Wittenberg

Azul Talossaes! As one of its goals, the incoming Government is committed to a nationwide discussion on reforms to the Organic Law and Talossa's constitutional structure. This discussion is open to all, and it is intended to be open-ended. In recent weeks, we've seen different suggestions and brainstorming for reforms to the monarchy and succession, ideas on how to reform both the Cosă and the Ziu, and various suggestions for how to reform how provinces function (and even how many of them there should be) -- but the list shouldn't stop there if you have something else you'd like to discuss!

I think as a first step, it would be prudent for anyone who has posted such a suggestion in some other thread to repost it here in a central location, and I can start keeping a list of the different ideas posted. If you have an idea you haven't posted elsewhere, add it anyway! This will make it easier for us to identify popular ideas and areas in which we can move the discussion forward productively.

You can find a recap of the discussion so far here. Anyone with this link can also comment. (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GbARTqn5w8KtY5CeHumgnWNg9lrR9UY6AZw9O2KQ6m0/edit?usp=sharing)

I am going to start the ball rolling with a great idea from @Sir Lüc  which should get discussed.

There is a big problem with the Senäts, and that is: huge incumbency advantage in elections, especially since active Talossans are unevenly divided between the provinces. So barely active citizens get in Senäts seats and stay there. Also, Talossa has never been a federal system, the provinces are sporadically active at best, so the argument for "provincial representation" is meaningless.

(Yes, I'm aware of what that implies about the FreeDems' persistent Senäts majority. All the more reason why opposition parties should be keen on what I am about to suggest, lol.)

The suggestion: every Cosă election, half the Senäts seats are elected at large by the whole Kingdom.

My personal preference that this be by Single Transferable Vote - but of course that's complex. An easier alternative would be Single Non-Transferable Vote - every citizen gets 1 vote and the top 4 candidates get in. (I would totally oppose a "four votes for four seats" position because that would guarantee the most popular Senäts "ticket" of 4 candidates would get all the seats.) Possibly we could do the reform and set the electoral system later by legislation.

This preserves the best thing about the current Senäts, i.e. the ability of non-party independents to win. While my sympathies are with unicameralism, that would be *much* more complicated to enact, you might need a whole new OrgLaw.

Comments?

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on July 30, 2024, 06:32:47 PMMy personal preference that this be by Single Transferable Vote - but of course that's complex. An easier alternative would be Single Non-Transferable Vote - every citizen gets 1 vote and the top 4 candidates get in. (I would totally oppose a "four votes for four seats" position because that would guarantee the most popular Senäts "ticket" of 4 candidates would get all the seats.)

I know this isn't the main focus of the post, and I'm biased, but I wrote a webpage that evaluated approval ballots proportionally using MSPAV (https://xadrezo.neocities.org/mspav), and I'd love to see it considered at least.

Open Society proposed a draft bill based on a previous effort by @mpf concerning annual elections. We think that longer Cosa terms with a larger Civil Service to support would open up space for a flowering of non-political activity. Talossa has plenty of opportunities for politicians and political scientists. 9-10 month long Cosa terms and fixed election dates.

We would also propose making it mandatory during that longer Cosa term to have a live Cosa session (preferably the mid-point in the Cosa term, which gives the Government plenty of time to prepare). Too much of Talossa is activity where we do not see each other. This is an easy way for us build connections beyond the written word. We need to build into our processes efforts to connect beyond Wittenberg which technology definitely allows. Talossa is rather anachronistic in this regard.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on July 31, 2024, 09:09:36 AMOpen Society proposed a draft bill based on a previous effort by @mpf (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?action=profile;u=41) concerning annual elections. We think that longer Cosa terms with a larger Civil Service to support would open up space for a flowering of non-political activity. Talossa has plenty of opportunities for politicians and political scientists. 9-10 month long Cosa terms and fixed election dates.

I have long mulled something similar to this, mostly because I feel six Clarks is really not a lot if you want to get stuff done without significant pressure from deadlines and time constraints - for instance, failing to get your bill on a Clark is less of an issue when you have more time to work with to begin with. There's also the practicality angle, since lots of cultural events and financial deadlines are either yearly or tied to election timing, and yearly-fixed election dates would help with planning and scheduling.

One major issue would be that we presently adopt a parliamentary system where a term of the Ziu may effectively be cut short for any number of reasons (usually, but not exclusively, loss of Confidence). But I feel this might be addressed in two ways:

- Removing the requirement to hold a VoC every month, and instead requiring a certain number of MCs to sponsor and Clark a resolution stating the Cosă has no confidence in the Government;

- Removing the requirement to dissolve the Cosă when Confidence is lost, and instead allowing the King to inquire with party leaders whether a caretaker Government can be formed. (Or indeed, whether the same government can be reappointed if the King ascertains that the loss of Confidence is due to a temporary justified absence of an MC.)

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on July 30, 2024, 06:32:47 PMI am going to start the ball rolling with a great idea from @Sir Lüc  which should get discussed.
There is a big problem with the Senäts, and that is: huge incumbency advantage in elections, especially since active Talossans are unevenly divided between the provinces. So barely active citizens get in Senäts seats and stay there. Also, Talossa has never been a federal system, the provinces are sporadically active at best, so the argument for "provincial representation" is meaningless.
(Yes, I'm aware of what that implies about the FreeDems' persistent Senäts majority. All the more reason why opposition parties should be keen on what I am about to suggest, lol.)
The suggestion: every Cosă election, half the Senäts seats are elected at large by the whole Kingdom.
My personal preference that this be by Single Transferable Vote - but of course that's complex. An easier alternative would be Single Non-Transferable Vote - every citizen gets 1 vote and the top 4 candidates get in. (I would totally oppose a "four votes for four seats" position because that would guarantee the most popular Senäts "ticket" of 4 candidates would get all the seats.) Possibly we could do the reform and set the electoral system later by legislation.
This preserves the best thing about the current Senäts, i.e. the ability of non-party independents to win. While my sympathies are with unicameralism, that would be *much* more complicated to enact, you might need a whole new OrgLaw.
Comments?

Personally, my first preference would be to see the Senäts abolished completely and Talossa become a unicameral system with one legislative body, the Cosa. Aside from the legal fiction of "provincial representation" (which I agree is meaningless), I fail to see any reason why we need the Upper House at all, nor what functions it performs that can't be done just as well in a unicameral system. Therefore, I would like to see a referendum on the future of the Senäts, namely, whether it should be abolished or reformed.

Should the majority of my fellow citizens choose the reform option, I can see merit in what is proposed above, and it is not a bad alternative. Personally, however, I would like to see something more like the Republic of Ireland's Seanad being adopted, where the Senäts is divided into panels (or in Talossa's case: seats) of experts in certain fields. For example (and these are just suggestions), if we have five seats in the Senäts, one seat would be for an expert in law, one for an expert in culture, one for an expert in el glheþ, one for an expert in media, and one for an expert in foreign affairs. These five experts wouldn't be directly elected but would all be elected by MCs from amongst their membership before the first Clark. Thus, the Upper House would be a house of seasoned experts in all things Talossan, rather than citizens who are there because no one else was interested in running.

Anyway, that's one suggestion to add to the thought process, and I am glad that this discussion has started.

My two bence,

-- Litz

Quote from: Sir Lüc on July 31, 2024, 11:05:23 AM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on July 31, 2024, 09:09:36 AMOpen Society proposed a draft bill based on a previous effort by mpf (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?action=profile;u=41) concerning annual elections. We think that longer Cosa terms with a larger Civil Service to support would open up space for a flowering of non-political activity. Talossa has plenty of opportunities for politicians and political scientists. 9-10 month long Cosa terms and fixed election dates.

I have long mulled something similar to this, mostly because I feel six Clarks is really not a lot if you want to get stuff done without significant pressure from deadlines and time constraints - for instance, failing to get your bill on a Clark is less of an issue when you have more time to work with to begin with. There's also the practicality angle, since lots of cultural events and financial deadlines are either yearly or tied to election timing, and yearly-fixed election dates would help with planning and scheduling.

One major issue would be that we presently adopt a parliamentary system where a term of the Ziu may effectively be cut short for any number of reasons (usually, but not exclusively, loss of Confidence). But I feel this might be addressed in two ways:

- Removing the requirement to hold a VoC every month, and instead requiring a certain number of MCs to sponsor and Clark a resolution stating the Cosă has no confidence in the Government;

- Removing the requirement to dissolve the Cosă when Confidence is lost, and instead allowing the King to inquire with party leaders whether a caretaker Government can be formed. (Or indeed, whether the same government can be reappointed if the King ascertains that the loss of Confidence is due to a temporary justified absence of an MC.)

 I would be against removing the monthly Vote of Confidence (VoC) requirement because of the way the Clark system works. It would take far too long for a VoC to be voted on and passed in the manner you suggest. For example, say the Government does something on the 1st of August that results in the majority of the Cosa losing confidence in said Government. With this suggestion, it would be no sooner than the 21st of September before the Government could be removed from office—far too long by Talossan standards. With a VoC on the Clark every month, it allows for a quick response to confidence in the Government. If a resolution of no confidence in the Government could be tabled and voted on without being in the Clark, it would address this concern.

Quote from: Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN on July 31, 2024, 11:23:07 AMI would be against removing the monthly Vote of Confidence (VoC) requirement because of the way the Clark system works. It would take far too long for a VoC to be voted on and passed in the manner you suggest. For example, say the Government does something on the 1st of August that results in the majority of the Cosa losing confidence in said Government. With this suggestion, it would be no sooner than the 21st of September before the Government could be removed from office—far too long by Talossan standards. With a VoC on the Clark every month, it allows for a quick response to confidence in the Government. If a resolution of no confidence in the Government could be tabled and voted on without being in the Clark, it would address this concern.

I really wish Witt had a love button.
This would be great. Especially if combined with @Sir Lüc suggestion on allowing the King to consult with party leaders to see if a new government can be formed without moving immediately to an election. Both of these are standard procedures (unless I am mistaken) of many parliamentary systems which I think would be good for Talossa too.

We could also make it so that elections to the Cosa occur on a fixed schedule, but "constructive votes of no confidence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_vote_of_no_confidence)" allow a change of government mid-term. Basically, if you're voting Non on the VoC, you need to nominate someone else as Seneschal, at which point we could handle it one of several ways:

• If a majority vote Non and all nominate the same person, that person takes over as Seneschal
• If a majority vote Non, and a majority of those nominate the same person, that person takes over as Seneschal (I feel a little weird introducing what is basically the Hastert Rule to the Cosa, but here we are)
• If a majority vote Non, whoever wins a plurality of their nominations becomes Seneschal

That last one feels sub-optimal, but it's the only one of these three that doesn't lead to a situation where a VoC returns "Non" but the Seneschal isn't automatically removed. The first two would maybe just lead to a shuffling of coalitions if possible? If nothing else "hey, the Government lost a Vote of Confidence" would likely touch off negotiations to form a new one, even if it's just by using the same "majority petition process" we use now.

Quote from: Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN on July 31, 2024, 11:23:07 AM

Quote from: Sir Lüc on July 31, 2024, 11:05:23 AM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on July 31, 2024, 09:09:36 AMOpen Society proposed a draft bill based on a previous effort by mpf (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?action=profile;u=41) concerning annual elections. We think that longer Cosa terms with a larger Civil Service to support would open up space for a flowering of non-political activity. Talossa has plenty of opportunities for politicians and political scientists. 9-10 month long Cosa terms and fixed election dates.

I have long mulled something similar to this, mostly because I feel six Clarks is really not a lot if you want to get stuff done without significant pressure from deadlines and time constraints - for instance, failing to get your bill on a Clark is less of an issue when you have more time to work with to begin with. There's also the practicality angle, since lots of cultural events and financial deadlines are either yearly or tied to election timing, and yearly-fixed election dates would help with planning and scheduling.

One major issue would be that we presently adopt a parliamentary system where a term of the Ziu may effectively be cut short for any number of reasons (usually, but not exclusively, loss of Confidence). But I feel this might be addressed in two ways:

- Removing the requirement to hold a VoC every month, and instead requiring a certain number of MCs to sponsor and Clark a resolution stating the Cosă has no confidence in the Government;

- Removing the requirement to dissolve the Cosă when Confidence is lost, and instead allowing the King to inquire with party leaders whether a caretaker Government can be formed. (Or indeed, whether the same government can be reappointed if the King ascertains that the loss of Confidence is due to a temporary justified absence of an MC.)

 I would be against removing the monthly Vote of Confidence (VoC) requirement because of the way the Clark system works. It would take far too long for a VoC to be voted on and passed in the manner you suggest. For example, say the Government does something on the 1st of August that results in the majority of the Cosa losing confidence in said Government. With this suggestion, it would be no sooner than the 21st of September before the Government could be removed from office—far too long by Talossan standards. With a VoC on the Clark every month, it allows for a quick response to confidence in the Government. If a resolution of no confidence in the Government could be tabled and voted on without being in the Clark, it would address this concern.

That is a great point. It would be great to have a way to vote on extra-Clark motions - the Senate did it a bunch of times while I was Mençei - but I'm doubtful the activity levels of presiding officers and members could sustain it enough to justify codifying it into law.

We could just abolish the Clark system altogether and the Ziu (and/or the houses thereof) just schedule their votes how and when they want. Now that's a radical reform.

Speaking of OrgLaw reform, does anyone know when the latest referenda from the election will be scribed? Who is the scribe?

@Bentxamì Puntmasleu

Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on August 01, 2024, 08:19:50 PMSpeaking of OrgLaw reform, does anyone know when the latest referenda from the election will be scribed? Who is the scribe?

That would be @Bentxamì Puntmasleu . You can always find out who's who on the Seneschal's List (https://wiki.talossa.com/The_Senesch%C3%A1l's_List#Scribery_of_Abbavilla).

You'd think I would know that. Thanks!

I'm 100% opposed to lengthening the term of the Cosă. I get Lüc's point about the ability for long-term planning but that's an argument for putting more responsibility on the Civil Service, as per FreeDem policy. Frequent elections are the periodic "juice" of Talossan culture, and we would grow somnolent without them.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on August 11, 2024, 02:49:27 AMI'm 100% opposed to lengthening the term of the Cosă. I get Lüc's point about the ability for long-term planning but that's an argument for putting more responsibility on the Civil Service, as per FreeDem policy. Frequent elections are the periodic "juice" of Talossan culture, and we would grow somnolent without them.

This seems like an argument to find other "juices." It is not a sign of health that Talossa needs frequent elections to jolt its cultural activity.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on August 11, 2024, 07:53:27 AM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on August 11, 2024, 02:49:27 AMI'm 100% opposed to lengthening the term of the Cosă. I get Lüc's point about the ability for long-term planning but that's an argument for putting more responsibility on the Civil Service, as per FreeDem policy. Frequent elections are the periodic "juice" of Talossan culture, and we would grow somnolent without them.

This seems like an argument to find other "juices." It is not a sign of health that Talossa needs frequent elections to jolt its cultural activity.

I strongly disagree. You are essentially trying to argue that people's preferences should be different than what they are, and while that may or may not be true, de gustibus non est disputandum

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on August 11, 2024, 01:13:12 PM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on August 11, 2024, 07:53:27 AM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on August 11, 2024, 02:49:27 AMI'm 100% opposed to lengthening the term of the Cosă. I get Lüc's point about the ability for long-term planning but that's an argument for putting more responsibility on the Civil Service, as per FreeDem policy. Frequent elections are the periodic "juice" of Talossan culture, and we would grow somnolent without them.

This seems like an argument to find other "juices." It is not a sign of health that Talossa needs frequent elections to jolt its cultural activity.

I strongly disagree. You are essentially trying to argue that people's preferences should be different than what they are, and while that may or may not be true, de gustibus non est disputandum

I am participating in a discussion now on whether it is healthy to have a culture based on frequent elections. As I've said before, we have no shortage of politicians and political scientists which is why we now have people arguing that frequent elections and campaigning are a part of "our culture." Miestra will not be hurt by a longer period between elections (or fixed election dates) as there will be no decrease in avenues for political activity. But we need to open up space (and time) for the growth of apolitical activity and if we are constantly dropping it all for campaigning and electioneering then we end up with "incessant politicking as culture."

The frequency is an issue if our goal is to create space for apolitical activity.

@mpf Quick note here, I based the draft bill in the Hopper on your past proposal. I wanted to check if you still support that initiative.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on August 11, 2024, 01:30:57 PMThe frequency is an issue if our goal is to create space for apolitical activity.

There is space more than enough already. The months in between elections are wide open.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on July 30, 2024, 06:32:47 PM(Yes, I'm aware of what that implies about the FreeDems' persistent Senäts majority. All the more reason why opposition parties should be keen on what I am about to suggest, lol.)

Points for admitting this, Miestra. The Senats current activity level reinforces my own unicameralist views.
I will leave longer Cosa terms for the next election. There has, however, been some discussion on fixed election dates and the ability for votes of confidence outside of the monthly clark. I would also support the removal entirely of clarks, as Miestra suggested. And Sir Luc's (?)idea for the King to consult with party leaders for a new government without immediately going to an election after a loss of confidence.

I would also suggest we create some mechanism, if it does not yet exist, to register parties outside of the election process.

Also, seriously @King John

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on August 07, 2024, 11:03:22 PMI hoped to be making this statement in celebration of the nomination of the Heir to the Throne, as promised by His Majesty Ián I Lupul lo these many months ago (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=3216.0). Rumour has it that this is coming soon. Rumour has it even that the nomination speech is written. I have no idea why it has not been produced yet. I have no idea because the King does not talk to me, and has not talked to me in a long time. This is a symptom of exactly why we need a new King, and why we've been struggling for years to reach the point of getting one.

When will the Ziu be receiving your nomination of a successor?

Speaking of the King, as to increasing the span of apolitical activity (inc. the Royal Civil Service), dare I say that this should be part of the Head of State's job description? As opposed to, I don't know, just vetoing everything that threatens his ego.

Another thing that's bugged me for a little while; even if there is not room to downgrade Royal powers, I would offer a deal such as: the King regains the right to name the Seneschal in return for giving up his legislative and especially his OrgLaw veto. I would prefer a system as in Ireland, where the Head of State is entitled to ask the CpI for an opinion as to whether a bill is inOrganic, or so badly written that it won't do what it says, and to veto it (with no override) if the answer is yes.

I have updated the OP with a link to a document summing up the discussion so far. Viewers can add comments, if you wish to do so.

From what I'm seeing it looks like most of our attention has focused on reforms to both houses of the Ziu, so it seems to me that would be the best place for us to start refining our efforts further. Not sure if any polling would be appropriate; I know Dama Litz suggested a referendum on the future of the Senäts, but I'm not sure we're quit to the point of referenda yet.

Also, if you see anything not mentioned in the document that you've brought up in some other thread, repost it here for visibility's sake.

Excellent summary of discussions to date.

In answer to the editor's note:
The ability to register outside of an election period allows for activity by parties not in existence during the last election. I've observed official actions being based on party registration (as of) the last election but there is no scheme currently for party registration outside of the election. It is common practice in macronations for parties to have the ability to register without need for waiting until the next election period and I can't see a downside, other than the self-interest of the existing parties to prevent it here. I say this as the leader of one of those existing parties.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on August 13, 2024, 06:36:41 AMIn answer to the editor's note:
The ability to register outside of an election period allows for activity by parties not in existence during the last election. I've observed official actions being based on party registration (as of) the last election but there is no scheme currently for party registration outside of the election. It is common practice in macronations for parties to have the ability to register without need for waiting until the next election period and I can't see a downside, other than the self-interest of the existing parties to prevent it here. I say this as the leader of one of those existing parties.

Which official actions are you talking about? I don't see any reason why one cannot simply claim to have started a new party whenever they want, if they wish to start recruiting or publicizing themselves or what have you. The only time where this registration really seems to matter is at election time anyway -- between then, the procedure appears to basically be "do whatever".

I'm not saying this shouldn't be allowed, for reference, I'm just trying to understand your argument for what benefit it would confer.

Here is the relevant section of OrgLaw:

QuoteArticle IV Section 2.3: Only registered political parties may obtain party seats. Parties which win votes but are not registered may not assume their seats in the Cosa until they register. The process to register a party shall be defined by law. The Secretary of State may request from all parties a registration fee, to be set by law, to cover the cost of the election. This fee shall be uniform for all parties.

So far as I am aware, the only "official actions" taken by the Chancery are in relation to seats in the Cosa. Are you advocating @Breneir Tzaracomprada that at any time during the Cosa, a new party should be allowed to register and claim seats despite having won none of them during an election?

Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on August 13, 2024, 09:57:54 AMHere is the relevant section of OrgLaw:

QuoteArticle IV Section 2.3: Only registered political parties may obtain party seats. Parties which win votes but are not registered may not assume their seats in the Cosa until they register. The process to register a party shall be defined by law. The Secretary of State may request from all parties a registration fee, to be set by law, to cover the cost of the election. This fee shall be uniform for all parties.

So far as I am aware, the only "official actions" taken by the Chancery are in relation to seats in the Cosa. Are you advocating @Breneir Tzaracomprada that at any time during the Cosa, a new party should be allowed to register and claim seats despite having won none of them during an election?

Yes. The party would not be able to claim seats but if the MC of an existing party decides to "cross the floor." then it is fine as the individual MC owns the seats according to our current approach.

As far as an official action, I believe you applied this standard to the ability to create party forums, Txec.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on August 13, 2024, 09:27:46 AM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on August 13, 2024, 06:36:41 AMIn answer to the editor's note:
The ability to register outside of an election period allows for activity by parties not in existence during the last election. I've observed official actions being based on party registration (as of) the last election but there is no scheme currently for party registration outside of the election. It is common practice in macronations for parties to have the ability to register without need for waiting until the next election period and I can't see a downside, other than the self-interest of the existing parties to prevent it here. I say this as the leader of one of those existing parties.

Which official actions are you talking about? I don't see any reason why one cannot simply claim to have started a new party whenever they want, if they wish to start recruiting or publicizing themselves or what have you. The only time where this registration really seems to matter is at election time anyway -- between then, the procedure appears to basically be "do whatever".

I'm not saying this shouldn't be allowed, for reference, I'm just trying to understand your argument for what benefit it would confer.

Party forums on Witt has been one area where registration has been the limiting factor for action. If we apply this same standard to other abilities for parties between elections then we have a clear benefit for parties to be able to register, no? Do whatever certainly does not appear to be an accurate portrayal though.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on August 13, 2024, 10:32:18 AMAs far as an official action, I believe you applied this standard to the ability to create party forums, Txec.

To be fair, I don't even recall if any party has formed during my time in the Chancery and has ever requested a party forum board.

Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on August 13, 2024, 11:11:03 AM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on August 13, 2024, 10:32:18 AMAs far as an official action, I believe you applied this standard to the ability to create party forums, Txec.

To be fair, I don't even recall if any party has formed during my time in the Chancery and has ever requested a party forum board.

We may be thinking of different things but I am referring to the boards created for the FreeDems, TNC, COFFEE, PdR, and Open Society

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on August 13, 2024, 11:28:48 AM

Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on August 13, 2024, 11:11:03 AM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on August 13, 2024, 10:32:18 AMAs far as an official action, I believe you applied this standard to the ability to create party forums, Txec.

To be fair, I don't even recall if any party has formed during my time in the Chancery and has ever requested a party forum board.

We may be thinking of different things but I am referring to the boards created for the FreeDems, TNC, COFFEE, PdR, and Open Society

Please show me where any other non-election party has requested a board be created. I don't see how this can be a problem you showcase when, to the best of my memory, it has never even occurred.

Also, upon re-reading, I meant to say that I was referring to any party created outside an election period. I obviously know about the boards created for registered parties.

Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on August 13, 2024, 12:45:14 PM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on August 13, 2024, 11:28:48 AM

Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on August 13, 2024, 11:11:03 AM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on August 13, 2024, 10:32:18 AMAs far as an official action, I believe you applied this standard to the ability to create party forums, Txec.

To be fair, I don't even recall if any party has formed during my time in the Chancery and has ever requested a party forum board.

We may be thinking of different things but I am referring to the boards created for the FreeDems, TNC, COFFEE, PdR, and Open Society

Also, upon re-reading, I meant to say that I was referring to any party created outside an election period. I obviously know about the boards created for registered parties.

I answered what you wrote, Txec. Now that you have confirmed that what you wrote and what you meant are at odds I will answer that.

There is no example which is why I said it is a benefit of registration which is currently only allowed during election periods. So far no one has given a reason WHY NOT to do this.

Gotcha. I was just curious what you meant. Thanks.

Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on August 13, 2024, 02:14:00 PMGotcha. I was just curious what you meant. Thanks.

Should I be calling you King Txec, yet? <3

QuoteShould I be calling you King Txec, yet? <3

As the king has not yet made his nomination announcement, that would be premature. :-)

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on August 13, 2024, 10:32:18 AMYes. The party would not be able to claim seats but if the MC of an existing party decides to "cross the floor." then it is fine as the individual MC owns the seats according to our current approach.

As far as an official action, I believe you applied this standard to the ability to create party forums, Txec.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on August 13, 2024, 10:36:20 AMParty forums on Witt has been one area where registration has been the limiting factor for action. If we apply this same standard to other abilities for parties between elections then we have a clear benefit for parties to be able to register, no?

Ok, I see what you're saying. When we talk about "registering parties", I interpret that as "founding a party". You mean it instead as "having the party recognized by the Chancery". You're advocating we have a concrete way to recognize new parties as having parliamentary representation should a member of an existing parliamentary party wish to break off and join their own. Do I understand you correctly?

While the precedent is that individual MCs own their seats, should this new party's MC resign (or be removed due to inactivity), the seats they hold would still return to the original party, correct? Does Lex.B.7 sufficiently cover what to do if no party can really claim to be "the original party"? (For example, if instead of a splinter group, there's a full-on dissolution.)

Should be fairly easy to reverse the process described in Lex.B.8.2 for partisan mergers.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on August 13, 2024, 03:28:32 PMOk, I see what you're saying. When we talk about "registering parties", I interpret that as "founding a party". You mean it instead as "having the party recognized by the Chancery". You're advocating we have a concrete way to recognize new parties as having parliamentary representation should a member of an existing parliamentary party wish to break off and join their own. Do I understand you correctly?

Yes, that is correct. I have meant registration as the process implemented by the Chancery at the national level. To the best of my knowledge there is no way other than the merging with pre-existing parties for new parties to be recognized between elections.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on August 13, 2024, 03:28:32 PMWhile the precedent is that individual MCs own their seats, should this new party's MC resign (or be removed due to inactivity), the seats they hold would still return to the original party, correct? Does Lex.B.7 sufficiently cover what to do if no party can really claim to be "the original party"? (For example, if instead of a splinter group, there's a full-on dissolution.)

Yes, that is correct. The precedent is that the MC owns the seats until they resign from the Cosa or are removed due to inactivity. I think Section B. 8 would be the area to include some ability for the Secretary of State to process registrations outside of the election period.

Since discussion has died down, I think we might be close to choosing *some* of the most popular suggestions to go into the Hopper for more concrete discussion.

Biggest problem I can see is that a unicameral system will, as far as I can see, require rewriting the whole OrgLaw?

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on August 01, 2024, 05:49:31 PMWe could just abolish the Clark system altogether and the Ziu (and/or the houses thereof) just schedule their votes how and when they want. Now that's a radical reform.

<faints>