I suppose my main thought is why do we need provinces to have an equal number of states as catchment area? Catchment areas don't have an equal number of Brazilian provinces or Swiss cantons, so why do they need an equal share of the US?

For example, Cézembre, which is famously Talossa's european province, has a lot of catchment area in Europe. I don't think we really need additional catchment area in America. On the other hand, Vuode is already the province with the fewest citizens. If we give away some of the most populous states in its catchment area to another province which also has a lot of catchment area elsewhere (Benito) we might as well disband it now.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 27, 2024, 05:42:23 PMGuidance from @Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB please - do we have to Clark this as one amendment or two?

It must be Clarked as two amendments based on how it is written.

It's two.

Guidance from @Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB please - do we have to Clark this as one amendment or two?

I would like to submit
The 9 to 5 Amendment
to be included on the next clark.

Sure, go forth and Clark.

Ok for me ! Give me some time to learn the rules

Quote from: Zilect Uómbat Firă on April 26, 2024, 02:48:19 PMWhat would the population distribution be if we used the US Census regions? (note: I left Wisconsin as-is)

As it turns out, not quite so even.

The purpose of the Hopper is to debate bills and make changes. As SoS, the only time I would refuse a bill is if the bill in the Hopper in its final, debated form is substantially different from what came out of the CRL. The CRL shouldn't be able to say "hey this bill changed a lot, start over." That isn't really its function.

El Lexhatx H.2.1 repeats, over and over again, that the necessary requirement for any bill to be Clarked (or to be submitted to the CRL) is that it has "spent 10 days in the Hopper".

The problem is - as we found in the Succession Amendment thread - at least one member of the CRL thinks that if a bill's language changes fundamentally (like, from a new draft), it's no longer the same bill and has to start again.

El Lexh H.2.1.7.4 gives the SoS authority not to Clark a bill which is totally different from what went to the CRL. If we want the CRL to have the authority to do the same to a bill whose language has changed either totally or significantly over its 10 days, we should do so explicitly.

But I disagree. My preferred amendment would be to change the language

QuoteA bill has passed the Hopper if it has spent at least 10 days in the Hopper

wherever it appears to be something like:

QuoteA legislative proposal has passed the Hopper if the substantive text of the bill has been debated in the Hopper for at least 10 days and its proposer is satisfied with its form.

Which way do we want to shift it? The current ambiguity is not ideal.