Wittenberg

As part of the Government's commitment to revitalize and improve the structure of our state apparatus, we have thus far held a discussion (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=3434.0) in which many valuable ideas were submitted, discussed, and initially refined. The next step is to allow, as per the Avant! coalition agreement, "each party [to] promote its own preferences." To that end, I submit the Reform Plan (in that it is the proposal of the Reform Party, not the definitive roadmap for reform -- cf. the Virginia Plan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Plan), the New Jersey Plan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_Plan), etc.) Keep in mind of course that this is not a concrete legislative proposal -- we need to know what the goal is in order to know what legal changes must be proposed, after all!

The main points of the plan can be found here (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sZtyOGebcsfHWQzjpa2KxqOLa0DZErVrKPkU99aO55Y/pub).

For a bit more detail:
Crown Reform:

• The Crown and Ziu execute a bit of power-swapping arrangement.
• The King regains the right to appoint a Seneschal after consultations with the various party leaders in the Cosa, but it also becomes easier for the Cosa to override a royal veto.
• The royal veto on Organic amendments is eliminated, simplifying the process and ensuring vital amendments are not logjammed by a single individual.

Ziu Reform:

• The Senäts is abolished with the general election following ratification of the relevant Organic amendment.
• Because Senators pay to serve in the Senäts, and in doing so directly contribute to the upkeep of our nation (web presence etc), I believe it unfair to strip them of something before they have gotten that which they pay for. As a result, I believe it necessary to "grandfather" in Senators to Cosa membership for the remainder of their Senatorial term -- effectively making this somewhat of a "merger" as opposed to an "abolition". There are two ways to do this that I foresee, which I will go into more detail below.
• Option 1: Biproportional Representation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biproportional_apportionment):
  • As a means of retaining a form of "provincial representation" despite a lack of Senäts, the Cosa is now elected using electoral districts (which for the sake of ease are coterminous with provinces). (I should point out here that this practice is actually fairly common, very few proportional-representation legislatures use the entire country as a single electoral district.)
  • Seats are apportioned among each province based on how many votes were cast from that province in the previous election. This is meant to be equivalent to "apportionment by population", but renders useless any attempts to "gerrymander" catchment areas. It also is useful as a tool to both encourage and reward activity.
  • Parties are awarded seats within a given province based on their proportion of votes within that province (these seats do not necessarily need to be assigned to an MC from that province).
  • Any seats that cannot be assigned to a single party (for example, if one province has two seats left to be apportioned and three parties equally deserving) are awarded at the national level via a "topping-off" once all provincial seats possible are awarded. This method takes all provincial seats into account as well as the nationwide proportional vote.
  • The apportionment of seats to provinces and the awarding of seats to parties (both at the provincial level and the nationwide "topping-off" stage) is all accomplished via the Webster method (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sainte-Lagu%C3%AB_method).
  • In this case, incumbent Senators at the time of the Senäts' dissolution (of which there would be five) are automatically assigned half of their respective province's seats for each election during the remainder of what would have been their current Senatorial term. Should any of these ex-Senators appear on a party's list (with their consent) during such an election, their automatic seat assignment will count towards that party's seats in that province instead.
• Option 2: Retain a Single District:
  • The Cosa remains elected on a purely nationwide basis, but the Webster method is still adopted. This maintains a very proportionate outcome in terms of seats awarded to each party, but also abolishes the "percentile dice" system currently in place for something that uses straightforward mathematical rule as opposed to pseudo-random number generation.
  • In this case, incumbent Senators could be granted some equal number of Cosa seats (perhaps 10 each?) outside of the 200 seats normally elected. In other words, this would see the Cosa increase from 200 to 250 at the Senäts' dissolution, shrink to 220 at the next election after that, and then return to 200 seats starting with the election after that. Ex-Senators may still be assigned party seats, but are of course subject to the same limit as every other MC on the number of seats an individual MC may hold, and these additional seats count towards that limit.

A Fixed Legislative Schedule:

• Elections now occur annually from January 15 - February 1.
• This increases the length of a Cosa term from six Clarks to nine. Namely, March through November, with December kept clear for the sake of the Chancery (preventing too much overlap between holidays and election prep work).
• The Seneschal may still issue a single month of recess per Cosa term, but this no longer pushes back subsequent Clarks (in other words, this Cosa will instead have eight Clarks instead of nine). This aligns with the preceding point of keeping December clear.
• Because elections are now fixed, a Vote of Confidence is no longer capable of calling a new election. As a result, VoCs now become "constructive" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_vote_of_no_confidence) -- MCs voting Non are asked to provide a replacement candidate for Seneschal, who, upon review by the King and consultation with party leaders, can name a new Seneschal should a VoC fail (as per their restored power to do so anyway).

Other Reforms:

• MCs may petition the Chancery for official recognition / "parliamentary status" for a new party in the middle of a Cosa term.
  • Each MC who defects from their original party forfeits half of their personally-assigned seats to do so (which, as all their seats do, return to the original party).
  • Each MC may not defect more than once per Cosa term.
• A convention / commission / panel / what-have-you will examine, in a coordinated manner, the best possible paths to reduce the number of provinces. Individual provinces are strongly encouraged to heed their recommendations.

I would just re-iterate that this is not the consensus plan of the Cabinet, nor a preferred one; but one from which we can start open discussion and perhaps submit a formal proposal this Cosa.

I'm not personally in favour of a year-long Cosă term, since - as I've previously noted - Talossa only "comes alive" in election seasons. The specific amendments to the electoral system seem over-the-top and complicated to me. However, I think the "King/Ziu power swap" proposal has something to recommend it, and I'm in favour of unicameralism/an MMP Cosă if it can be done with minimal fuss.

I encourage other input.

I am reviewing and will have comments within the a day or two. There are several elements which Open Society ran on in the PdR proposal so initial impressions are positive.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 23, 2024, 08:23:03 PM[...] and I'm in favour of unicameralism/an MMP Cosă if it can be done with minimal fuss.

I think we've discussed in the past that my own sympathies are with MMP, however I went with the current system for two reasons:
- It would actually appear easier to implement than an MMP Cosa, and
- Given the potential for outcomes that are notably more disproportionate than either the current method or the proposal, it seemed to be a more difficult method to gain support for.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on September 23, 2024, 02:34:07 AMA Fixed Legislative Schedule:

• Elections now occur annually from January 15 - February 1.
• This increases the length of a Cosa term from six Clarks to nine. Namely, March through November, with December kept clear for the sake of the Chancery (preventing too much overlap between holidays and election prep work).
• The Seneschal may still issue a single month of recess per Cosa term, but this no longer pushes back subsequent Clarks (in other words, this Cosa will instead have eight Clarks instead of nine). This aligns with the preceding point of keeping December clear.
• Because elections are now fixed, a Vote of Confidence is no longer capable of calling a new election. As a result, VoCs now become "constructive" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_vote_of_no_confidence) -- MCs voting Non are asked to provide a replacement candidate for Seneschal, who, upon review by the King and consultation with party leaders, can name a new Seneschal should a VoC fail (as per their restored power to do so anyway).

Open Society is pretty much completely in support of this section. Annual elections was a part of the party's last election program. We do not believe it is sign of good cultural health to use elections as a way to gin-up societal activities. If we want to increase the space for apolitical Talossans then we need to actually increase the time between elections. And we have supported constructive VoCs during earlier reform discussions.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on September 23, 2024, 02:34:07 AMMCs may petition the Chancery for official recognition / "parliamentary status" for a new party in the middle of a Cosa term.

• Each MC who defects from their original party forfeits half of their personally-assigned seats to do so (which, as all their seats do, return to the original party).
• Each MC may not defect more than once per Cosa term.

For goodness sakes, yes.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on September 23, 2024, 02:34:07 AMA convention / commission / panel / what-have-you will examine, in a coordinated manner, the best possible paths to reduce the number of provinces. Individual provinces are strongly encouraged to heed their recommendations.

I would suggest that this should also be applied to questions of Cosa reform. "Big-pants" countries have put electoral reform to a referendum. I believe this occurred for MMP in New Zealand in the 1990s and again in the 2010s?

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on September 23, 2024, 02:34:07 AMThe Senäts is abolished with the general election following ratification of the relevant Organic amendment.

With the current FreeDems composition of the Senats you are NEVER going to get them to support this. Open Society gives it a thumbs up though.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on September 23, 2024, 02:34:07 AMThe royal veto on Organic amendments is eliminated, simplifying the process and ensuring vital amendments are not logjammed by a single individual.

Long-term whether we have a president or a king, Open Society supports the preservation of some reserve powers for the head of state, with the stipulation that their use is limited, to extraordinary circumstances.

Notes for potential addition:

-(CRL Abolition) Luc has made an important point concerning the CRL. The Scribery or some other body would be a more elegant solution to the problem the CRL was proposed to solve.
-(Mandatory Live Cosa Session) We really need to make better use of technology to connect. In combination with longer parliamentary terms we should have one live session (during the middle of the term perhaps) where we actually have direct terpelaziuns and ministerial reports. Let's be honest it is fun and notable when we actually get to see one another even if we nurture dislike of the words we see from each other.
-(No Directorate?!) Color me shocked there is no suggestion for a directorial republic.

One more note:
I am highly amused by the "King? No, thank you" logo.

The great problem I see in the current iteration of the Senäts is too much power being vested in too few people.  If I understand things aright, no more than four people can bork the will of the Cosâ, the other half of the Senäts, and the Monarch.

Even with a FREEDEM majority in the Senäts, this is a dangerous state of affairs.  Yet, we do not have enough of a potential pool of candidates to make having two persons per province in the Senäts be practical, and we absolutely do *not* want people to serve in both Cosâ and Senäts concurrently. 

Ergo, so long as there can still be people to specifically represent the interests of their province, the idea of abolishing the Senäts - at least for the time being - has my cautious support so long as the new Senäts-less plan (whatever it might be) is actually workable.

If at all possible, we should set up computer-systems to simulate elections with whatever MMP-Cosâ we can dream up.  I'm no good with such things, but this is 2024, and putting things together like this has honestly never been easier.  In fact, I urge the Powers-that-Be to strongly consider digital simulations of such new-Cosâ setups.

It's hard to believe, but it it's true: we are three years removed from the fortieth anniversary of the publication of the first Clark.  It is even harder to believe the records for each and every Clark (minus text for some bills in the early years, I think) have been preserved.

GV, Senator for Fiova

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on September 24, 2024, 11:41:52 PM

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on September 23, 2024, 02:34:07 AMMCs may petition the Chancery for official recognition / "parliamentary status" for a new party in the middle of a Cosa term.

• Each MC who defects from their original party forfeits half of their personally-assigned seats to do so (which, as all their seats do, return to the original party).
• Each MC may not defect more than once per Cosa term.

For goodness sakes, yes.

I thought these limitations on your suggestion were reasonable to prevent abuse while still respecting MCs' freedom of association. Glad to see you agree!

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on September 24, 2024, 11:41:52 PMI would suggest that this should also be applied to questions of Cosa reform. "Big-pants" countries have put electoral reform to a referendum. I believe this occurred for MMP in New Zealand in the 1990s and again in the 2010s?

I had been referring to a commission for provincial reform, but it sounds like you're talking about a referendum. I'm not opposed to a "Cosa Reform Commission", but at some point we just get caught in an endless loop of "X has been referred to the Sub-Committee on the So-and-so".

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on September 24, 2024, 11:41:52 PMWith the current FreeDems composition of the Senats you are NEVER going to get them to support this. Open Society gives it a thumbs up though.

This feels a little uncharitable, given Miestra herself has supported unicameralism but last month. (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?msg=28687)

Also, given the "merging" in of incumbent Senators, that would further help to soften the impact.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on September 24, 2024, 11:41:52 PMLong-term whether we have a president or a king, Open Society supports the preservation of some reserve powers for the head of state, with the stipulation that their use is limited, to extraordinary circumstances.

Do I understand correctly that you are in favor of keeping said royal Organic veto?

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on September 24, 2024, 11:41:52 PMNotes for potential addition:

-(CRL Abolition) Luc has made an important point concerning the CRL. The Scribery or some other body would be a more elegant solution to the problem the CRL was proposed to solve.
-(Mandatory Live Cosa Session) We really need to make better use of technology to connect. In combination with longer parliamentary terms we should have one live session (during the middle of the term perhaps) where we actually have direct terpelaziuns and ministerial reports. Let's be honest it is fun and notable when we actually get to see one another even if we nurture dislike of the words we see from each other.

Both fine points, and things I support, but I felt they were outside the scope of this proposal.

Quote-(No Directorate?!) Color me shocked there is no suggestion for a directorial republic.

Soon (TM)

QuoteOne more note:
I am highly amused by the "King? No, thank you" logo.

The Smiling Sun is ripe for parody. It seemed a natural fit.

Quote from: GV on September 25, 2024, 12:31:48 AMIf at all possible, we should set up computer-systems to simulate elections with whatever MMP-Cosâ we can dream up.  I'm no good with such things, but this is 2024, and putting things together like this has honestly never been easier.  In fact, I urge the Powers-that-Be to strongly consider digital simulations of such new-Cosâ setups.

Well, as you can see, I've already simulated the outcome of the "Biproportional Representation" system, in the linked document in the OP. I ran the numbers on an MMP system here quick this morning, in three different variations. (see attached)

• Provinces are assigned an equal number of seats such that the total number of provincial seats does not exceed half the nominal size of the Cosa -- with 8 provinces, this means 12 seats per province for 96 / 200 seats.
• The remaining 104 are distributed proportionately between parties using the Webster method still for sake of continuity.
• I re-used the assumptions on how each province voted from the methods I discussed above.
• Provincial seats were elected using first-past-the-post, since I have no real way of judging how a ranked-choice election would have gone (I did use my best judgement in a sort of "ranked-choice" election since one province did have a tie).
• The first result caps the number of Cosa seats at 200. This has the potential to result in "overhang seats", which are those provincial seats which exceed the proportion of seats the party would be entitled to on the list vote. The FreeDems won 4 such seats.
• The second result increases the size of the Cosa beyond its nominal size by the number of overhang seats. This ensures that every party receives its proportion of the nominal size, while also not taking away from the parties that do very well in provinces. With four overhang seats, this results in a 204-seat Cosa.
• The third result increases the size of the Cosa such that every party receives a proportionate number of seats -- the more overhang seats there are, the greater the size of the Cosa is likely to be. This is effectively just proportional representation with extra steps, and is my least-preferred of the three variations.

@Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP

QuoteThis feels a little uncharitable, given Miestra herself has supported unicameralism but last month.

Also, given the "merging" in of incumbent Senators, that would further help to soften the impact.

What one says publicly can be far different than the behind the scenes debates so I will wait to see what is actually supported by FreeDems concerning Senats abolition, Mic'haglh. We had to have a secret committee last Cosa to allow for frank discussion on a nonpartisan Chancery so I'm skeptical.

Yes, I support retaining a veto.

A general question. Do we know when the FreeDems and COFFEE proposals are expected?

There's a lot here that's worrying, but also some good ideas.

More predictable elections, for example, might be a good thing... but not by making them so less frequent.  Talossans love elections.  They're the time people are most interested in Talossa.  If we have fewer elections, it won't magically force people to learn the language or start a newspaper... they'll just be less interested in Talossa!

The Crown provision would just "trade" the current very weak veto for nothing, unless you're saying the king would have the power to pick any Seneschal they please -- and that'd be too much power for the monarch.

I'll wait to see more details on the Ziu reform, but a few notes:

-We already have barely any checks in our system to curtail a Government.  They have steadily vanished over the years.  This would eliminate yet another.  This is a serious problem.

-From the look of things, in Option 1 we'd expect Fiova to have as many seats as Maritiimi-Maxhestic and Florencia combined.  And Maricopa would have twice as many seats as Vuode.  That seems like a problem.  Likewise, it also seems like a problem that Option 2 gives no reason for anyone to care about Vuode's interests as a province.

-Senators do not own seats just because they paid a fee after their election.  Those seats belong to the people.  If you want to transition into this system, fine, but it's unwise to give any credence to the idea that they need to be compensated for their fee.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on September 25, 2024, 09:52:15 AMA general question. Do we know when the FreeDems and COFFEE proposals are expected?

The FreeDems aren't making any formal proposal, and I don't think COFFEE are either.  That's not how this is going to work, because the Coalition parties wanted this to debate to achieve broad social consensus, not a partisan numbers game.  But PdR had a plan, and we encouraged them to present it to start the debate. I've given my personal opinion.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on September 25, 2024, 09:29:22 AM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on September 24, 2024, 11:41:52 PMWith the current FreeDems composition of the Senats you are NEVER going to get them to support this. Open Society gives it a thumbs up though.

This feels a little uncharitable, given Miestra herself has supported unicameralism but last month. (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?msg=28687)

It's more than uncharitable. It's mean, and near to actual political disinformation.

Once again, I personally am pro-unicameral, because I am motivated by things other than partisan advantage.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 25, 2024, 02:46:03 PM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on September 25, 2024, 09:52:15 AMA general question. Do we know when the FreeDems and COFFEE proposals are expected?

The FreeDems aren't making any formal proposal, and I don't think COFFEE are either.  That's not how this is going to work, because the Coalition parties wanted this to debate to achieve broad social consensus, not a partisan numbers game.  But PdR had a plan, and we encouraged them to present it to start the debate. I've given my personal opinion.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on September 25, 2024, 09:29:22 AM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on September 24, 2024, 11:41:52 PMWith the current FreeDems composition of the Senats you are NEVER going to get them to support this. Open Society gives it a thumbs up though.

This feels a little uncharitable, given Miestra herself has supported unicameralism but last month. (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?msg=28687)

It's more than uncharitable. It's mean, and near to actual political disinformation.

Once again, I personally am pro-unicameral, because I am motivated by things other than partisan advantage.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 25, 2024, 02:46:03 PMadvantage

Now who is being "uncharitable?" I'll believe the FreeDems support Senats abolition when they propose it and make an effort to pass it. But please note I said "the FreeDems" not Miestra personally. I hope that distinction matters.

Looks like GV, a FreeDems senator, supports the abolition, which is surprising but I'm looking forward to seeing more COFFEE and FreeDems members chiming in on this if it is not a contribution based on internal coalition discussions.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on September 25, 2024, 10:59:02 AMMore predictable elections, for example, might be a good thing... but not by making them so less frequent.  Talossans love elections.  They're the time people are most interested in Talossa.  If we have fewer elections, it won't magically force people to learn the language or start a newspaper... they'll just be less interested in Talossa!

Given that predictability would imply a fixed schedule, is your solution then to increase the frequency of elections?

QuoteThe Crown provision would just "trade" the current very weak veto for nothing, unless you're saying the king would have the power to pick any Seneschal they please -- and that'd be too much power for the monarch.

A 2/3 threshold is in fact quite strong. Even the proposed threshold is not something the incumbent Government could overcome; no government since the Schiva III Cabinet (during the 55th Cosa) would have had those numbers. As a result, the override still requires opposition support outside of an overwhelming electoral mandate.
And yes, the idea was that the King would have discretion when appointing a Seneschal -- though that Seneschal would naturally need to survive votes of confidence.

QuoteWe already have barely any checks in our system to curtail a Government.  They have steadily vanished over the years.  This would eliminate yet another.  This is a serious problem.

The best solution would be to move to a model of government in which the executive and legislature are separated. Thankfully, we have a party dedicated to advocating for that.

QuoteFrom the look of things, in Option 1 we'd expect Fiova to have as many seats as Maritiimi-Maxhestic and Florencia combined.  And Maricopa would have twice as many seats as Vuode.

Yes, this is how apportionment by population works. The tradeoff is that this makes an individual voter in M-M more powerful when it comes to selecting who earns their province's seats.

QuoteLikewise, it also seems like a problem that Option 2 gives no reason for anyone to care about Vuode's interests as a province.

A fair concern, though as the Cosa is currently constructed, this is also the case. I will freely admit that Option 1 is my preferred of the two systems.

QuoteIf you want to transition into this system, fine, but it's unwise to give any credence to the idea that they need to be compensated for their fee.

I think it equally unwise to simply say "hey, we're pulling the rug out from underneath you now". This is a one-time, transitional measure, and is meant as a compromise and acknowledgement to incumbent Senators.

This last part isn't particularly directed at the Baron, but it is at least inspired by his feedback. If we were to move to an MMP Cosa, it may make it possible to hold "mid-term" elections, so to speak. I envision the yearly schedule looking a little something like this:

• January: Balloting begins for "Class A" seats (one-half of each province's seats, rounded up) along with all Party List seats (15th)
• February: Polls close (1st); Certification due (14th)
• March: First Clark (1st - 21st)
• April: Second Clark (1st - 21st)
• May: Third Clark (1st - 21st)
• June: Fourth Clark (1st - 21st); Balloting begins for "Class B" seats (one-half of each province's seats, rounded down) (along with all Party List seats?) (15th)
• July: Polls close (1st); Certification due (14th)
• August: Fifth Clark (1st - 21st)
• September: Sixth Clark (1st - 21st)
• October: Seventh Clark (1st - 21st)
• November: Eighth Clark (1st - 21st)
• December: No Clarks

Realistically what this actually does is make two "mini-Cosas" throughout the calendar year, but I'm trying to think outside the box if we are to follow his logic to its conclusion. This makes elections more frequent, yet still on a predictable schedule.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on September 25, 2024, 03:36:29 PMI'll believe the FreeDems support Senats abolition when they propose it and make an effort to pass it. But please note I said "the FreeDems" not Miestra personally...

Looks like GV, a FreeDems senator, supports the abolition, which is surprising ...

Do you even listen to yourself speak?

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on September 25, 2024, 04:42:06 PMIf we were to move to an MMP Cosa, it may make it possible to hold "mid-term" elections, so to speak.

Electing provincial seats separately from list seats would make it not MMP, but its much less proportional cousin Parallel Voting. Speaking strictly for myself, I would oppose such a system.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on September 25, 2024, 05:12:00 PM

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on September 25, 2024, 04:42:06 PMIf we were to move to an MMP Cosa, it may make it possible to hold "mid-term" elections, so to speak.

Electing provincial seats separately from list seats would make it not MMP, but its much less proportional cousin Parallel Voting. Speaking strictly for myself, I would oppose such a system.

True in general, but my country has "by-elections" when a Direktmandat becomes vacant. That sometimes messes up proportionality a bit, but *shrug*

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on September 25, 2024, 10:59:02 AM-We already have barely any checks in our system to curtail a Government.  They have steadily vanished over the years.  This would eliminate yet another.  This is a serious problem.

The United States has a reasonably unique political culture on a global level, in the sense that the horizon of liberal thought is that democracy and the rule of law are meant to stop the government doing things, rather than to enable the popular will to be expressed through government doing things. I agree with the Baron that elections are where Talossa comes alive, but I've never been happy with the argument that the best elections are where nothing changes and nothing happens except a different group of people get to "wear the funny hat" while doing nothing.

That said: my desire for unicameralism is not to remove roadblocks to Government power (why would it when my party has had a lock for the last few terms?), it's the Warm Bodies problem. Having a bicameral legislature requires too many citizens to operate, leading to the "drafting" of quasi-unwilling citizens who act as "lobby fodder". Also, the provinces as they stand have unequal numbers of politically committed citizens, meaning that barely-active incumbents can pretty much carry on in office forever. I want a legislature which has *competitive* elections and is composed of citizens who are keen to be there.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on September 25, 2024, 05:12:00 PM

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on September 25, 2024, 04:42:06 PMIf we were to move to an MMP Cosa, it may make it possible to hold "mid-term" elections, so to speak.

Electing provincial seats separately from list seats would make it not MMP, but its much less proportional cousin Parallel Voting. Speaking strictly for myself, I would oppose such a system.

I mean, if we were to also re-elect list seats at the mid-year election, it would qualify as MMP, no? At that point, provincial seats are provincial seats, regardless of whether they were up for election, because the party list seats will still even out the count as much as possible.

I'm not super-jazzed about this proposal either, since it really means that we have two Cosas per year of four Clarks each, but I was trying to find something to go along with AD's suggestion for frequent elections as a thought experiment if nothing else.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 25, 2024, 04:51:14 PM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on September 25, 2024, 03:36:29 PMI'll believe the FreeDems support Senats abolition when they propose it and make an effort to pass it. But please note I said "the FreeDems" not Miestra personally...

Looks like GV, a FreeDems senator, supports the abolition, which is surprising ...

Do you even listen to yourself speak?

Again, propose and pass it. Your personal beliefs I am hoping are not law even in the backrooms of the FreeDems debate lounge.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on September 25, 2024, 06:23:45 PM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 25, 2024, 04:51:14 PM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on September 25, 2024, 03:36:29 PMI'll believe the FreeDems support Senats abolition when they propose it and make an effort to pass it. But please note I said "the FreeDems" not Miestra personally...

Looks like GV, a FreeDems senator, supports the abolition, which is surprising ...

Do you even listen to yourself speak?

Again, propose and pass it. Your personal beliefs I am hoping are not law even in the backrooms of the FreeDems debate lounge.

When the FreeDems take a position as a caucus on something, it's anti-democratic behind-closed-doors rigged partisanship. When they don't, in favour of an open debate with a hopefully non-partisan conclusion, it's just as bad, for... reasons.

That reason being Brenéir's subjective hostility.

I would *recommend* listening to yourself speak.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 25, 2024, 06:44:49 PM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on September 25, 2024, 06:23:45 PM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 25, 2024, 04:51:14 PM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on September 25, 2024, 03:36:29 PMI'll believe the FreeDems support Senats abolition when they propose it and make an effort to pass it. But please note I said "the FreeDems" not Miestra personally...

Looks like GV, a FreeDems senator, supports the abolition, which is surprising ...

Do you even listen to yourself speak?

Again, propose and pass it. Your personal beliefs I am hoping are not law even in the backrooms of the FreeDems debate lounge.

When the FreeDems take a position as a caucus on something, it's anti-democratic behind-closed-doors rigged partisanship. When they don't, in favour of an open debate with a hopefully non-partisan conclusion, it's just as bad, for... reasons.

That reason being Brenéir's subjective hostility.

I would *recommend* listening to yourself speak.

Lol no, Miestra. I assume most hostility is subjective. In this case, however, I am skeptical, not hostile, based on my own experiences. It is, as you have frequently said, a matter of trust.

No, no, listen to yourself:

Quote from: Brenéir, probablyI support unicameralism.

Miestră, the FreeDems President, supports unicameralism.

A FreeDems Senator supports unicameralism.

No FreeDem has publicly opposed unicameralism.

CONCLUSION: the FreeDems are going to oppose unicameralism, because that's what I need to believe to make my subjective hostility make sense.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 25, 2024, 07:34:34 PMNo, no, listen to yourself:

Quote from: Brenéir, probablyI support unicameralism.

Miestră, the FreeDems President, supports unicameralism.

A FreeDems Senator supports unicameralism.

No FreeDem has publicly opposed unicameralism.

CONCLUSION: the FreeDems are going to oppose unicameralism, because that's what I need to believe to make my subjective hostility make sense.

Ok fine, I'll ask a subjectively hostile question. Are the FreeDems endorsing abolition of the Senats?

The FreeDems are not taking a position as a party on anything in this debate.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 25, 2024, 07:43:07 PMThe FreeDems are not taking a position as a party on anything in this debate.

So then that is a no, at the present moment. Why not just say no, Miestra? I said to Autofil that I was skeptical of the FreeDems supporting it. I did not mention you specifically, he did. I am skeptical your party will endorse it.

Quote from: Brenéir, probablyThe Free Democrats are a deeply undemocratic organization which operates in lockstep with whatever Miestră tells them to do. Except in this one case, where they will (as a party) do the opposite of Miestră's preference.

Because that's what I need to justify my subjective hostility.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on September 25, 2024, 08:06:27 PMSo then that is a no, at the present moment. Why not just say no, Miestra?

Hmmm.

(https://i.imgflip.com/94pj57.jpg)

There I said it.

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on September 25, 2024, 08:21:32 PM(https://i.imgflip.com/94pj57.jpg)

There I said it.

Lol, once again great memery from S:reu Plätschisch. Thanks.

Exactly as I said. The FreeDems have no party position on any facet of the PdR proposal.

The goal of this approach, agreed by Cabinet, is to create a single proposal for thorough-going Organic Law reforms. That is, a consensus document, rather than an up-and-down vote on any particular issue eg. unicameralism. Once the consensus document is established, the FreeDems may adopt a party line, or allow a free vote. So there will be no "vote on unicameralism" as a single issue, in this process anyway. The FreeDems will certainly not, as a party, block any proposal just because it would remove our current ability to direct all of Brenéir's sillier bills to the circular file, which I believe was the implication.

Senator Plätschisch and I disagree on several constitutional issues, and this right now is one of them. But it's quite rude to imply that his stance on unicameralism is either venal "job protection" or for partisan advantage, rather than a principled position, and that deserves an apology I think.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 25, 2024, 08:44:09 PMExactly as I said. The FreeDems have no party position on any facet of the PdR proposal.

The goal of this approach, agreed by Cabinet, is to create a single proposal for thorough-going Organic Law reforms. That is, a consensus document, rather than an up-and-down vote on any particular issue eg. unicameralism. Once the consensus document is established, the FreeDems may adopt a party line, or allow a free vote. So there will be no "vote on unicameralism" as a single issue, in this process anyway. The FreeDems will certainly not, as a party, block any proposal just because it would remove our current ability to direct all of Brenéir's sillier bills to the circular file, which I believe was the implication.

Senator Plätschisch and I disagree on several constitutional issues, and this right now is one of them. But it's quite rude to imply that his stance on unicameralism is either venal "job protection" or for partisan advantage, rather than a principled position, and that deserves an apology I think.

Yeah, a nonpartisan Chancery...so silly, Miestra. :)

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on September 25, 2024, 04:42:06 PMGiven that predictability would imply a fixed schedule, is your solution then to increase the frequency of elections?

Or put them on a two year-cycle, where the 24 months are divided up into three terms of eight months each.

Or don't meddle with this at all, really.  That'd be fine, too.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on September 25, 2024, 04:42:06 PM

QuoteThe Crown provision would just "trade" the current very weak veto for nothing, unless you're saying the king would have the power to pick any Seneschal they please -- and that'd be too much power for the monarch.

A 2/3 threshold is in fact quite strong. Even the proposed threshold is not something the incumbent Government could overcome; no government since the Schiva III Cabinet (during the 55th Cosa) would have had those numbers. As a result, the override still requires opposition support outside of an overwhelming electoral mandate.
And yes, the idea was that the King would have discretion when appointing a Seneschal -- though that Seneschal would naturally need to survive votes of confidence.

I just see no benefit here... the veto at least can serve a very good purpose as one of the remaining checks in our system -- or at least delays, since most often it's been overcome with a simple majority a few months later after an intervening election.  What benefit would it serve to let the king choose their preferred Seneschal?  It's not going to be a more stable choice than the party itself would make.  And while I guess they could support a favorite who could cobble together a majority from different parties, that just would make that seneschal a creature of the king and mess with the separation there... 

Can you explain what benefit Talossa might derive from this change?  To me, it appears to be a power that is actually designed never to be used, which would make this just a severe new reduction in the few remaining royal powers and checks in our system.  But maybe there'd be a benefit here that I'm just not seeing.  Can you describe a scenario where you think it'd be good to have the king exercise this discretion?

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on September 25, 2024, 04:42:06 PM

QuoteWe already have barely any checks in our system to curtail a Government.  They have steadily vanished over the years.  This would eliminate yet another.  This is a serious problem.

The best solution would be to move to a model of government in which the executive and legislature are separated. Thankfully, we have a party dedicated to advocating for that.

I'm not sure that's a good defense of this bill, lol.  If there's another essential component that would replace the elements you propose to remove, maybe add it in here?

If you're doing renovations on my house, and want to knock out a load-bearing wall, you're going to cause problems.  Even if you plan on doing more work next year to add in a new wall somewhere else, that's not going to help the plan right now.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on September 25, 2024, 04:42:06 PM

QuoteIf you want to transition into this system, fine, but it's unwise to give any credence to the idea that they need to be compensated for their fee.

I think it equally unwise to simply say "hey, we're pulling the rug out from underneath you now". This is a one-time, transitional measure, and is meant as a compromise and acknowledgement to incumbent Senators.

Oh, you might need it politically as a sop for them, for sure.  But I just wanted to speak up against the idea that they own their seats.  They don't.  They belong to the citizens of Talossa, through and through.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 25, 2024, 05:26:51 PMThat said: my desire for unicameralism is not to remove roadblocks to Government power (why would it when my party has had a lock for the last few terms?), it's the Warm Bodies problem. Having a bicameral legislature requires too many citizens to operate, leading to the "drafting" of quasi-unwilling citizens who act as "lobby fodder". Also, the provinces as they stand have unequal numbers of politically committed citizens, meaning that barely-active incumbents can pretty much carry on in office forever. I want a legislature which has *competitive* elections and is composed of citizens who are keen to be there.

Which members of the Ziu are "quasi-unwilling citizens" who act as "lobby fodder?"

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on September 25, 2024, 11:07:21 PM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 25, 2024, 05:26:51 PMThat said: my desire for unicameralism is not to remove roadblocks to Government power (why would it when my party has had a lock for the last few terms?), it's the Warm Bodies problem. Having a bicameral legislature requires too many citizens to operate, leading to the "drafting" of quasi-unwilling citizens who act as "lobby fodder". Also, the provinces as they stand have unequal numbers of politically committed citizens, meaning that barely-active incumbents can pretty much carry on in office forever. I want a legislature which has *competitive* elections and is composed of citizens who are keen to be there.

Which members of the Ziu are "quasi-unwilling citizens" who act as "lobby fodder?"

Actually, never mind, don't answer this.  It's only going to lead to ill-will.  But I am just not sure that we have a lot of this.  Looking at the Ziu, I see a number of people who are very quiet but nonetheless work as they're supposed to, even if they're a "back-bencher" who mostly goes with the party (trust me, not a phenomenon isolated to Talossa... there are members of the American Congress who had their last original thought in the eighties).

But let's look at the numbers.  Right now, a party usually needs maybe four or five "warm bodies," unless I'm crazy.  "No person shall hold more seats in the Cosă than ten times the total number of seats in the Cosă divided by the number of ballots cast for the Cosa"... the current maximum seat count for one person is 2000/95, or 21.  So sufficient seats for control of the Cosa can be held by just five people.

That seems pretty reasonable, but if we want to change the formula so you can control the Cosa with only three MCs, then that seems like a much better way to solve the "warm bodies" problem than upending our entire legislative system.  It's not even a OrgLaw provision, so it could be changed in a month.

Now, I guess the Senats might add on to those numbers, but I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that a party find at least one person in a province to represent that province.  If a party is so regionalized that it only has supporters in a couple of provinces, then that's a real reflection of that party's level of support, right?  That's a benefit and a feature... that's what the whole thing is for!

With respect, the above isn't a defence of bicameralism, it's a defence of a Big Ziu. You could make exactly the same argument for a 15-member Real Unicameral Cosa, and... well, yes!

The provincialisation argument is IMHO very wrong, though, for all the reasons (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?msg=28687) @Sir Lüc gave.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 26, 2024, 04:18:12 PMWith respect, the above isn't a defence of bicameralism, it's a defence of a Big Ziu. You could make exactly the same argument for a 15-member Real Unicameral Cosa, and... well, yes!

The provincialisation argument is IMHO very wrong, though, for all the reasons (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?msg=28687) @Sir Lüc gave.

I wasn't trying to defend our system in specific, but only pointing out that your rationale didn't seem to hold water. 

But the best things about the Senats are:

-it provides some regional representation in a country with some regional differences.  For example, Fiova is heavily populated by fans of republicanism for obvious reasons.

-it provides a check against intemperate changes.  An idea may win over the chamber on its merits in a single day, but a party will require a couple of elections.  We have very few checks left in the system.

-it provides for a check against party power, since no party leader could have much control over a freethinking senator.  There are very few checks against party leaders.

-independent senators can and do exist and meaningfully wield power.  That's a trait not found in much of our system.

We should be careful before smashing a very old institution.  There should be very good reasons beyond personal preference.  And if we absolutely must smash it, we should try to keep its virtues.  I am worried at how few people seem to have even stopped to think about what those virtues might be!

Of course, this begs the question of exactly why the provinces - barely functional and arbitrary as they are - deserve representation. But if we allow that they do - a South-Africa style system where one ballot helps allocate 100 national seats, and another helps allocate some fraction (8-13?) provincial seats, solves that problem. It *also* gets rid of the other main problem with provinces - that the assignment system over-populates some, so that a Senäts vote in Vuode is more valuable than anywhere else.

Most of your other arguments are of the "it should be harder for majorities to do anything" type, which I can't argue against because it's a basic principle I don't share.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 26, 2024, 05:39:00 PMOf course, this begs the question of exactly why the provinces - barely functional and arbitrary as they are - deserve representation.

I do admit that they are things of potential greatness, not current activity, and they have never amounted to very much.  But that will change if we get back to growing.  And unfortunately, they're probably not something we could create again the same way if we ruined them.  Their main virtue right now is their sheer longevity and that it's kind of cool that we have some real subdivisions with real variations.  I mean, they each have their own intricate history... that's not something to discard without good cause.

I guess I'm rambling... I don't feel incredibly strongly about the provinces, really, aside from a general instinct that we should incline to preservation, and a skepticism of the ten thousandth sweeping reform -- always too many people want to be captains and no one wants to actually sail.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 26, 2024, 05:39:00 PMBut if we allow that they do - a South-Africa style system where one ballot helps allocate 100 national seats, and another helps allocate some fraction (8-13?) provincial seats, solves that problem. It *also* gets rid of the other main problem with provinces - that the assignment system over-populates some, so that a Senäts vote in Vuode is more valuable than anywhere else.

Most of your other arguments are of the "it should be harder for majorities to do anything" type, which I can't argue against because it's a basic principle I don't share.

Sometimes it's hard to discuss these things with you, since you seem to be trying not to understand or you're trolling.  Do you genuinely think I was saying that I think democratically-elected majorities should be powerless?  Did you really boil down those other points besides regional representation into that one strawman inside your head?

It's a spectrum, not a binary.  The choice isn't between "one election means you can delete the Cort pü Înalt" and "you may not change anything except incrementing your age."

Surely you're not saying that there should be no checks on your power, right?  You're not over here going, "The Tyrant-Queen demands unlimited power and skulls for her skull throne."

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on September 25, 2024, 11:03:00 PMOr put them on a two year-cycle, where the 24 months are divided up into three terms of eight months each.

Or don't meddle with this at all, really.  That'd be fine, too.

The former is effectively what we're on now. Are you ok with making that a fixed schedule? Because if so then we at least have a starting point to work from.

QuoteCan you explain what benefit Talossa might derive from this change?  To me, it appears to be a power that is actually designed never to be used, which would make this just a severe new reduction in the few remaining royal powers and checks in our system.  But maybe there'd be a benefit here that I'm just not seeing.  Can you describe a scenario where you think it'd be good to have the king exercise this discretion?

Actually, if we move to fixed terms, that would be a primary reason to allow at least some degree of royal discretion in naming a Seneschal. Fixed terms would necessitate the ability of the Cosa to withdraw confidence somehow -- hence the constructive VoC's. The negotiations should one of those fail would be a reasonable place to allow the King to exercise some power, and as a result, this is one place I'd be willing to cede a little power to the Crown.

QuoteOh, you might need it politically as a sop for them, for sure.  But I just wanted to speak up against the idea that they own their seats.  They don't.  They belong to the citizens of Talossa, through and through.

Then I suppose it's a good thing I never claimed otherwise.

I wish we could have one ten-thousandth of the number of sweeping reforms we've apparently "had", lol.

QuoteSurely you're not saying that there should be no checks on your power, right?  You're not over here going, "The Tyrant-Queen demands unlimited power and skulls for her skull throne."

queen.jpg

A girl can dream. :D

But no, seriously:

1) I think the only checks on majority power needed are a supermajority+referendum requirement to change the OrgLaw, and a Covenant of Rights that can be enforced. Anything else is an unnecessary drag (and that INCLUDES a royal veto, I'm sure you're not surprised to learn).

2) my opinion on this doesn't alter whether I'm part of the governing majority or outside it. In a unicameral system a lot more miéidă da toro would have happened in the last 2 terms - and then we could roll it back just as easily. In fact, I'm kind of insulted that you haven't noticed that, in the current situation, unicameralism would massively weaken my party's legislative power. But:

QuoteSometimes it's hard to discuss these things with you, since you seem to be trying not to understand or you're trolling.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on September 26, 2024, 10:58:32 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on September 25, 2024, 11:03:00 PMOr put them on a two year-cycle, where the 24 months are divided up into three terms of eight months each.

Or don't meddle with this at all, really.  That'd be fine, too.

The former is effectively what we're on now. Are you ok with making that a fixed schedule? Because if so then we at least have a starting point to work from.

Yeah, that might make sense if there's a good reason to do it -- I'm definitely open to the idea.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on September 26, 2024, 10:58:32 PM

QuoteCan you explain what benefit Talossa might derive from this change?  To me, it appears to be a power that is actually designed never to be used, which would make this just a severe new reduction in the few remaining royal powers and checks in our system.  But maybe there'd be a benefit here that I'm just not seeing.  Can you describe a scenario where you think it'd be good to have the king exercise this discretion?

Actually, if we move to fixed terms, that would be a primary reason to allow at least some degree of royal discretion in naming a Seneschal. Fixed terms would necessitate the ability of the Cosa to withdraw confidence somehow -- hence the constructive VoC's. The negotiations should one of those fail would be a reasonable place to allow the King to exercise some power, and as a result, this is one place I'd be willing to cede a little power to the Crown.

Okay, I guess I see what you're getting at.  So you're envisioning a situation where the Government collapses in such a way that they can't pick a new leader, and so the king decides who will be the next Seneschal until the election?

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on September 26, 2024, 10:58:32 PM

QuoteOh, you might need it politically as a sop for them, for sure.  But I just wanted to speak up against the idea that they own their seats.  They don't.  They belong to the citizens of Talossa, through and through.

Then I suppose it's a good thing I never claimed otherwise.

I was pushing back against your initial statement that, "I believe it unfair to strip them of something before they have gotten that which they pay for."  It's not really a big deal.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on September 26, 2024, 10:58:32 PMI wish we could have one ten-thousandth of the number of sweeping reforms we've apparently "had", lol.

In 2019, the entire Organic Law was reformed extensively.  In the time since, the entire justice section has been redone as well as all the statutory law on the legal system and criminal laws.  We have changed the methods for electing the Cosa leader and the Seneschal (a couple of times, I think?).  We have new rules about government transparency and disclosure.  The finance law was redone, the law around the legislature's operations was changed several times, we added seats for new citizens to the legislature, all the law around STUFF and Interior was changed around, the hereditary monarchy was eliminated, the honours system was significantly altered, immigration law was changed a whole bunch of times, Wittenberg was nationalized... We just did a big dramatic deal around the monarchy, establishing new succession protocols and paving the way for an upcoming new change in royal house. 

I'm sure there's more, but that's just the last few years.  Most parts of the constitutional and statutory law have been changed significantly, just recently.  We seriously do not have a "it's hard to change the law" problem.  We have a "there's nothing else to do but change the law" problem.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 27, 2024, 02:14:16 AMIn a unicameral system a lot more miéidă da toro would have happened in the last 2 terms - and then we could roll it back just as easily.

I think this might be the crux of it: I think it's underappreciated that there might be consequences of reckless changes to our country's institutions.  Some things are breakable and can't just be "rolled back."  Eventually we might end up with six or seven people standing in the ashes and taking turns being in charge.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 25, 2024, 04:51:14 PM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on September 25, 2024, 03:36:29 PMI'll believe the FreeDems support Senats abolition when they propose it and make an effort to pass it. But please note I said "the FreeDems" not Miestra personally...

Looks like GV, a FreeDems senator, supports the abolition, which is surprising ...

Do you even listen to yourself speak?

I support abolition...at the moment. 

I also support a system whereby the Senäts becomes as the House of Lords in the UK - no longer having a veto, but still being a place where bills and what-not are formally amended, if needed, handing amendments back to the Cosâ.

Again, the problem with the current Senäts is any single member has way too much power.  That being said, a single member of Cosa could conceivably have an even greater proportion of voting strength than a Senator - a point I did not think of before...

Quote from: GV on September 28, 2024, 07:54:46 AM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 25, 2024, 04:51:14 PM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on September 25, 2024, 03:36:29 PMI'll believe the FreeDems support Senats abolition when they propose it and make an effort to pass it. But please note I said "the FreeDems" not Miestra personally...

Looks like GV, a FreeDems senator, supports the abolition, which is surprising ...

Do you even listen to yourself speak?

I support abolition...at the moment. 

I also support a system whereby the Senäts becomes as the House of Lords in the UK - no longer having a veto, but still being a place where bills and what-not are formally amended, if needed.

Hopefully the FreeDems will come around to a formal position, matching yours, on the matter. As I mentioned I'm skeptical.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on September 26, 2024, 10:58:32 PMThe former is effectively what we're on now. Are you ok with making that a fixed schedule? Because if so then we at least have a starting point to work from.

@Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP Would you be willing to elaborate on this? We would have a fixed schedule but still have elections every eight months or so?

I am still of the opinion that more time is needed between elections. If that extra space creates a multitude of fantasy leagues then so the better for the additional Talossanity.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on September 27, 2024, 09:14:00 AMOkay, I guess I see what you're getting at.  So you're envisioning a situation where the Government collapses in such a way that they can't pick a new leader, and so the king decides who will be the next Seneschal until the election?

Correct -- these changes are intended to work in concert with each other, as I had thought out the pros and cons of my proposal pretty thoroughly. This may come as a surprise, but I'm not just sitting over here, throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks. :P

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on September 30, 2024, 01:07:50 PM

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on September 26, 2024, 10:58:32 PMThe former is effectively what we're on now. Are you ok with making that a fixed schedule? Because if so then we at least have a starting point to work from.

@Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP Would you be willing to elaborate on this? We would have a fixed schedule but still have elections every eight months or so?

I am still of the opinion that more time is needed between elections. If that extra space creates a multitude of fantasy leagues then so the better for the additional Talossanity.

Correct, if we are to simply fix the current election schedule (which is what I believe to be the Baron's preference), that would be equivalent to removing the dissolution of the Cosa on a failed VoC.

Obviously, from my original proposal, you and I are aligned on this, but this is the whole point of the process, building consensus.

I would be interested in hearing more from other MZs who have yet to express much of an opinion. @Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN and @Sir Lüc come to mind, though the latter will likely be a bit more taciturn given his potential to become SoS in the near future. S:reu Tafial weighed in a bit, though only on the Cosa apportionment method. Senators are of course also important in the process here.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on September 30, 2024, 05:54:52 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on September 27, 2024, 09:14:00 AMOkay, I guess I see what you're getting at.  So you're envisioning a situation where the Government collapses in such a way that they can't pick a new leader, and so the king decides who will be the next Seneschal until the election?

Correct -- these changes are intended to work in concert with each other, as I had thought out the pros and cons of my proposal pretty thoroughly. This may come as a surprise, but I'm not just sitting over here, throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks. :P

That wasn't my implication.  I'm over here just literally trying to imagine a scenario where it might be a good thing for the king to pick the leader of the Government, since -- to be frank -- you spend very little time on the why of these proposals.

Okay, so currently the Seneschal is the person who can put together a majority.  Is there some reason to think that the king's pick would be able to put together a majority, under this proposal?  Or would the king's pick need special immunity to the end of the term?  Ordinarily, I'd assume that eliminating the king's only point of leverage against the legislature would weaken his ability to spur them into supporting his pick.  Walk me through this and why this change would be not only a good thing, but better than the current system.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on September 30, 2024, 05:54:52 PMObviously, from my original proposal, you and I are aligned on this, but this is the whole point of the process, building consensus.

I would be interested in hearing more from other MZs who have yet to express much of an opinion. @Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?action=profile;u=17) and @Sir Lüc (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?action=profile;u=2) come to mind, though the latter will likely be a bit more taciturn given his potential to become SoS in the near future. S:reu Tafial weighed in a bit, though only on the Cosa apportionment method. Senators are of course also important in the process here.

Well, it is something of a relief, to not be alone on an issue. I join your call for others to chime in. I would note that my entry on annual elections in the Hopper is inspired by a previous proposal by the FreeDems senator @mpf so I assume he would vote for it.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on September 30, 2024, 06:04:04 PMOkay, so currently the Seneschal is the person who can put together a majority.  Is there some reason to think that the king's pick would be able to put together a majority, under this proposal?  Or would the king's pick need special immunity to the end of the term?  Ordinarily, I'd assume that eliminating the king's only point of leverage against the legislature would weaken his ability to spur them into supporting his pick.  Walk me through this and why this change would be not only a good thing, but better than the current system.

As noted in the original proposal, MCs voting Non are asked to nominate a replacement Seneschal, which would certainly help a great deal towards forming a new majority. Of course, it is certainly possible that even if the VoC fails, not everyone will nominate the same replacement, and that is where the discretion becomes important. The King will be able to review the nominations and work out a successor in conjunction with the party leaders in the Cosa. Maybe everyone who votes Non votes for their own party's leader as a matter of simple partisanship, but ultimately in discussions with the Crown, arrive at one of the leaders overall. Maybe someone misses a VoC due to some emergency, but is able to return, and the incumbent Government is actually able to continue overall. In both of these examples, under our current system, the entire Cosa dissolves and then we spend a whole two months on an early election, which, if you agree that a fixed system is preferable, would be time we agree is better spent on running the country.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on September 30, 2024, 06:38:57 PMAs noted in the original proposal, MCs voting Non are asked to nominate a replacement Seneschal, which would certainly help a great deal towards forming a new majority. Of course, it is certainly possible that even if the VoC fails, not everyone will nominate the same replacement, and that is where the discretion becomes important. The King will be able to review the nominations and work out a successor in conjunction with the party leaders in the Cosa. Maybe everyone who votes Non votes for their own party's leader as a matter of simple partisanship, but ultimately in discussions with the Crown, arrive at one of the leaders overall. Maybe someone misses a VoC due to some emergency, but is able to return, and the incumbent Government is actually able to continue overall. In both of these examples, under our current system, the entire Cosa dissolves and then we spend a whole two months on an early election, which, if you agree that a fixed system is preferable, would be time we agree is better spent on running the country.

Okay, I can see the edge case where (a) the Government falls, (b) there's no successor who can themselves convince people to support them, and (c) the king is persuasive enough to convince the Cosa to support someone anyway.  That seems very unlikely to me.  Under your proposals, would this circumstance be more common than I might expect, or would you agree with me that this is an unlikely scenario?

I am not sure that I agree that it'd be better to have the monarch arrange a fill-in rather than call a new election if the Government fails a Vote of Confidence.  There might be some scenarios where that's hypothetically preferable, but isn't it more likely that the Government just had precarious support?

I guess it seems to me like a lot of this is planning for marginal circumstances out of convenience's sake, and not enough thought has been given to the long-term robustness of the arrangement.  I mean, for example, absent a royal veto of some kind, the monarchy will be eliminated as soon as it's slightly inconvenient to a future strong Government.  It seems like this plan is just pointing towards fairly quick abnegation of itself.

All right, on the fixed schedule issue: I'm coming down as against it, solely on the basis that being able to declare a month of recess has been invaluable in the past. For example, if a Government hasn't got their act together to get a budget on the Second Clark, as it were.

But I am partial to the idea that the VoC needs to be reformed. It has operated as desired only once in all of Talossan history, if I remember right: the 46th Cosa, where one Government MC forgot to vote on the 5th Clark and so we had an election one month early.

But my preferred alternatives would be ones which work well globally:

a) a "constructive VoC" which takes the form of a regular Cosa-only bill naming a specific candidate for Seneschal. This would follow the current rule whereby you can't submit the same bill multiple times, thus preventing the same person trying to bring down the government every month. Should it fail, we're at status quo.

b) the ability of the King to dissolve the Cosa early or to declare a month of recess at the request of the Seneschal, or upon the Government losing the Budget bill but only if the King agrees that it's necessary and proper for good government.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on September 30, 2024, 07:05:40 PMOkay, I can see the edge case where (a) the Government falls, (b) there's no successor who can themselves convince people to support them, and (c) the king is persuasive enough to convince the Cosa to support someone anyway.  That seems very unlikely to me.  Under your proposals, would this circumstance be more common than I might expect, or would you agree with me that this is an unlikely scenario?

Yes and no; keep in mind this reform does not distinguish between "failed votes of confidence" and "any other time we need a new Seneschal". It's just less likely to present an issue in the aftermath of a regularly-scheduled election (though, of course, as the 59th Cosa shows, not that much less likely).

QuoteI am not sure that I agree that it'd be better to have the monarch arrange a fill-in rather than call a new election if the Government fails a Vote of Confidence.  There might be some scenarios where that's hypothetically preferable, but isn't it more likely that the Government just had precarious support?

Would you not agree that "precarious support" is preferable to endless electioneering?

QuoteI guess it seems to me like a lot of this is planning for marginal circumstances out of convenience's sake, and not enough thought has been given to the long-term robustness of the arrangement.  I mean, for example, absent a royal veto of some kind, the monarchy will be eliminated as soon as it's slightly inconvenient to a future strong Government.  It seems like this plan is just pointing towards fairly quick abnegation of itself.

That would of course require the amendment be put to referendum; even without a royal veto, the Cosa would not suddenly be able to amend the Organic Law at whim. Nowhere have I suggested we should do away with referenda.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 30, 2024, 07:52:47 PMAll right, on the fixed schedule issue: I'm coming down as against it, solely on the basis that being able to declare a month of recess has been invaluable in the past. For example, if a Government hasn't got their act together to get a budget on the Second Clark, as it were.

My proposal keeps the Month of Recess. Declaring such simply eliminates the last Clark of the Cosa term, pushing every remaining Clark of the term back a month instead.

Quotea "constructive VoC" which takes the form of a regular Cosa-only bill naming a specific candidate for Seneschal. This would follow the current rule whereby you can't submit the same bill multiple times, thus preventing the same person trying to bring down the government every month. Should it fail, we're at status quo.

Now this idea I actually think could dovetail in well. Instead of the regularly-scheduled VoC, make it a specific bill to prevent overuse/abuse?

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on September 30, 2024, 08:02:11 PM

QuoteAll right, on the fixed schedule issue: I'm coming down as against it, solely on the basis that being able to declare a month of recess has been invaluable in the past. For example, if a Government hasn't got their act together to get a budget on the Second Clark, as it were.

My proposal keeps the Month of Recess. Declaring such simply eliminates the last Clark of the Cosa term, pushing every remaining Clark of the term back a month instead.

Cool, in favor of that. But again, removing the possibility of an early dissolution means a possible situation where the Government has lost the confidence of the majority, but the majority can't agree on a new candidate, thus meaning nothing can happen until the next election.

Quote

Quotea "constructive VoC" which takes the form of a regular Cosa-only bill naming a specific candidate for Seneschal. This would follow the current rule whereby you can't submit the same bill multiple times, thus preventing the same person trying to bring down the government every month. Should it fail, we're at status quo.

Now this idea I actually think could dovetail in well. Instead of the regularly-scheduled VoC, make it a specific bill to prevent overuse/abuse?

Precisely.

Now, the reason I'm amenable to the "power swap" idea is that right now, there's not a mechanism for replacing the Seneschal should they quit/"vanish" and there's not a Distain for whatever reason. It might be good at least to let the King nominate an acting Seneschal until the Cosa gets its act together. There is also a weird ambiguity in the existing OrgLaw VI.2 which could be argued by troublemakers to forbid choosing a new Seneschal outside newly elected Cosas. I think we should fix that one way or the other.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 30, 2024, 08:20:51 PM

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on September 30, 2024, 08:02:11 PM

QuoteAll right, on the fixed schedule issue: I'm coming down as against it, solely on the basis that being able to declare a month of recess has been invaluable in the past. For example, if a Government hasn't got their act together to get a budget on the Second Clark, as it were.

My proposal keeps the Month of Recess. Declaring such simply eliminates the last Clark of the Cosa term, pushing every remaining Clark of the term back a month instead.

Cool, in favor of that. But again, removing the possibility of an early dissolution means a possible situation where the Government has lost the confidence of the majority, but the majority can't agree on a new candidate, thus meaning nothing can happen until the next election.

[...]

Now, the reason I'm amenable to the "power swap" idea is that right now, there's not a mechanism for replacing the Seneschal should they quit/"vanish" and there's not a Distain for whatever reason. It might be good at least to let the King nominate an acting Seneschal until the Cosa gets its act together. There is also a weird ambiguity in the existing OrgLaw VI.2 which could be argued by troublemakers to forbid choosing a new Seneschal outside newly elected Cosas. I think we should fix that one way or the other.

I don't see any reason why these two can't be joined together. Frankly, closing the loopholes you've mentioned -- including making the royal nomination that of an "acting Seneschal" -- would cover "a possible situation where the Government has lost the confidence of the majority, but the majority can't agree on a new candidate", would it not?

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on September 30, 2024, 07:05:40 PMabsent a royal veto of some kind, the monarchy will be eliminated as soon as it's slightly inconvenient to a future strong Governmen

Going to riff on this a little, although it's a bit of a side issue.

What this shows is a lack of confidence in the Monarchy being able to build long-term democratic legitimacy in Talossa. I mean, the UK has no written constitution, there is nothing to stop Parliament taking the King's head off (as they did in 1649) or replacing him (as they did in 1688). But they don't because the elites and the broad masses don't see any reason to do so. (Also precisely because His Maj never uses his own paper veto, though it is said that the monarchy lobbies strongly behind the scenes if a particular provision annoys them.)

But I suppose the idea of a monarchy which needs a veto to, er, defend its own existence (circular logic if ever I've heard of) goes along with the idea that, if a majority is allowed to make changes, we'll end up in a situation where we have a revolution every 8 months or so and Talossa will look like the aftermath of the 30 Years War or something. The central point is: a lack of faith in majority rule. And, for that matter, a lack of faith that the putative King Txec I will be able to win over enough Republicans that he wouldn't have to throw a thumb on the scales to keep his job! In Britain, for all I mock King Big Ears and his family, if Charlie got a bill from the Commons and the Lords force-retiring him, I'm sure he wouldn't say "nuh-uh, you'll have to fight me for it".

The problem is - as is shown by the inflexibility of the US constitution - if you deprive majorities of the ability to make changes (Senate filibuster, a fortiori the complexity of Constitutional Amendments), people will just do "end runs" around the democratic system if it reaches a dead end (viz. the current centrality of SCOTUS decisions). Another thing that I think we can learn from US politics is that, the more nothing can be done with the democratic system, the greater the incentive for politicians to strike fire-breathing radical poses, even murderous demagoguery, because they won't be called to deliver on their promises even if the win.

I'll say again: aside from an entrenched Organic Law and Covenant of Rights and Freedoms, in Talossa elections should have consequences more weighty than who gets to run the social media accounts.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 30, 2024, 09:33:34 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on September 30, 2024, 07:05:40 PMabsent a royal veto of some kind, the monarchy will be eliminated as soon as it's slightly inconvenient to a future strong Governmen

Going to riff on this a little, although it's a bit of a side issue.

What this shows is a lack of confidence in the Monarchy being able to build long-term democratic legitimacy in Talossa.

No, quite the opposite, actually... it's short-term actions that worry me.  The monarchy already has to consistently maintain long-term democratic legitimacy, since two successive simple majorities would be enough to eliminate it, or one determined supermajority.

Your interpretation doesn't make any sense.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 30, 2024, 09:33:34 PMBut I suppose the idea of a monarchy which needs a veto to, er, defend its own existence (circular logic if ever I've heard of) goes along with the idea that, if a majority is allowed to make changes, we'll end up in a situation where we have a revolution every 8 months or so and Talossa will look like the aftermath of the 30 Years War or something. The central point is: a lack of faith in majority rule.

This is phrased in kind of the most pejorative way possible, but yeah... that's the basic idea.  We don't have parliamentary sovereignty in the broadest sense, and that limits the amount of change that any single Government can enact.

As we have already seen, you and I have fairly different views on this.  I think these limits are good, since otherwise our remarkably fragile institutions would be mostly smashed-up at this point.  It's entirely possible for a Government to do permanent damage to Talossa, especially since we have few physical anchors.  My town would continue existing no matter how badly it was governed, and if it was governed badly enough then outside forces or its own citizens would act to correct it.  Talossa just... doesn't have that.  A bad Government could break the country and destroy it forever.  This is not hyperbole.  It's obvious fact.  And so the only sane way to design a system needs to limit the ability of a Government to enact its will.

So yeah... I like Talossa, and I would like it to survive.  I think we should act on the basis of at least a Civics 101 level of knowledge in that regard.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 30, 2024, 09:33:34 PMThe problem is - as is shown by the inflexibility of the US constitution - if you deprive majorities of the ability to make changes (Senate filibuster, a fortiori the complexity of Constitutional Amendments), people will just do "end runs" around the democratic system if it reaches a dead end (viz. the current centrality of SCOTUS decisions).

As before, we're talking about a spectrum.  The choice isn't "maximum veto points" or "no checks" -- there's a pretty broad range in between.  It's obviously not too hard to do things in Talossa, because laws are rearranged all the time and to a wide degree.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 30, 2024, 09:33:34 PMAnother thing that I think we can learn from US politics is that, the more nothing can be done with the
democratic system, the greater the incentive for politicians to strike fire-breathing radical poses, even murderous demagoguery, because they won't be called to deliver on their promises even if the win.

This does not seem to be happening.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 30, 2024, 07:52:47 PMBut my preferred alternatives would be ones which work well globally:

a) a "constructive VoC" which takes the form of a regular Cosa-only bill naming a specific candidate for Seneschal. This would follow the current rule whereby you can't submit the same bill multiple times, thus preventing the same person trying to bring down the government every month. Should it fail, we're at status quo.

b) the ability of the King to dissolve the Cosa early or to declare a month of recess at the request of the Seneschal, or upon the Government losing the Budget bill but only if the King agrees that it's necessary and proper for good government.

These seem like reasonable options and this might be a fruitful discussion to have, regardless of these proposals.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on September 30, 2024, 08:02:11 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on September 30, 2024, 07:05:40 PMOkay, I can see the edge case where (a) the Government falls, (b) there's no successor who can themselves convince people to support them, and (c) the king is persuasive enough to convince the Cosa to support someone anyway.  That seems very unlikely to me.  Under your proposals, would this circumstance be more common than I might expect, or would you agree with me that this is an unlikely scenario?

Yes and no; keep in mind this reform does not distinguish between "failed votes of confidence" and "any other time we need a new Seneschal". It's just less likely to present an issue in the aftermath of a regularly-scheduled election (though, of course, as the 59th Cosa shows, not that much less likely).

Clearly, the king should only be exercising this power when there's some doubt about who has a majority, so I assume that he wouldn't be allowed to reject someone with a letter of majority, right?  So it should still only apply for failed VoCs... which are, I assure you, exceedingly rare.

You do seem to be planning just for this fairly unusual edge case.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on September 30, 2024, 08:02:11 PM

QuoteI am not sure that I agree that it'd be better to have the monarch arrange a fill-in rather than call a new election if the Government fails a Vote of Confidence.  There might be some scenarios where that's hypothetically preferable, but isn't it more likely that the Government just had precarious support?

Would you not agree that "precarious support" is preferable to endless electioneering?

I'm not sure I buy this false binary.  If a Government can't maintain a confidence vote, then probably another election is going to usually be a correct move.  And there has never been a time when a Government lost a confidence vote and then the next election had a similar outcome... the election has solved the issue.

And again, I don't understand the logic of justifying this system by pointing to these weird edge cases.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on September 30, 2024, 08:02:11 PM

QuoteI guess it seems to me like a lot of this is planning for marginal circumstances out of convenience's sake, and not enough thought has been given to the long-term robustness of the arrangement.  I mean, for example, absent a royal veto of some kind, the monarchy will be eliminated as soon as it's slightly inconvenient to a future strong Government.  It seems like this plan is just pointing towards fairly quick abnegation of itself.

That would of course require the amendment be put to referendum; even without a royal veto, the Cosa would not suddenly be able to amend the Organic Law at whim. Nowhere have I suggested we should do away with referenda.

Name the last rejected referendum.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on September 30, 2024, 10:24:29 PM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 30, 2024, 07:52:47 PMBut my preferred alternatives would be ones which work well globally:

a) a "constructive VoC" which takes the form of a regular Cosa-only bill naming a specific candidate for Seneschal. This would follow the current rule whereby you can't submit the same bill multiple times, thus preventing the same person trying to bring down the government every month. Should it fail, we're at status quo.

b) the ability of the King to dissolve the Cosa early or to declare a month of recess at the request of the Seneschal, or upon the Government losing the Budget bill but only if the King agrees that it's necessary and proper for good government.

These seem like reasonable options and this might be a fruitful discussion to have, regardless of these proposals.

While doing research for this, I realised that according to OrgLaw VI.3, the King has no discretion to refuse a Seneschal's request for an early dissolution - a power which has never been used, but which I'm not in favour of because it *does* allow a government to give a unilateral finger to the legislature. Even the near-powerless President of Ireland has the right to refuse a dissolution if he thinks an alternative government can be formed.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on September 30, 2024, 10:30:44 PMName the last rejected referendum.

Based on a little light digging, it would appear to be the referendum on an unknown amendment during the October 2005 general election. The Digest is pretty unclear on exactly what this bill was, as is the relevant ProBoards thread.

Frankly speaking, if support for the monarchy were so low that it could not even survive a referendum, then it probably shouldn't continue to exist anyway. "The people might vote in a way I don't like" is not reason to gatekeep referenda with a unilateral veto.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on September 30, 2024, 11:34:20 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on September 30, 2024, 10:30:44 PMName the last rejected referendum.

Based on a little light digging, it would appear to be the referendum on an unknown amendment during the October 2005 general election. The Digest is pretty unclear on exactly what this bill was, as is the relevant ProBoards thread.

Indeed.  Virtually every referendum succeeds.  It is unwise to design a system where referenda are the only backstop against a hasty and foolish change.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on September 30, 2024, 10:30:44 PMName the last rejected referendum.

The referendum on the Fiova-Florencia provincial merger, September 2019.

I agree that referenda shouldn't be the only backstop, which is why, in the discussion on the Succession, I insisted that the King's choice of Heir should be approved by the Ziu as well as by referendum. The value of referenda as an "additional" safeguard is for situations where the elected officials are totally disconnected from their base on a particular issue.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on September 30, 2024, 05:54:52 PMI would be interested in hearing more from other MZs who have yet to express much of an opinion. @Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN and @Sir Lüc come to mind, though the latter will likely be a bit more taciturn given his potential to become SoS in the near future.

Right, sorry if I don't address fresher points that may have come up but all my Talossan time has gone towards the referendum lately. My opinion is a bit scattered here and there (and I have the bad habit of leaving posts half-written and never finishing them, so things stay in my mind even though I assume people know) but to summarise:

- I am generally in favour of yearly Cosa terms, though lots of details need to be fleshed out; I don't think the proposed 8-month cycle works because then you don't alleviate at all the fact that each government is on a mega rush to get things done in time.

- I am absolutely in favour of having provinces play no part at all as constituencies for national elections (or if they must, only with proper weighting)

- I am not married to retaining the Senate, but I vaguely prefer it to switching to an unicameral Ziu. But again, if it was retained, I really prefer it to switch to a nationwide constituency with 4 seats up at each election, as I discussed elsewhere.

- (At another point in time I would have liked to see the Senate and the Cosa vote at different times, so the two houses's action as a check on each other is amplified, but this might be complicated.)

- I am not in favour of royal power-swapping.

- I am tentatively in favour of non-scheduled VoCs, and of constructive Votes of No Confidence.

- I am undecided on provisions for midterm party-swapping, but support free registration of political parties (and plan to add such capabilities to the new DB regardless)

Quote from: Sir Lüc on October 01, 2024, 04:48:17 PM

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on September 30, 2024, 05:54:52 PMI would be interested in hearing more from other MZs who have yet to express much of an opinion. @Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN and @Sir Lüc come to mind, though the latter will likely be a bit more taciturn given his potential to become SoS in the near future.

- I am generally in favour of yearly Cosa terms, though lots of details need to be fleshed out; I don't think the proposed 8-month cycle works because then you don't alleviate at all the fact that each government is on a mega rush to get things done in time.

I am really feeling the momentum. Like Walken with cowbell I can hear annual elections getting nearer now...

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on September 24, 2024, 11:41:52 PM-(Mandatory Live Cosa Session) We really need to make better use of technology to connect. In combination with longer parliamentary terms we should have one live session (during the middle of the term perhaps) where we actually have direct terpelaziuns and ministerial reports. Let's be honest it is fun and notable when we actually get to see one another even if we nurture dislike of the words we see from each other.

This may be outside of the overall reform scope but I wanted to re-surface this as it didn't get much attention but I think it is a good idea. Especially as a part of more face-to-face interaction.

Even if it is not something placed into law shouldn't we make an informal effort to have at least one live Cosa session each term? Maybe right in the middle to allow time for government preparation and have terpelaziuns submitted a few days in advance to allow for the same.

I think it would be a boon for social connections and public interest.

Haven't been commenting too much, but quickly:

- Don't like getting rid of the King's veto
- Still hesitant about unicameralism, but could be open to some sort of change depending on the specifics.
- Don't love annual elections, that's probably too long in between.

@Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP This was a question that got lost in the mix from the complimentary terpelaziun I posted. Do you foresee a bill coming from this discussion for consideration this term?

Can I just reiterate my hobby horse - there *has* to be explicit provisions to choose a Seneschal between elections, if the incumbent quits/vanishes and the Distain isn't available

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on October 06, 2024, 05:42:06 PMCan I just reiterate my hobby horse - there *has* to be explicit provisions to choose a Seneschal between elections, if the incumbent quits/vanishes and the Distain isn't available

This is indeed needed.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on October 06, 2024, 05:01:01 PM@Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP This was a question that got lost in the mix from the complimentary terpelaziun I posted. Do you foresee a bill coming from this discussion for consideration this term?

@Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP ?

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on October 06, 2024, 05:01:01 PM@Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP This was a question that got lost in the mix from the complimentary terpelaziun I posted. Do you foresee a bill coming from this discussion for consideration this term?

Nearly two weeks since this question was posted and we are past the halfway point of the term. This is still a live question.

Quote from: Sir Lüc on October 01, 2024, 04:48:17 PM- I am absolutely in favour of having provinces play no part at all as constituencies for national elections (or if they must, only with proper weighting)

I wanted to touch on this point specifically -- do I understand you correctly that you prefer either of my proposed options to an MMP electoral system?

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on October 02, 2024, 05:32:37 PMThis may be outside of the overall reform scope but I wanted to re-surface this as it didn't get much attention but I think it is a good idea. Especially as a part of more face-to-face interaction.

Even if it is not something placed into law shouldn't we make an informal effort to have at least one live Cosa session each term? Maybe right in the middle to allow time for government preparation and have terpelaziuns submitted a few days in advance to allow for the same.

I think it would be a boon for social connections and public interest.

This was something I considered outside the scope of these reforms -- since it's not necessarily a proposed change to law so much as custom -- but for what it may be worth, I would also like to see us utilize Living Cosas more regularly.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on October 06, 2024, 05:42:06 PMCan I just reiterate my hobby horse - there *has* to be explicit provisions to choose a Seneschal between elections, if the incumbent quits/vanishes and the Distain isn't available

I mean, given that the "power-swapping" arrangement appears to be more unpopular than popular, it would be expected that the Cosa retains the sole power in nominating a Seneschal. In that case, I imagine the current petition method is acceptable to use mid-term, no?

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on October 06, 2024, 05:01:01 PM@Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP This was a question that got lost in the mix from the complimentary terpelaziun I posted. Do you foresee a bill coming from this discussion for consideration this term?

That would be preferred, once we can arrive at a broader consensus. As it stands, the sixth Clark is tentatively scheduled for January, though if the Seneschal declares a month of recess for December that pushes it out to February. I'd like to think we can arrive at something by then. (I may actually go back through the thread and tabulate people's responses to individual items in the proposal, that way we know which parts are more likely to achieve broader support.)

Finally, I do want to apologize for the delayed response -- the past few weeks most of my energy has been devoted to a higher-than-usual workload at work and the process of beginning legal proceedings for marital dissolution. La vidă martscha.

Awww man, I hope you don't think I was liking "marital dissolution", look after yourself

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on October 21, 2024, 02:35:26 AMAwww man, I hope you don't think I was liking "marital dissolution", look after yourself

Nah, I knew what you meant, lol. The hard part is in the past, now it's just paperwork.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on October 20, 2024, 11:52:59 PMThat would be preferred, once we can arrive at a broader consensus. As it stands, the sixth Clark is tentatively scheduled for January, though if the Seneschal declares a month of recess for December that pushes it out to February. I'd like to think we can arrive at something by then. (I may actually go back through the thread and tabulate people's responses to individual items in the proposal, that way we know which parts are more likely to achieve broader support.)

This news is well-received and I look forward to what you come up with. I know there is some opposition but I want to put in another plug for longer terms if a way to address concerns can be found.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on October 20, 2024, 11:52:59 PMFinally, I do want to apologize for the delayed response -- the past few weeks most of my energy has been devoted to a higher-than-usual workload at work and the process of beginning legal proceedings for marital dissolution. La vidă martscha.

Thank you Mic'haglh and I am sorry to hear of your dissolution. I am also going through a separation which will likely end in a divorce so you have my sympathies as you go through this process.

I'm really curious, as the current elections administrator, what actual reasons there are for making the period between elections longer? (sorry I've had trouble following this so forgive me for inane questions).

I do see the allure of running elections less frequently, as that is probably the busiest time in the life of the Chancery. What practical reasons would there be though? Too long and we risk losing the government to inaction.

Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on October 21, 2024, 03:18:27 PMI'm really curious, as the current elections administrator, what actual reasons there are for making the period between elections longer? (sorry I've had trouble following this so forgive me for inane questions).

I do see the allure of running elections less frequently, as that is probably the busiest time in the life of the Chancery. What practical reasons would there be though? Too long and we risk losing the government to inaction.

For me, the allure comes from allowing more time for actual government work as opposed to the near-constant election season. We are now half-way through this term and I've already observed comments about the coming election. I don't see the harm in adding two or three months and standardizing the election cycle and creating opportunities for a more active Civil Service to fill in that space. We are not talking about an extra six months but two or three so that we have elections at the same time and perhaps open up a bit more space apolitical folks.

Those of us who love politics will not become disinterested in that extra time between elections but those who are more interested in culture, academia, media, and sports might have the space to nurture those efforts.

Fair enough!

Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on October 21, 2024, 03:18:27 PMI'm really curious, as the current elections administrator, what actual reasons there are for making the period between elections longer? (sorry I've had trouble following this so forgive me for inane questions).

I do see the allure of running elections less frequently, as that is probably the busiest time in the life of the Chancery. What practical reasons would there be though? Too long and we risk losing the government to inaction.

The two main reasons are:
- Increase space for "apolitical" activity; if elections are less frequent, that's more time people can spend on doing things that aren't inherently related to elections. (As a knock-on benefit, spacing out "political" activity should help to lower the political temperature somewhat)

- Allow governments more time to actually focus on getting through their agenda outlined at the beginning of a term.

As for your second point, this is why the VoC would be retooled as a "constructive" vote of confidence -- this is something that allows the government to change hands in between an election.

After going through the results, I first recorded everything quantitatively. Please note this was subject to my own interpretation if your comment was sort of ambiguous.
* "In Favor" indicates clear support
* "Open To" indicates agreement with the general idea, but uncertainty based on the details or preference for a slightly different method.
* Neutral (obvious)
* "Skeptical" is best typified by Luc claiming to "vaguely preferring" keeping the Senats in favor of the proposed unicameralism
* Firmly Against (obvious)

Proposal	In Favor	Open To	Neutral	Skeptical	Firmly Against
Royal "power swap"	Autofil, Schiva				Breneir, AD, Luc, Ian
Unicameralism	Autofil, Breneir	Schiva, GV		Ian, Luc	AD
Biproportional	Autofil, Luc			Schiva, AD
Nationwide single district	Luc		Autofil	AD
MMP (not proposed but discussed)	Schiva	Autofil, GV
Fixed election schedule	Autofil, Breneir	AD		Schiva
Year-long term	Autofil, Breneir, Luc				Schiva, AD, Ian
Constructive VoC	Autofil, Breneir	Schiva, AD, Luc
Mid-term party registration	Autofil, Breneir		Luc
Provincial reductions	Autofil

If we assign these categories integer values from +2 to -2, preference is as follows:
* Constructive VoC (+7)
* MMP (+4)
* Fixed elections (+4)
* Mid-term party registration (+4)
* Unicameralism (+2,)
* Biproportional (+2)
* Provincial reductions (+2)
* Nationwide single district (+1)
* Year-long Cosa term (0)
* Royal "power swap" (-4)

I'll be paring down the proposal based on this feedback over the coming days as we seek to arrive at a consensus.

Thanks @Miestră Schivă, UrN for reviving this.
As a part of moving to a year-long term I would support also moving toward a first, second, etc. reading of bills.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 14, 2025, 02:36:41 PMThanks @Miestră Schivă, UrN for reviving this.
As a part of moving to a year-long term I would support also moving toward a first, second, etc. reading of bills.

You don't think that's feasible with the current 8-month term?

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 14, 2025, 09:10:42 PM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 14, 2025, 02:36:41 PMThanks @Miestră Schivă, UrN for reviving this.
As a part of moving to a year-long term I would support also moving toward a first, second, etc. reading of bills.

You don't think that's feasible with the current 8-month term?

I can imagine a slower, more considered, and formalized process of reviewing bills fitting better with a longer term.

I personally quite like the "Proportional Provincial voting" cosa idea, a lot more of a parliament style of a "big pants" nation. It would be interesting to work out the right balance so that more and less active provinces are indeed fairly proportioned. I would force party's to actually have better accountability to the provinces too than the current system, how that will manifest is yet to be determined.
I agree that a year long cosa would be to ungainly as half the fun is the elections. I do think there should be enough time in each cosa to enact somthing big, say, sending a cube sat to space, or a key reform, but then also the challenge of doing it quickly and in time for an election, as if you run out of things to do it gives chance for apathy. Running out of time is better then running out of things to do, and can be built on after the fact if necessary, outside of party leanings.

Quote from: Tierçéu Rôibeardescù on January 15, 2025, 06:50:02 PMI agree that a year long cosa would be to ungainly as half the fun is the elections.

Not everyone finds our election seasons fun, Tierçéu. A few more months between elections hurts no one but opens up more space for cooperation on big projects and for apolitical activity.

Can you please elaborate on what would make our elections ungainly with them being conducted annually?

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 15, 2025, 07:16:34 PMNot everyone finds our election seasons fun, Tierçéu.

Most people do tho

With yearlong Cosas there could be no more TMT20 special editions, which would be a great loss

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 15, 2025, 07:16:34 PM

Quote from: Tierçéu Rôibeardescù on January 15, 2025, 06:50:02 PMI agree that a year long cosa would be to ungainly as half the fun is the elections.

Can you please elaborate on what would make our elections ungainly with them being conducted annually?

@Tierçéu Rôibeardescù

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 16, 2025, 07:59:24 AM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 15, 2025, 07:16:34 PM

Quote from: Tierçéu Rôibeardescù on January 15, 2025, 06:50:02 PMI agree that a year long cosa would be to ungainly as half the fun is the elections.

Can you please elaborate on what would make our elections ungainly with them being conducted annually?

@Tierçéu Rôibeardescù

Patience young grasshopper

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 16, 2025, 07:59:24 AM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 15, 2025, 07:16:34 PM

Quote from: Tierçéu Rôibeardescù on January 15, 2025, 06:50:02 PMI agree that a year long cosa would be to ungainly as half the fun is the elections.

Can you please elaborate on what would make our elections ungainly with them being conducted annually?

@Tierçéu Rôibeardescù

Tierciu, I look forward to your response as I am genuinely curious what is ungainly about a longer term. Feel free to respond in private if that is better for you but I want to understand the opposition beyond "elections are fun for some."

We often have trouble keeping ministers in place for the length of our current Cosa terms. Making them even longer could prove to be even more difficult. I am not sure we have the personnel to staff ministries for an entire year at a time. I know some will say we will just find someone to finish the term out, etc. I don't see why longer terms are necessary and I'm not sure I support the idea.

-Txec R

Quote from: King Txec on January 16, 2025, 11:22:55 AMWe often have trouble keeping ministers in place for the length of our current Cosa terms. Making them even longer could prove to be even more difficult. I am not sure we have the personnel to staff ministries for an entire year at a time. I know some will say we will just find someone to finish the term out, etc. I don't see why longer terms are necessary and I'm not sure I support the idea.

-Txec R

Yeah, I've heard this argument before. This is not an argument against longer terms as much as it is a statement on how poorly we've provisioned responsibilities and workload in our ministries. We have too many ministries and need to downsize government and move some things to the Civil Service. When you have people doing two, three, and four simultaneous roles then they are bound to peter out in short time.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 16, 2025, 11:30:29 AM

Quote from: King Txec on January 16, 2025, 11:22:55 AMWe often have trouble keeping ministers in place for the length of our current Cosa terms. Making them even longer could prove to be even more difficult. I am not sure we have the personnel to staff ministries for an entire year at a time. I know some will say we will just find someone to finish the term out, etc. I don't see why longer terms are necessary and I'm not sure I support the idea.

-Txec R

Yeah, I've heard this argument before. This is not an argument against longer terms as much as it is a statement on how poorly we've provisioned responsibilities and workload in our ministries. We have too many ministries and need to downsize government and move some things to the Civil Service. When you have people doing two, three, and four simultaneous roles then they are bound to peter out in short time.

Perhaps a revision to the ministries etc. would be a logical first step then.

- Txec R

Quote from: King Txec on January 16, 2025, 12:34:26 PM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 16, 2025, 11:30:29 AM

Quote from: King Txec on January 16, 2025, 11:22:55 AMWe often have trouble keeping ministers in place for the length of our current Cosa terms. Making them even longer could prove to be even more difficult. I am not sure we have the personnel to staff ministries for an entire year at a time. I know some will say we will just find someone to finish the term out, etc. I don't see why longer terms are necessary and I'm not sure I support the idea.

-Txec R

Yeah, I've heard this argument before. This is not an argument against longer terms as much as it is a statement on how poorly we've provisioned responsibilities and workload in our ministries. We have too many ministries and need to downsize government and move some things to the Civil Service. When you have people doing two, three, and four simultaneous roles then they are bound to peter out in short time.

Perhaps a revision to the ministries etc. would be a logical first step then.

- Txec R

I'm open to that but it does not lengthen the political cycle in Talossa which is my main interest. I'd love to see a bill that combines the MMP, multi-staged readings to replace the hopper or adapt it, and fixed annual elections.

Quote from: King Txec on January 16, 2025, 12:34:26 PMPerhaps a revision to the ministries etc. would be a logical first step then.

I crave a royal opinion on how we might go about this. Honestly I don't think the current setup of the ministries is the problem with burnout of Ministers. I support a move of many functions to the Civil Service on general principle. The real problem is lack of warm bodies. If there were only two Cabinet Ministries there would be an equal amount of work and an equal number of people willing to do it.

The fundamental problem is not how the work is divvied up, but that there is too much of it in terms of who wants to do it. Talossa's state structures are much bigger and require more upkeep than at any time in history. For example, there was an old comment from KR1, sometime in the 90s, saying that Talossa would be boring if it had to have a budget and financial accounts etc, but that's exactly what we have now. And I think we need it, because the alternative is for Talossa to run on someone's private dime, which is feudalism. But it's work and people don't want to do it.

I'm reading your response and it looks like you agree that Talossa's government is expected to do too much. We need to reduce the amount of work by a combination of eliminating some ministries entirely (Defence, please) and repurposing some toward the Civil Service. The distinction between the Civil Service and Ministries is that some Talossans might be willing to serve if it means not participating in our politics. Three or four ministries focusing on essential government duties but allow the rest to be filled by an apolitical standing Royal Civil Service.  I think Immigration is a good place to start on that note.

I'll give it some thought. I have some ideas but in the mean time while I formulate a more formal response, I'd like to refer back to my Independence Day Speech.

QuoteTherefore, I am declaring 2025 as L'Anneu D'Comunità, or in English, The Year of Community. Throughout this year, beginning with the newest holiday in our calendar, Flip Molinar Day, I urge each and every one of you to spend as much time as possible seeing, hearing, listening, and communicating with other Talossans.

-Txec R

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 16, 2025, 04:31:13 PMWe need to reduce the amount of work by a combination of eliminating some ministries entirely (Defence, please)

I'm old enough to remember when a certain Baron pummeled the FreeDems-led government about not doing more with the Zouaves.

Quoteand repurposing some toward the Civil Service.

You miss the point. Whether a Minister or a civil servant, someone has to do the job, and the reason why we haven't parceled out more jobs to the civil service yet is a lack of enthusiastic civil servants, not Ministers wanting to hold on to this stuff.

QuoteI think Immigration is a good place to start on that note.

I would *dearly love* to shove the squalid technical details of the job off to a Civil Servant. If someone were willing to do the thankless job. Which there isn't.

We don't have enough active people in Government because we don't have enough active people overall.

Because of that, we don't have enough people interested in serving in Government.  Required tasks are fairly minimal, but finding more than three or four seriously responsible people is a challenge.  Whether or not they are in Government or the Civil Service doesn't change that fact.  And this same problem is the cause of many of our other ills... for example, we have so few interested citizens that there's less reason to make art or literature.  No one will see it.

To the extent that we need to dismantle our institutions to continue to function and free up space for priorities, this makes sense.  Do we need a unicameral legislature?  Do we need to eliminate a bunch of Cabinet positions?  Okay, fine, maybe we need to do that since those things aren't a priority -- but if we're burning the furniture to keep warm, we need to make the most of it.

The next Government should focus overwhelmingly and exclusively on increasing the immigration rate.  Success or failure will be revealed by that single measurement.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 16, 2025, 08:53:56 PMTo the extent that we need to dismantle our institutions to continue to function and free up space for priorities, this makes sense.  Do we need a unicameral legislature?  Do we need to eliminate a bunch of Cabinet positions?  Okay, fine, maybe we need to do that since those things aren't a priority...

That's exactly it, for me. We should reconsider what are the most vital services for Talossan Government and then make reductions based on that. This is just my personal opinion but I don't think Defence is a vital government service in our particular situation. I am sure there are other areas where we can consider whether they should be public or private entities.

With respect to both y'all, Defence is not the problem here because the Zouaves don't take up time and energy. You know what takes up time and energy? Immigration admin; making sure the websites/Wittenberg/the social media keep running; for the first two Clarks of each Cosa at least, drawing up the Budget. And the Chancery is overwhelmed with the Wittenberg/database stuff as well.

As to recruitment as the solution; we've had a good influx of new citizens recently. None have jumped up to volunteer for this stuff. I mean, perhaps we should have a draft, i.e. "for your first 3 months as a citizen you have to run the Facebook account".

There is a lot of stuff we could get rid of, but this problem de facto solves itself, i.e. stuff doesn't get done and no-one misses it.

I came into Talossa with a lot of enthusiasm, I quickly realized I was in way over my head. Yes it obviously takes enthusiasm for someone to serve in any governmental capacity, whether that is as a minister, senator, cosa member, king or civil servant, but it also requires intelligence. The ability to sift through all of the laws, and understand them. When I was a member of the TNC and we won the majority I immediately contacted party leadership and told them I did NOT want a cabinet position and when I was asked why, I told the truth. I am not intelligent enough to understand the inner workings of the government. I think a lot of the problem with finding willing people who stick out there terms as ministers is in some ways the same. Some people jump into the job and then realize they don't really understand the process. Another issue is the constant hurling of insults back and forth which inevitably lands upon the shoulders of the ministers in the form of Terpelaziuns. Pretty much everyone in Talossa has jobs and family in the real world which take up their time and inhibits their ability to effectively perform the tasks set before them. We simply do not have enough people who are active, have an understanding of how the government works, an understanding of the laws, the time to put into the job to do it properly and honestly the thick skin required to do the job. Hell since I have been here I have seen at least one person leave a post to seek mental health treatment, I think that speaks to the problem with the insults. I ran for senator at the behest of my previous parties leadership despite not understanding the job. I have held a seat in the Vuode provincial government up to and including both Premier and Presiding Officer despite having no knowledge of how to perform the duties of those positions, proving once again that we do not have enough intelligent active citizens. Until this problem is solved we will have a government run by a select few citizens who in my opinion have done fantastic work on both sides but are overwhelmed. Sorry about the longwinded rant but I needed to get it off of my chest...you may continue LOL

I mean, Tric'hard is absolutely right that our systems of government and law have grown so complex that they now require specialist help to navigate correctly. Free Democrats' solution to that is to have Civil Servants whose job is to "hold the hands" of politicians in this regard. Like, for example, a Clerk of the Ziu who would take a badly-written napkin idea from a Senator and turn it into a properly worded and formatted bill.

Talossa has failed if we've created a technocracy, but the problem is that frankly brilliantly intelligent people get into power around here and build high-quality things (legal, judicial, or technical) that only they know how to operate, and then they disappear and the rest of us schmoes don't know which end's up.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 16, 2025, 09:10:05 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 16, 2025, 08:53:56 PMTo the extent that we need to dismantle our institutions to continue to function and free up space for priorities, this makes sense.  Do we need a unicameral legislature?  Do we need to eliminate a bunch of Cabinet positions?  Okay, fine, maybe we need to do that since those things aren't a priority...

That's exactly it, for me. We should reconsider what are the most vital services for Talossan Government and then make reductions based on that. This is just my personal opinion but I don't think Defence is a vital government service in our particular situation. I am sure there are other areas where we can consider whether they should be public or private entities.

We should do that to free up personnel resources, with a plan for how to use them.  Gradual decay is not a plan.  A plan is something like "make it known, in a way that preserves the dignity of the prize, that anyone who recruits five new citizens will be granted a knighthood."

This stuff about Cabinet ministries is silly.  Eliminating Defence isn't going to free Braneu up to do other things -- there's no regular duties in that position.  It's a proactive role, like almost all of them.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 16, 2025, 09:33:33 PMAs to recruitment as the solution; we've had a good influx of new citizens recently. None have jumped up to volunteer for this stuff. I mean, perhaps we should have a draft, i.e. "for your first 3 months as a citizen you have to run the Facebook account".

If no one will miss the Defence portfolio then it should be an easy cut then?
I recall back in the 58th, we had an effort for a National Skills and Social Connections Survey which sought to identify  skills citizens might have on offer. Might be an effort worth reviving. Additionally, I agree that we might want to add some kind of question around skills, etc. onto the immigration form and make an effort to get new people, perhaps, into the apolitical Civil Service as a start should they be willing and have the specific skills needed.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 16, 2025, 09:42:15 PM...but the problem is that frankly brilliantly intelligent people get into power around here and build high-quality things (legal, judicial, or technical) that only they know how to operate, and then they disappear and the rest of us schmoes don't know which end's up.

This is my concern with any new Database. I hope it will not be a black box like the current one.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 16, 2025, 09:46:37 PMI agree that we might want to add some kind of question around skills, etc. onto the immigration form and make an effort to get new people, perhaps, into the apolitical Civil Service as a start should they be willing and have the specific skills needed.

This is actually provided for in the new immigration law (El Lexh E 3.2), I just haven't had the "spoons" to make it happen, so anyone who's enthusiastic is welcome to step up.

My bottom line is: it is too hard to do stuff in Talossa, whether because it requires too much technical knowledge, or too much time/energy/legal or administrative steps, or there are too many points where others can veto you. The essence of politics is "contending for the right to implement your program". And that is fun in itself, for many. But when you "win", then you have to gather your energy to actually do what you came to do!

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 16, 2025, 09:48:51 PM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 16, 2025, 09:42:15 PM...but the problem is that frankly brilliantly intelligent people get into power around here and build high-quality things (legal, judicial, or technical) that only they know how to operate, and then they disappear and the rest of us schmoes don't know which end's up.

This is my concern with any new Database. I hope it will not be a black box like the current one.

A question which you should address to the Chancery. The Free Democrats consider it vital that all our features need "full documentation". Remember, though, that the Chancery is precisely where we want our technical experts to go!

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 16, 2025, 09:50:01 PM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 16, 2025, 09:46:37 PMI agree that we might want to add some kind of question around skills, etc. onto the immigration form and make an effort to get new people, perhaps, into the apolitical Civil Service as a start should they be willing and have the specific skills needed.

This is actually provided for in the new immigration law (El Lexh E 3.2), I just haven't had the "spoons" to make it happen, so anyone who's enthusiastic is welcome to step up.

My bottom line is: it is too hard to do stuff in Talossa, whether because it requires too much technical knowledge, or too much time/energy/legal or administrative steps, or there are too many points where others can veto you

Perfect, I didn't catch that in the bill. I am more than happy to help with that. As a former MinImm it is an area which holds my interest.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 16, 2025, 09:33:33 PMAs to recruitment as the solution; we've had a good influx of new citizens recently. None have jumped up to volunteer for this stuff. I mean, perhaps we should have a draft, i.e. "for your first 3 months as a citizen you have to run the Facebook account".

Sure, try it.  You're the Seneschal.  Put a plan into effect tomorrow.  If you don't have any ideas or don't have the energy, resign and I'll do it.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 16, 2025, 09:42:15 PMI mean, Tric'hard is absolutely right that our systems of government and law have grown so complex that they now require specialist help to navigate correctly. Free Democrats' solution to that is to have Civil Servants whose job is to "hold the hands" of politicians in this regard. Like, for example, a Clerk of the Ziu who would take a badly-written napkin idea from a Senator and turn it into a properly worded and formatted bill.

This would be great, but the obvious question is: Who's going to do these jobs?  We're talking about getting rid of the Senats to save on warm bodies, so I don't think we've got so many to spare that we can start staffing them up.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 16, 2025, 09:46:37 PMIf no one will miss the Defence portfolio then it should be an easy cut then?

It wouldn't help.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 16, 2025, 09:50:01 PMMy bottom line is: it is too hard to do stuff in Talossa, whether because it requires too much technical knowledge, or too much time/energy/legal or administrative steps, or there are too many points where others can veto you. The essence of politics is "contending for the right to implement your program". And that is fun in itself, for many. But when you "win", then you have to gather your energy to actually do what you came to do!

This is a problem of a lack of people.  You're one of the only active people in your party with the time to manage things, so you're stuck in the role in perpetuity.  The last time you tried to let someone else run things, it nearly killed the country.  And you have relatively little help, since you also spend a lot of time trying to get others to do things.

So we need more citizens.

We're on a ship and we have a lot of problems right now.  The cordage are all soaked, and the extra canvas for the sail is sitting in a puddle and getting ruined, and the deck is slippery, and we can barely walk with all of the water on the deck, and people trying to rest can't sleep with all the water dripping on them, and it looks like we keep riding lower and lower into the sea.

We could grab new socks and a mop and whatever else, but what we really need to do is plug the hole that's sinking us.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 16, 2025, 09:51:27 PM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 16, 2025, 09:50:01 PM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 16, 2025, 09:46:37 PMI agree that we might want to add some kind of question around skills, etc. onto the immigration form and make an effort to get new people, perhaps, into the apolitical Civil Service as a start should they be willing and have the specific skills needed.

This is actually provided for in the new immigration law (El Lexh E 3.2), I just haven't had the "spoons" to make it happen, so anyone who's enthusiastic is welcome to step up.

My bottom line is: it is too hard to do stuff in Talossa, whether because it requires too much technical knowledge, or too much time/energy/legal or administrative steps, or there are too many points where others can veto you

Perfect, I didn't catch that in the bill. I am more than happy to help with that. As a former MinImm it is an area which holds my interest.

@Miestră Schivă, UrN Making sure you saw this. Let me know how I can help with this small step forward.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 16, 2025, 10:03:50 PM@Miestră Schivă, UrN (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?action=profile;u=3) Making sure you saw this. Let me know how I can help with this small step forward.

Right. This is a matter of rewriting the Immigration application form on the website to collect the information authorised by the revised law. I don't know how you can do that considering that you don't have access to the Wittenberg back-end? Because I don't have an objection in principle

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 16, 2025, 10:07:21 PM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 16, 2025, 10:03:50 PM@Miestră Schivă, UrN (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?action=profile;u=3) Making sure you saw this. Let me know how I can help with this small step forward.

Right. This is a matter of rewriting the Immigration application form on the website to collect the information authorised by the revised law. I don't know how you can do that considering that you don't have access to the Wittenberg back-end? Because I don't have an objection in principle

Have we considered making it a Google Form? Much easier to edit and manage. And most people have experience with those.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 16, 2025, 10:09:19 PMHave we considered making it a Google Form? Much easier to edit and manage.

By a strange coincidence, we've just gone through this re: the Database, and the Chancery insisted over the Ministry of Technology that owning/hosting our own stuff we pay for is worth it being slightly complex. I mean, we can ask @Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP whether it'd be a good idea to replace the current Immigration form with a Google Form.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 16, 2025, 10:39:40 PM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 16, 2025, 10:09:19 PMHave we considered making it a Google Form? Much easier to edit and manage.

By a strange coincidence, we've just gone through this re: the Database, and the Chancery insisted over the Ministry of Technology that owning/hosting our own stuff we pay for is worth it being slightly complex. I mean, we can ask @Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP whether it'd be a good idea to replace the current Immigration form with a Google Form.

@Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP Should that be determined to be a good idea my services are available.

I think a Google form is brilliant in this case. It is easily updated, most people can understand it, and I don't think Google is going anywhere so it's a stable location.

-Txec R

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 16, 2025, 09:42:52 PMA plan is something like "make it known, in a way that preserves the dignity of the prize, that anyone who recruits five new citizens will be granted a knighthood."

I'm not keen on knighthoods being granted in this manner, but I have been considering an idea of further enlarging L'Urderi per la Naziun to include a rank that is below knighthood, in a fashion similar to the British OBE. Granting the rank of "Officer of the Order of the Nation" for recruiting citizens would be a nice way to recognize the efforts of our citizens. We also have the Seneschal's Medals which could be awarded as well.

I'm pondering how I can also make myself more available by doing monthly Google Meets or Zooms where any citizen can just pop in, have a coffee or tea (or other preferred beverage) and chat with the King and anyone else who joins in. We need to change the tone from always being political to finding more ways to have fun and honor citizens who do cool things.

-Txec R

Other thoughts:

- Citizen of the month
- New Citizen recognition in some form
- Maybe easing up on the "apolitical civil service" since some people find service to the country just as fun as doing some politics now and then. (I'm not sure how this would look - just spitballing)
- Monthly contests (again not sure on this)
- Post count ranks. Some forums give interesting ranks or titles for the number of posts in a forum
- Movie night where we all watch the same movie (not really a night as we have different time zones, but you get the idea)
- Book club where we actually read the book together and then discuss it

-Txec R

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 16, 2025, 10:59:17 AM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 16, 2025, 07:59:24 AM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 15, 2025, 07:16:34 PM

Quote from: Tierçéu Rôibeardescù on January 15, 2025, 06:50:02 PMI agree that a year long cosa would be to ungainly as half the fun is the elections.

Can you please elaborate on what would make our elections ungainly with them being conducted annually?

@Tierçéu Rôibeardescù

Tierciu, I look forward to your response as I am genuinely curious what is ungainly about a longer term. Feel free to respond in private if that is better for you but I want to understand the opposition beyond "elections are fun for some."

Just from experience the "vim" is often lost, depleted and or exorsted by Clark 5/6 that it feels like everything starts dragging its feet. By that point, a coalition has often broken up or just stopped responding, leaving some branches of government out of action until new appointments, which are often made peicmeal at and around election.
I do agree that elections arnt always fun as it tends to brig out both the best and worst of our politics.

Quote from: Tierçéu Rôibeardescù on January 17, 2025, 05:42:07 PM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 16, 2025, 10:59:17 AM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 16, 2025, 07:59:24 AM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 15, 2025, 07:16:34 PM

Quote from: Tierçéu Rôibeardescù on January 15, 2025, 06:50:02 PMI agree that a year long cosa would be to ungainly as half the fun is the elections.

Can you please elaborate on what would make our elections ungainly with them being conducted annually?

@Tierçéu Rôibeardescù

Tierciu, I look forward to your response as I am genuinely curious what is ungainly about a longer term. Feel free to respond in private if that is better for you but I want to understand the opposition beyond "elections are fun for some."

Just from experience the "vim" is often lost, depleted and or exorsted by Clark 5/6 that it feels like everything starts dragging its feet. By that point, a coalition has often broken up or just stopped responding, leaving some branches of government out of action until new appointments, which are often made peicmeal at and around election.
I do agree that elections arnt always fun as it tends to brig out both the best and worst of our politics.

I hear you Tierciu but a cabinet shuffle can fix that issue (as Miestra has indicated is imminent). So far, the only answer I've heard is that some people think elections are fun. If we had fixed annual elections as a part of a package of reforms along with MMP, etc then I find it hard to believe the people who think elections are fun are going to become less interested because they have to wait a little longer.

I would like to respond to certain suggestions in this thread with a principle that I think is pretty important, and that my government will stick to:

Talossa's institutions are made for its people, not the other way around. While more Talossans of goodwill are to be celebrated, the idea that we should recruit so that existing institutions can be maintained is, as the Americans say, ass-backward.

We should recruit so that Talossa survives.

Quote from: King Txec on January 17, 2025, 07:18:06 AMI think a Google form is brilliant in this case. It is easily updated, most people can understand it, and I don't think Google is going anywhere so it's a stable location.

Saving His Majesty's presence, his Government is very opposed to this, on the point that we believe strongly in Talossan data sovereignty. Talossa's data and online presence should be on storage/servers that the Kingdom owns or controls. Recent events show that Google and other "tech oligarchs" cannot be trusted to have the best interests of democracy at heart

I would also like to point out that it is relatively easy to edit the current form, and that Google hates transitions of data/account ownership from one person to another, of which we have relatively many. (We just had one in the Chancery and it was a very annoying process that threatened to shut me out multiple times.)

Quote from: Sir Lüc on January 19, 2025, 03:15:24 PMI would also like to point out that it is relatively easy to edit the current form,

It is. I just haven't gotten around to it lol

I mean, that's understandable, mine was an argument against "well Google is easy/easier".

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 19, 2025, 03:19:11 PM

Quote from: Sir Lüc on January 19, 2025, 03:15:24 PMI would also like to point out that it is relatively easy to edit the current form,

It is. I just haven't gotten around to it lol

Now that we know it is relatively easy to do I hope the change can be made soon.

Quote from: Sir Lüc on January 19, 2025, 03:15:24 PMI would also like to point out that it is relatively easy to edit the current form,

Okay, I've done that, but it wasn't that easy, the WYSIWIG editor is pretty far from intuitive, and the documentation for Contact Form 7 has gaping holes in it. But it's in better conformity with the law and my personal tastes now, you're all invited to check it out

I can confirm that the form is not easy to edit or troubleshoot. It is also a bit opaque on the back end when it comes to getting the email stuff to work.

Quote from: Tierçéu Rôibeardescù on January 15, 2025, 06:50:02 PMI personally quite like the "Proportional Provincial voting" cosa idea, a lot more of a parliament style of a "big pants" nation. It would be interesting to work out the right balance so that more and less active provinces are indeed fairly proportioned. I would force party's to actually have better accountability to the provinces too than the current system, how that will manifest is yet to be determined.

So I am to understand you prefer the "Biproportional" method, yes? There are indeed quite a few legislatures around the world that operate on such a system; Estonia's Riigikogu (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riigikogu) and the Dutch House of Representatives (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Representatives_(Netherlands)) are two that I was most-directly inspired by.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 16, 2025, 10:39:40 PM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 16, 2025, 10:09:19 PMHave we considered making it a Google Form? Much easier to edit and manage.

By a strange coincidence, we've just gone through this re: the Database, and the Chancery insisted over the Ministry of Technology that owning/hosting our own stuff we pay for is worth it being slightly complex. I mean, we can ask @Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP whether it'd be a good idea to replace the current Immigration form with a Google Form.

Never mind, I see we've had a conversation on the continued supremacy of data sovereignty.

Quote from: King Txec on January 17, 2025, 07:33:07 AM(or other preferred beverage)

👀

Quote from: King Txec on January 17, 2025, 07:41:57 AMOther thoughts:

- Citizen of the month
- New Citizen recognition in some form
- Maybe easing up on the "apolitical civil service" since some people find service to the country just as fun as doing some politics now and then. (I'm not sure how this would look - just spitballing)
- Monthly contests (again not sure on this)
- Post count ranks. Some forums give interesting ranks or titles for the number of posts in a forum
- Movie night where we all watch the same movie (not really a night as we have different time zones, but you get the idea)
- Book club where we actually read the book together and then discuss it

-Txec R

These ideas and lots of others are available, and I'm sure we could brainstorm more.  Could the Government try some things, please?

Just adding my 2¢ -- likely mentioned in other parts previous in this thread but difficult to access on my phone currently.

Removing checks and balances is a bad idea.  Thus, any attempt to remove the Senate (such as what has been previously attempted with the Monarchy), will result in fractious and ultimately unproductive time spent on fundamental change that is inappropriate.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 30, 2025, 04:02:40 PM

Quote from: King Txec on January 17, 2025, 07:41:57 AMOther thoughts:

- Citizen of the month
- New Citizen recognition in some form
- Maybe easing up on the "apolitical civil service" since some people find service to the country just as fun as doing some politics now and then. (I'm not sure how this would look - just spitballing)
- Monthly contests (again not sure on this)
- Post count ranks. Some forums give interesting ranks or titles for the number of posts in a forum
- Movie night where we all watch the same movie (not really a night as we have different time zones, but you get the idea)
- Book club where we actually read the book together and then discuss it

-Txec R

These ideas and lots of others are available, and I'm sure we could brainstorm more.  Could the Government try some things, please?

These ideas were thoughts I had of ways I can help spur activity, not necessarily for the government to carry out.

-Txec R

For sure, and it will be great if other people get involved. But 90% of all the active people are in government in some way, either in the legislature or in the Government proper. I would just love to see some focus on this stuff.