This is a fairly easy question, but I find myself stumped. Can anyone point me to the legal provisions governing how many seats an MC can hold?
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 09, 2025, 10:54:44 PMThis is a fairly easy question, but I find myself stumped. Can anyone point me to the legal provisions governing how many seats an MC can hold?
El Lexhatx H.4.1:
Quote4.1. 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 in the most recent General Election, rounded up to the next integer.
So that's 2000/95 rounded up = 22
Thank you -- yeah, that does seem to be the only thing. I'll consult with my party leader about what he thinks, but I think that it might be time to challenge whether or not this provision is Organic. There used to be an Organic provision that allowed for this specifically, but it was removed some time ago, and I can't find any kind of equivalent. There's something saying that seats must be assigned "in accordance with law," but I think the clear Organic language stating that seats must match the vote as much as possible will override any statute. I think this statute is probably not going to hold up when challenged.
I would draw your attention to El Lexhatx B.2.3.1.1:
Quote2.3.1.1. The party leader may assign seats to any eligible citizen(s) they see fit, so long as the following criteria are met:
2.3.1.1.1. The party's internal procedures are followed
2.3.1.1.2. No one who was not named on the list is assigned more seats than any eligible citizen who was named on the list
2.3.1.1.3. The total number of seats awarded to those not on the list does not exceed 1/3 of all seats won by the party
2.3.1.1.4. No person occupies more than the maximum legal number of seats.[112]
There is in short nothing to stop the Progressive Alliance filling all their seats. A party which got 26 votes should not have any trouble finding at least one person willing to hold up to 19 seats.
We can, yes, but I just wonder if we should. It might be time to challenge that provision. But again, my party leader might not agree. Just thinking.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 10, 2025, 12:03:36 AMWe can, yes, but I just wonder if we should. It might be time to challenge that provision. But again, my party leader might not agree. Just thinking.
I believe you are completely wrong and the statute is organic. OrgLaw 4.2.2 states " Each party shall receive a percentage of party seats as equal as possible to its percentage of the popular vote, but each party shall receive a whole number of seats, and in turn, each party shall assign these seats to individuals,
in accordance with law." the law here is El Lex 2.3.1.1.
OrgLaw leaves the assigning of seats up to statutory law, and our statutory law defines that process.
-Txec R
Yes, that's the part I was referencing before, and I just don't think that it can have this effect. That would allow the Ziu - a body which is not in fact empowered to make laws about how our elections are conducted at all - to make a law with majority support saying that seats cannot be assigned to individuals based on all kinds of arbitrary and undemocratic ideas. I think the multiple explicit and clear places where the OrgLaw says that the outcome should match the vote and there aren't restrictions on becoming an MC and so on would control. If I can figure out a scenario for a test case that would also end the party list rule, this might be worth doing.
Actually, as I write that, I do have to reflect that I don't think I have the bandwidth for it right now when I'm trying to focus on language lessons. Maybe it will suffice to say that I think the whole thing is inOrganic and if it ever prevents a party from holding seats, I am happy to offer my services pro bono to argue the case.
This is where we disagree. I don't see the assigning of seats has anything at all to do with elections but with the moderation of the house itself. Nevertheless, we have bigger issues in the kingdom we should focus on, and I firmly believe the lack of use of Talossan is a huge issue.
-Txec R
I do not think that the Ziu's power to regulate how it does business extends to overruling the outcome of an election in order to decide who gets to sit in the legislature.
After all, the OrgLaw usually clearly states when the Ziu is able to write statutes on a matter. Party registration fees are "to be set by law," the number of seats "may be set by law," the apportioning of seats are "set by law," party registration is "defined by law," and so on.
If a simple majority of the Ziu has statutory power to set any rule they wish regarding who is allowed to get seats, then a simple majority -- or the Seneschal and sovereign in themselves -- is actually in control of elections. I think that's probably wrong and inOrganic.
However, for now I do think I'll just offer, open-ended and without prejudice to person or party, to represent anyone in the future who wishes to challenge these provisions.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on April 09, 2025, 11:08:48 PMQuote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 09, 2025, 10:54:44 PMThis is a fairly easy question, but I find myself stumped. Can anyone point me to the legal provisions governing how many seats an MC can hold?
El Lexhatx H.4.1:
Quote4.1. 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 in the most recent General Election, rounded up to the next integer.
So that's 2000/95 rounded up = 22
I always had trouble finding this provision as well!
-Txec R
I look forward to RETVRNing to the glory days of the blank cheque ballot, where a party which won a majority could assign all its seats to one person and he would effectively be the Cosa for that term, taking Cosa votes on his own and informing everyone of the result later.
Azul,
Before the real cosa with 20 seats , I think the maximum was 35 seats.
They always have been a limit.
Mximo Carbonèl
Yeah, Mximo's right. I don't think that's ever been the case. I would expect it would still continue to not be the case. There's a huge number of practical reasons to spread seats around.
Quote from: mximo on April 10, 2025, 04:51:38 PMBefore the real cosa with 20 seats , I think the maximum was 35 seats.
They always have been a limit.
Not always. The following quote from the "Big Thick History", page 145:
QuoteAfter all these crises, King Robert decided to take another well-deserved
vacation. His trip to Canada during June and early July (1985) inspired him; a visit
to the Canadian Parliament on Ottawa convinced him that the democratic system
had to be preserved, strengthened and extended in Talossa. On 25 June the
Cosâ (which, since he controlled 70% of it, followed the King wherever he
went), meeting in Toronto, passed an inane resolution condemning terrorism...
Doesnt means he keep 70% of the seats for himself...
But well...
Mximo
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on April 10, 2025, 05:30:37 PMQuote from: mximo on April 10, 2025, 04:51:38 PMBefore the real cosa with 20 seats , I think the maximum was 35 seats.
They always have been a limit.
Not always. The following quote from the "Big Thick History", page 145:
QuoteAfter all these crises, King Robert decided to take another well-deserved
vacation. His trip to Canada during June and early July (1985) inspired him; a visit
to the Canadian Parliament on Ottawa convinced him that the democratic system
had to be preserved, strengthened and extended in Talossa. On 25 June the
Cosâ (which, since he controlled 70% of it, followed the King wherever he
went), meeting in Toronto, passed an inane resolution condemning terrorism...
This was only five years since the country was founded, and so the teenaged King Robert was actually still in the dictatorship period... any democracy was just permitted at his whim, like in the DPRK. The country is rather different now.
This feature actually still depended on an unusual early law which counted a non-vote as a vote for King Robert's party. So he won 70% of the vote because most people didn't vote, and each of those abstentions counted as a vote for him! I would not support the return of such a law, and I'd wager that our current sovereign wouldn't, either.
Anyway, there's a lot of pretty good reasons to award votes to more than just the party leader. You don't want your program to rely 100% on just one person's good health and fortune... and also it's going to make it hard to keep supporters if the price of supporting your party is that they never get a chance to be in the Cosa! If anyone ever made this mistake, I imagine they'd regret it pretty quickly!
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu DavinescuI would not support the return of such a law, and I'd wager that our current sovereign wouldn't, either.
You are correct. I would not.
-Txec R
I just can't see any way in which "you can't give more than X seats to a single person" is Organic, while "you can't give more than X seats to people who weren't named candidates on your ballot" is inOrganic.
Sure, you've convinced me. Good point.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 10, 2025, 05:17:28 PMYeah, Mximo's right. I don't think that's ever been the case. I would expect it would still continue to not be the case. There's a huge number of practical reasons to spread seats around.
We already try the 20 seats real Cosa.
Political parties had difficulty finding one person per seat.
Mximo
I used to be a big fan of the Real Cosa, but I've changed my mind because the 200 seat system is more flexible and adaptable to real-world Talossan conditions.
If we want to return to the real Cosa, we should abolish the two-chamber system. Perhaps have a single chamber of 18 seats to avoid a tie; the president of the Chamber would not have the right to vote but would decide disputes. 8 seats elected like senators by province and 10 elected by proportional representation. With this way we could have a real Cosa and 18 people, I think we have them.
Mximo
Quote from: mximo on April 10, 2025, 10:11:24 PMIf we want to return to the real Cosa, we should abolish the two-chamber system. Perhaps have a single chamber of 18 seats to avoid a tie; the president of the Chamber would not have the right to vote but would decide disputes. 8 seats elected like senators by province and 10 elected by proportional representation. With this way we could have a real Cosa and 18 people, I think we have them.
Mximo
This is amazing, this is exactly the same MMP Real Cosa suggestion that I,
@Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be and
@Sir Lüc have all independently suggested, at different times of history!
Unfortunately I don't think we could get 134 seats for it in the current Cosa.
I personnaly support the real Cosa back in the Day.
Im ready to still support it in the Sénat today.
Maybe a joins committee on the matter should be form.
Mximo
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on April 10, 2025, 10:32:31 PMQuote from: mximo on April 10, 2025, 10:11:24 PMIf we want to return to the real Cosa, we should abolish the two-chamber system. Perhaps have a single chamber of 18 seats to avoid a tie; the president of the Chamber would not have the right to vote but would decide disputes. 8 seats elected like senators by province and 10 elected by proportional representation. With this way we could have a real Cosa and 18 people, I think we have them.
Mximo
This is amazing, this is exactly the same MMP Real Cosa suggestion that I, @Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be and @Sir Lüc have all independently suggested, at different times of history!
Unfortunately I don't think we could get 134 seats for it in the current Cosa.
As down as I am with a Unicameral Real Cosa, to be clear my proposal from the last term was still a 200-seat chamber :P
Azul,
Yes the D&D fans section of Talossa politics.
Many seats
and roll of dices :)))
Mximo