the current Organic Law.

(My personal preference would actually strike the words "the current", and revert to a previous iteration of Organic Law as it pertains to the powers of the King, but unfortunately I wasn't around to lobby for a fifth option when this bill was Hoppered.)

Honorable Túischac'h,

I apologize if this is not the most appropriate thread for this.

I move that the Cosâ condemn the violent and undemocratic actions of individuals who stormed the United States Capitol earlier today, and that we affirm our commitment to democracy and the peaceful transitions of power worldwide. Further, that we observe a moment of silence for the individuals who lost their lives as a result of the violence.

(Edited motion to reflect multiple casualties.)

PËR

Cosa: FREEDEMS

Referenda:
* 54RZ16 - The There's No Such Thing As A Free Senäts Seat Amendment - PER
* 54RZ22 - The Amada Mertgedes Martyrdom Memorial Act - PER
* 54RZ23 - The Uniform Seneschál Election Act - PER
* 54RZ25 - Judiciary Amendment of 2020 - PER
* 54RZ28 - The Non-Hereditary Monarchy Amendment - CON

I also stake my claim.