Wittenberg

So I've been passing around a model amendment on this subject privately. I've got cautious welcome among some, criticism among others, and insistence that we need to throw a whole bunch of other Senäts amendments in there as well, which seem to me just as prone to leading to complete failure as with the Fixed Term amendment.

So what I am suggesting basically is for three Senators to be elected by the whole nation at every Cosa election, with each voter getting 1 vote. This would allow either a simple first-past-the-post vote (top three wins) or an STV election. I would much prefer the latter, with the caveat that counting ranked-choice voting for multiple vacancies is a pain in the neck which generally requires automation.

The eagle eyed will have spotted that this means 6 Senators rather than 8. Although I personally just prefer a smaller Upper House, I don't expect that to convince anyone. My main argument for this is basically that, since 3 Senators are elected each time anyway, this would be by far the easiest transition procedure.

A few other little things:
- I think we should restore the former provision that a CpI justice can't sit in the Senäts, for separation of powers reasons (having them in the Cosa is less of a big deal).
- mid-term vacancies can be filled either by a provincial government nomination, or by nominating the runner up in the election. In the case of an STV election that's doable via countback (https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/do-all-countries-have-by-elections-filling-parliamentary-vacancies-around-the-world/), which is eminently fair but kind of annoying to do.
- do we really want to keep the OrgLaw IV.9 provision for impeachment?

Anyway, here would be my model amendments, which, as I say, are my idea of minimal changes.

OrgLaw III:

QuoteArticle III: The Senäts
Section 1
The Senäts, or in English the Senate, is the national legislative council and the upper house of the Ziu, and shall be composed of six Senators elected by the nation as a whole. It may administer itself as it sees fit.
 
Section 2
Except as otherwise provided in this Organic Law, any Talossan eligible to vote may be elected or appointed to the Senäts. No Senator, even though elected or appointed to the Senäts, may vote on Senäts business until he has been a citizen for one year, or served for six months as Seneschál or Secretary of State, or received an order of knighthood from the King. No person may simultaneously hold more than one seat in the Senäts.

Section 3
Neither a reigning King, nor his Consort, nor a Regent during his regency, nor a Judge of the Cort pü Inalt shall under any circumstances be eligible to be elected or appointed to a place in the Senäts.

Section 4
The Senäts shall have equal powers with the Cosa in respect of all proposed laws, except that bills appropriating revenue or moneys shall not originate in the Senäts, and the Government shall require the confidence of the Cosa only to remain in office. In the event of the Senäts twice rejecting a bill appropriating revenue or moneys which is passed by the Cosa, upon it being passed a third time by the Cosa, it shall not require the consent of the Senäts to be given Royal Assent and take effect. Bills for the imposition or appropriation of fines or other monetary penalties, or for the demand or payment or appropriation of fees for licenses or services, shall not be taken to appropriate revenue or moneys.

Section 5
A Senator vacates their seat if, not being disqualified from voting by law, they do not vote on two consecutive Clarks; or if they resign from office, lose their citizenship or die.

Section 6
No senator shall ever be required to vacate his place during his term of service, due to a change in the qualifications of Senators.

Section 7
If a Senator vacates his or her seat before the end of the term, the executive of their home province shall appoint a Senator to sit for the remainder of their scheduled term. If the provincial executive fails to appoint a Senator within a fortnight of the vacancy, the King or his Cunstavál shall appoint the Senator.

Section 8
Senators may be removed from office by the Uppermost Cort, for criminal activity or for mis-, mal-, or non-feasance.

Section 9
The Senate may impeach any of its members from the Chamber with a two-thirds majority vote. Following a failed expulsion, the accused Senator may not again be tried for the same offence, pursuant to the Seventh Covenant of the Covenant of Rights and Freedoms. The former Senator is not barred from running for office in future elections as long as the former Senator maintains citizenship.

Section 10
The Senäts shall, after every general election, choose one of its members to be the President of the Senäts to be called the Mençéi, or in English the Lord President; and as often as the office of Mençéi becomes vacant the Senäts shall again choose a senator to be the Mençéi. The Mençéi shall cease to hold office if he ceases to be a senator. The Mençéi may be removed from office by a vote of the Senäts, or he may resign his office or seat by writing addressed to the King, or by public declaration.

Section 11
The Secretary of State may request from all successful candidates in a Senäts election a registration fee, to be set by law, to cover the cost of the election. This fee shall be uniform for all successful candidates.

OrgLaw V.6-7:

QuoteSection 6
Elections for the filling of places in the Senäts shall be conducted simultaneously with general elections to the Cosa. Each time the Cosa shall be dissolved, there shall be an election for three Senate seats.

Section 7: Transitional Provisions
If the amendment establishing this section is ratified by a referendum concurrent with a Cosa election, then the Senators elected concurrently with that election shall serve a term lasting two Cosa terms; otherwise, the Senators elected concurrently with the previous Cosa election shall serve a term lasting two Cosa terms. The terms of all other Senators shall end at the time scheduled before this section was amended.

Section 8
The Chancery shall conduct all elections to the Senäts, according to the provisions given in Sections 2-5, above. Each voter in a Senäts election shall cast a vote for one Senator, which may be a ranked-choice vote if so established by law. In the absence of ranked choice voting, the three candidates with the most votes shall be declared the winners, with any tie to be broken by random lot by the Secretary of State. An election by ranked-choice vote shall be held under principles of proportional representation as established by law.

===

NOTE: in accordance with the Confidence and Supply agreement made between the Government and @Munditenens Tresplet , no Amendment of this nature will be Clarked without co-sponsorship from either s:reu Tresplet or a Progressive Alliance legislator.

Posting my feedback on the proposed changes (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZqvUzvqnyGAr4oGBJetR7wnhYX5tM_BKydQuAtK-ACQ/edit?tab=t.0) as well.

One of the key changes is a mild reduction in the powers of the Senäts; namely allowing the Cosa to override the rejection of a bill by the Senäts by a 3/5 supermajority on regular legislation only (i.e. not OrgLaw amendments).

* This balances an increase in the power of individual Senators (because of the decrease in their number) with a reduction in their power as a body.
* It brings the Senäts more in line with the "postponement" model of upper house legislative consideration seen in most other parliamentary systems.
* It does not affect the power of a royal veto, which the King is still completely entitled to use on bills for which the Cosa has overridden Senäts rejection.
* As I mentioned earlier, the consent of the Senäts is still mandatory under this model for amendments to the Organic Law.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on April 14, 2025, 10:25:07 PM* It brings the Senäts more in line with the "postponement" model of upper house legislative consideration seen in most other parliamentary systems.

I very much like this.

Have @Munditenens Tresplet or the Progs got anything to say about this? Either in principle or in detail?

Several major bills were posted in pretty quick succession, at a time when I was working on the language thing, so I haven't had a chance to review them. Only so much Talossa time in any given week.

Please forgive the delay, but I will of course give my feedback on these and the other issues as soon as I can.

I like the basic idea; I proposed it first, of course, and would have much preferred to be the one working on it.

I really don't like the reduction in the number of Senators without much thought to the massively increased power a single Senator would have - akin to a MC who could hold 33 seats. I don't buy that "making transition easier" is a valid reason for this either, and I'll demonstrate that by amending V.7 from Mic'haglh's draft:

QuoteSection 7: Transitional Provisions
Upon the ratification of this provision, incumbent Senators shall be divided into two classes, based upon the provincial rotation established in law, with the first class of Senators to be comprised of half the number of Senators, beginning with the Senators whose terms were to expire at the general election following this provision's ratification, together with one of the Senators whose term was to expire at the next general election after that, as chosen by the Chancery by lot. The remainder of Senators shall compose the second class. The Senäts term of the first class shall expire upon the dissolution of the Cosă following this provision's ratification, and alternating classes thereafter.

Quote from: Sir Lüc on April 22, 2025, 05:01:00 AMI really don't like the reduction in the number of Senators without much thought to the massively increased power a single Senator would have - akin to a MC who could hold 33 seats.

A valid concern, though this is the main reason I sought a mild reduction in the power of the chamber as a whole to compensate.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on April 22, 2025, 08:42:18 PM

Quote from: Sir Lüc on April 22, 2025, 05:01:00 AMI really don't like the reduction in the number of Senators without much thought to the massively increased power a single Senator would have - akin to a MC who could hold 33 seats.

A valid concern, though this is the main reason I sought a mild reduction in the power of the chamber as a whole to compensate.

But again, you reduce the number of senators because the transition would be simpler, which is a consequential change for a small, solvable issue, only to then rebalance it in a way that could be understandable for other reasons*, but has nothing to do with the starting issue to begin with. That to me is amputating an arm instead of putting a band-aid on a papercut, and then getting a prosthesis for the wrong body part.

Reducing the number of senators for an easily solvable transitional issue is indefensible. Let's revert back the change and keep this amendment focused on what this was supposed to do to begin with.




*: such as if the Senate continued to be skewed by provincial imbalance - hopefully not anymore - or if the Cosă needed to explicitly be the foremost nationally elected house of the Ziu.

Quote from: Sir Lüc on April 23, 2025, 06:02:00 AMLet's revert back the change and keep this amendment focused on what this was supposed to do to begin with.

The change in question is also present in Miestra's original text.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on April 23, 2025, 08:55:35 AM

Quote from: Sir Lüc on April 23, 2025, 06:02:00 AMLet's revert back the change and keep this amendment focused on what this was supposed to do to begin with.

The change in question is also present in Miestra's original text.

Oh yes, sorry, I should specify:

1. I am criticising both proposals and I only amended your Section 7 because I liked its wording more;

2. By "reverting back" I mean to the current eight-member Senate, and overall, to focusing the bill on the basic idea of a single nationwide constituency, which was my original idea some others are now developing.

Quote from: Sir Lüc on April 23, 2025, 02:05:24 PM

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on April 23, 2025, 08:55:35 AM

Quote from: Sir Lüc on April 23, 2025, 06:02:00 AMLet's revert back the change and keep this amendment focused on what this was supposed to do to begin with.

The change in question is also present in Miestra's original text.

Oh yes, sorry, I should specify:

1. I am criticising both proposals and I only amended your Section 7 because I liked its wording more;

2. By "reverting back" I mean to the current eight-member Senate, and overall, to focusing the bill on the basic idea of a single nationwide constituency, which was my original idea some others are now developing.

Ah, ok that is fair then. I had a feeling we weren't quite responding to each other's direct concerns.

I still believe a reduction in Senators is important given the previously-discussed "warm bodies problem", but at least we now understand each other.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on April 23, 2025, 02:24:40 PMAh, ok that is fair then. I had a feeling we weren't quite responding to each other's direct concerns.

I still believe a reduction in Senators is important given the previously-discussed "warm bodies problem", but at least we now understand each other.

Sure, and I definitely initially misread your initial response.

I don't buy the "warm bodies problem" either for the following reasons:

1. As bad as the situation was in the last election, we had four candidates for three spots;

2. People avoid running for the Senate because of partisan or personal affiliation with the incumbent - I definitely passed up on running for my old seat because Iason announced he would run for reelection - and this wouldn't be an issue anymore if we ditch single winner races;

3. I disagree with the current ban on UC justices in the Senate while allowing them to serve on the Cosa and firmly think the reverse makes way more sense. I made the same point to V way back when this was enacted and his stance was to me quite baffling - how is it defensible for a justice to be a partisan politician elected in a party list just because they're towing the party line instead of voting their own conscience (and/or technically representing their province, currently) as independent legislators? Litz Cjantscheir was party leader of a party that (at least when it was founded in 2013, I'd need to check) explicitly had no platform, so how would that, or an explicitly single person party, be any different from being a senator?

4. Likewise, I would probably run for Senate if I wasn't forbidden to hold seats in the Ziu - which all Secretaries up to Iustì Canun were not, and in an era where senators actually still had overt partisan affiliations. I do recognise it's bad optics to have someone conduct their own election, so I'm not actually asking for this, but for the sake of playing devil's advocate 1. we have a quite effective Electoral Commission with comprehensive tools to identify fraud, and 2. again, it wouldn't be a single winner race anymore.

I support prohibiting members of the judiciary from serving in the legislature. Got into a bit of trouble around the issue during the 58th Cosa. I wish we could just pass a ban on the SOS being in political positions too or remove it from elections from the purview of the Chancery. Gluc, was the exemplar of this tradition, and Lord knows it's a hill for dying I know very well.

Okay, where are we on this? I think I've come round to @Sir Lüc on the numbers issue. We can keep 8 Senators and election of 3 at a time and just have the existing election schedule. That's the ultra-minimal version.

If we admit that, I'd ask @þerxh Sant-Enogat , @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu and @Munditenens Tresplet what they think of the principle.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 23, 2025, 10:31:45 PMI support prohibiting members of the judiciary from serving in the legislature. Got into a bit of trouble around the issue during the 58th Cosa. I wish we could just pass a ban on the SOS being in political positions too or remove it from elections from the purview of the Chancery. Gluc, was the exemplar of this tradition, and Lord knows it's a hill for dying I know very well.

I'd love to see a prohibition on members of the Judiciary serving in the Legislature. And a ban on the SOS being in political positions. Well known here but I am a supporter of longer Cosa terms too and I think there are some Avanters who agree.

BUMP. Do we have at least Progressive Alliance support for the principle of at-large Senäts elections?

Can we back up, first?  What would be the benefit?  From my perspective, it looks like it's just very obviously the first step to eliminating the Senats and/or provinces.

We've been through this a godzillion times. The benefit is that provincialised Senäts elections have led to a whole series of uncontested elections as the provinces are now too small and unbalanced to have more than one qualified and enthusiastic candidate. Fiova is pretty much a rotten borough, for example, and you saw what just happened in Vuode.

Well, I certainly agree that our activity level and immigration level is at a crisis point.  It should be the overwhelming, central, and dominant focus of our Government.  But I think rising back to the level where have more regularly competitive elections in the Senats doesn't take a very high threshold.  We have like 160 citizens, and maybe 20 active ones.  Increasing our activity level from 12.5% to 18.75% would probably do it, either by increasing interest from current citizens or increasing immigration levels.

Making systemic changes to simply embrace a lower active population is not a good idea.  And I do still think this is just the first step to eliminating the Senats and/or provinces. 

I'm having flashbacks to the last days of the Lupul monarchy. Back then too, there could never be any compromise; any monarchy reform was possible because reform could only ever be "the first step to abolition".

I don't believe we can blame the immigration problem we currently have on the government. Looking at the last several applications, the prospectives never made any contact at all. That is not Dame Miestra's fault or the fault of any Talossan.

With that said, one way that I know of to spur activity is to make contact with Talossans outside of Wittenberg. I personally have been emailing, Discording, PM'ing (yes I know that's Witt), Facebooking, etc. formerly active Talossans just to keep in contact with them. One eminent Talossan lost her seat on the UC due to inactivity, but if people knew why she went inactive (read: off of Wittenberg) I can bet she would have kept her seat. Another prominent Talossan lost not only his son, but another close family member and just recently, his job. That keeps him away - his life is tough. A third prominent Talossan just got married and is moving to Europe. A fourth worries about his job as a federal employee. I know these things about my fellow Talossans because I reach out to them. We all need to be doing this. I imagine that if more people showed interest in our fellow citizens outside the constraints of Witt, we'd find some of them coming back to activity.

Oh, and this should NOT be something the government is required to do. It should be something we all WANT to do because Talossa is a family.

-Txec R

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on May 27, 2025, 01:07:43 AMI'm having flashbacks to the last days of the Lupul monarchy. Back then too, there could never be any compromise; any monarchy reform was possible because reform could only ever be "the first step to abolition".

Well, that kind of flies in the face of the many, many compromises that happened (many of which I helped to write!)

But returning to the topic: one of the key elements in a compromise is that both sides have to be able to credibly commit to the compromise.  Since the Free Democrats seem committed to eliminating the Senats and/or provinces, I think it's fairly reasonable to be a little cautious of starting a march in that direction.  If those things aren't on the table, then the situation is different.  So then... what's the plan?

Quote from: King Txec on May 27, 2025, 06:28:09 AMI don't believe we can blame the immigration problem we currently have on the government.

Your Majesty, I agree that this problem wasn't caused by the Government.  But when the hurricane blows, it is the government's responsibility to deal with it.  They didn't cause the hurricane, and we all need to pitch in with the sandbags, but it's a threat to the country that the Government must prioritize.

I have very little good to say about the Green Party or their sex-pest Svengali, but I commend the way - despite their minority status - they fulfil the function of an opposition party and post formal Terpelaziuns. If the Progressive Alliance really believe there is something the Government could be doing but is not re: increasing immigration or activity, I humbly request that they use that modality to inform us.

I apologise to the Baron for a sharp reaction, but the questions that he posed - that, outwith "the first step on a slippery slope to abolition", what is the point of at-large rather than provincialised Senäts elections - have been raised many time previously, firstly by @Sir Lüc .

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on May 27, 2025, 04:22:50 PMI have very little good to say about the Green Party or their sex-pest Svengali, but I commend the way - despite their minority status - they fulfil the function of an opposition party and post formal Terpelaziuns.

Thanks @Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC the laugh I got from this almost makes up for the pain I recall from listening to Vostok Lake. Compliment appreciated.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on May 27, 2025, 04:22:50 PMI apologise to the Baron for a sharp reaction, but the questions that he posed - that, outwith "the first step on a slippery slope to abolition", what is the point of at-large rather than provincialised Senäts elections - have been raised many time previously, firstly by @Sir Lüc .

I accept your apology, and I understand your annoyance.  For my own part, I am sorry if we do have to retread the same ground a bit.  My party has pledged to work to preserve the Senats, though, so we have a vested interest in knowing if this plan would just be step #1 in that process.  I'm really not trying to be difficult.  I'm just a little slow and trying to understand why we would possibly want to do this.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 27, 2025, 10:20:21 PM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on May 27, 2025, 04:22:50 PMI apologise to the Baron for a sharp reaction, but the questions that he posed - that, outwith "the first step on a slippery slope to abolition", what is the point of at-large rather than provincialised Senäts elections - have been raised many time previously, firstly by @Sir Lüc .

I accept your apology, and I understand your annoyance.  For my own part, I am sorry if we do have to retread the same ground a bit.  My party has pledged to work to preserve the Senats, though, so we have a vested interest in knowing if this plan would just be step #1 in that process.  I'm really not trying to be difficult.  I'm just a little slow and trying to understand why we would possibly want to do this.

For my part, I have accepted that the Senats is here to stay in some form or another for the foreseeable future, so I'm not pushing for abolition if that's your concern.

I do, however, believe that fewer Senators is a preferable change to make Talossa work better for Talossans, and regardless of whether we reduce them now or at some point in the future, decoupling them from provincial representation would be necessary to do that.

However, it may interest you to know that you and I agree on the issue of needing some form of provincial representation in the Ziu overall. (basing my understanding of your position off this quote:)

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on September 25, 2024, 10:59:02 AM-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.

Granted, both of the apportionment methods I'd previously proposed do just that, so at that point, pick your favorite.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on May 27, 2025, 11:25:09 PMI do, however, believe that fewer Senators is a preferable change to make Talossa work better for Talossans, and regardless of whether we reduce them now or at some point in the future, decoupling them from provincial representation would be necessary to do that.

Could we speak to that, then?  It seems to me that this would only be true in the future if we continue to decline and shrink.  Problems like uneven levels of representation are real, and they can be addressed by catchment reform and other solutions.

While I'm open to the idea -- and have suggested as much in past discussions, touching on specific details -- right now I am fundamentally unconvinced of the specific merits of this reform or the long-term vision that would make it a necessity.

I'm trying very hard to keep open this dialogue, because I'm not a firm no.  But right now, it feels like we're planning on bulldozing the dining room because we don't have enough friends to keep hosting dinner parties.  Like, I get the logic, but there's better and healthier solutions to that problem, like making more friends (join a Zumba class or one of those painting-and-wine courses).

Slow reaction on my side, sorry.
I want to keep the principle of a provincial representation, as a better way to have a second line of defense against damaging changes.
If the two chambers are elected by the same body of voters we will even increase the party alignment of these, eliminating the differentiation effect of provincial origin. Why not increasing even this differentiation, may be by being even more specific in associating geographies and provinces (in clear & a bit provoking : what is the proportion of US citizens in each province, should we review catchment areas to have more non-US provinces? This being said, I've not done any correlation stats between geographies and political affiliation)
Of course this may not solve political participation issue - unless if a higher chance to represent the opposition trigers competition - like we had in our most beautiful Province ?
I agree that increasing active population should remain our common goal- in the meanwhile let's not adapt to decline.
Why not also think about how the job of a legislator could be made more accessible, fun or rewarding ? "bests new law" title, badge system / gamification, enhancement to the arms, ability to be elected as a proxy of another MZ, mentoring of newbies, increased number of seats for first-time MCs, .. ?

Quote from: þerxh Sant-Enogat on May 29, 2025, 03:30:33 PMSlow reaction on my side, sorry.
I want to keep the principle of a provincial representation, as a better way to have a second line of defense against damaging changes.
If the two chambers are elected by the same body of voters we will even increase the party alignment of these, eliminating the differentiation effect of provincial origin. Why not increasing even this differentiation, may be by being even more specific in associating geographies and provinces (in clear & a bit provoking : what is the proportion of US citizens in each province, should we review catchment areas to have more non-US provinces? This being said, I've not done any correlation stats between geographies and political affiliation)
Of course this may not solve political participation issue - unless if a higher chance to represent the opposition trigers competition - like we had in our most beautiful Province ?
I agree that increasing active population should remain our common goal- in the meanwhile let's not adapt to decline.
Why not also think about how the job of a legislator could be made more accessible, fun or rewarding ? "bests new law" title, badge system / gamification, enhancement to the arms, ability to be elected as a proxy of another MZ, mentoring of newbies, increased number of seats for first-time MCs, .. ?

Population may not be the best indicator if that is what you are going for. For example, in the United States, the state of North Dakota has two US Senators. North Dakota has a population of approximately 750,000 people. The city of San Francisco in California, by itself, has a population of over 800,000 citizens. Some would argue that is an outdated way of thinking - that a state with fewer citizens than a modestly sized city has more representation in the US Senate is unfair or whatever.

Ataturk has an active citizenship of 16, while Vuode has an active citizen base of 9. Is the problem catchment? We've tweaked that and reconfigured it numerous times and the balance hasn't really changed. Is it the number of US/North American citizens versus European/overseas citizens? Right now, we have a good balance I believe of active citizens from the various regions so I don't think that is the problem either. I also don't think we need to do a mass re-balancing of citizens to "even things up." Just like in the United States system, some regions/states/provinces will be over or under respresented.

What is the problem then? In my view, too much about Talossa is politics and not enough is about culture. The most active citizens right now are either those in the government or those in opposition. Everyone else is off playing Fortnite or whatever. When I joined Talossa, I'd say about 20% of what we talked about was government stuff and the rest was the fun stuff. We've lost that thread and we're only getting more lost every day.

Before someone goes off and starts to blame others for the problem, or say it is this person or that person or this person's job or that person's job, I say it is ALL of our jobs and ALL of us who are responsible. Let's start doing more with the SciFi and Whiskey Club and the Toxophilite Club and make up new stuff that is fun and brings out the creative side of us all. Let's talk about Fortnite and what we did when we were 20 that we don't do when we are 50 and etc. Maybe then, some of these issues will resolve themselves. Let's reach out to our fellow citizens who we haven't seen in a while and check on them. Let's get on Discord and start using Talossan and making mistakes and learning how to conjugate verbs. Talossa isn't just the Clark and the endless cycle of politics.

Okay, your king is getting off his soap box now.

-Txec R

Quote from: þerxh Sant-Enogat on May 29, 2025, 03:30:33 PMI want to keep the principle of a provincial representation, as a better way to have a second line of defense against damaging changes.

Well, that's just a repetition of a theme we got from the monarchy debates. "A defense against changes happening" is political conservatism. Many of us aren't political conservatives, so that argument means nothing to us.

I'm not happy that this debate got derailed onto "schemes for increasing activity", btw. That's the problem with political conservatism - there can never be a problem with the institutions, the question has to be how do we recruit to structures that people objectively aren't interested in.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on May 29, 2025, 04:37:41 PMI'm not happy that this debate got derailed onto "schemes for increasing activity", btw. That's the problem with political conservatism - there can never be a problem with the institutions, the question has to be how do we recruit to structures that people objectively aren't interested in.

Yeah, sorry about that. I'm a bit salty today.

-Txec R

Quote from: King Txec on May 29, 2025, 04:44:04 PM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on May 29, 2025, 04:37:41 PMI'm not happy that this debate got derailed onto "schemes for increasing activity", btw. That's the problem with political conservatism - there can never be a problem with the institutions, the question has to be how do we recruit to structures that people objectively aren't interested in.

Yeah, sorry about that. I'm a bit salty today.

You're not the one who started it, and your points are excellent ones; make them in another thread, please :D

Quote from: King Txec on May 29, 2025, 04:21:37 PMTalossa isn't just the Clark and the endless cycle of politics.

Is this a symphony? Music to my ears.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on May 29, 2025, 04:37:41 PMWell, that's just a repetition of a theme we got from the monarchy debates. "A defense against changes happening" is political conservatism. Many of us aren't political conservatives, so that argument means nothing to us.

I wrote about damaging changes, not changes in general. People against change in general are political conservatives. People in favour of good, carefully crafted changes are progressives.

QuoteI'm not happy that this debate got derailed onto "schemes for increasing activity", btw. That's the problem with political conservatism - there can never be a problem with the institutions, the question has to be how do we recruit to structures that people objectively aren't interested in.

hence my ideas to transform the legislative work into something people could objectively be more interested in - rather than lowering the number of people doing something we won't change.

Would this amendment actually end the push to dissolve the Senate and/or force the merger of provinces over their will? It seems like it would, and that would be a strong reason to favor it, given the political push in the other direction. (This isn't to say I'm in support of the amendment at this time, just that I continue to keep an open mind.)

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on May 29, 2025, 04:37:41 PMThat's the problem with political conservatism - there can never be a problem with the institutions, the question has to be how do we recruit to structures that people objectively aren't interested in.

Of course, institutions can have problems and need reform.  I didn't rework our disparate body of laws into a legal code for the fun of it!  Instead, people -- such as yourself! -- identified a serious issue that needed to be fixed, and I agreed with your reasoning.  We lost a little -- there was some charm and a lot of history to those forty years of laws! -- but the benefits were far greater.

But just because some reforms are necessary doesn't mean all reforms are a good idea.  That's why I'm asking to discuss the merits of this one in detail.  And we just saw last election that the voters do not want this stuff shoved down their throat.  There was a historic rejection of a referendum, something that has almost never happened in our history, and so you should maybe take my concerns seriously.  Every province would need to vote in favor of a bill like this, so you need pretty broad agreement.

Again: my concern is that we're contemplating a permanent loss to deal with temporary lower levels of activity.  That seems short-sighted to me.

If we switch to an at-large Senats, then we're divorcing provinces from their only meaningful connection with the national legislature.  That's what this bill would do.  That puts the provinces in danger, since there's no one who's assigned in the Ziu to care about any particular province.

We're also making the Senats function more like a smaller Cosa, eliminating one of the fundamental differences between the two chambers. If the two function similarly and one of the main virtues of the Senats is eliminated, then it makes it a lot easier to eliminate the Senats entirely.  It's hard to mix oil and water, but easy to mix saltwater and freshwater.

If we're going to do this, we'll be abandoning some old traditions and history, we'll be endangering the provinces, we'll be endangering the Senats, and we'll be losing some of the benefits of the current Senats.  Given all of that, we need pretty compelling benefits.  So can we focus a little more on that side of the balance sheet?

Quote from: Munditenens Tresplet on May 30, 2025, 08:21:50 AMWould this amendment actually end the push to dissolve the Senate and/or force the merger of provinces over their will? It seems like it would, and that would be a strong reason to favor it, given the political push in the other direction. (This isn't to say I'm in support of the amendment at this time, just that I continue to keep an open mind.)

I also continue to keep an open mind, but there's no reason to think clearing the path for someone is going to discourage them from continuing on their way.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 30, 2025, 11:04:02 AMIf we switch to an at-large Senats, then we're divorcing provinces from their only meaningful connection with the national legislature.  That's what this bill would do.  That puts the provinces in danger,

No they're not. Before 1997, when there was no Senäts, the provinces were intermittently active when anyone took an interest in them (usually to annoy the Kingdom government). Since 1997, the provinces have been... intermittently active when anyone takes an interest in them. It has NO relation to the Senäts seat. I would love Fiova's delightful direct-democracy constitution to get more interest, but whether it does or not has no relation to whether we keep giving GV an uncontested legislative seat every 2 years or not.

And Mic'haglh keeps talking to you about his MMP Cosa idea, which IMHO makes the provincial connection stronger. Adopting it along with an at-large Senäts seems a fine tradeoff.

QuoteIf we're going to do this, we'll be abandoning some old traditions and history,

Or going back to even older ones? Talossan history didn't start in 1997.

Quote from: Munditenens Tresplet on May 30, 2025, 08:21:50 AMWould this amendment actually end the push to dissolve the Senate and/or force the merger of provinces over their will? It seems like it would, and that would be a strong reason to favor it, given the political push in the other direction. (This isn't to say I'm in support of the amendment at this time, just that I continue to keep an open mind.)

I can personally say that the at-large Senäts would end the interest in provincial mergers on my part, or at least, the interest in any mergers which weren't initiated by the provinces themselves.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on May 31, 2025, 07:36:23 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 30, 2025, 11:04:02 AMIf we switch to an at-large Senats, then we're divorcing provinces from their only meaningful connection with the national legislature.  That's what this bill would do.  That puts the provinces in danger,

No they're not. Before 1997, when there was no Senäts, the provinces were intermittently active when anyone took an interest in them (usually to annoy the Kingdom government). Since 1997, the provinces have been... intermittently active when anyone takes an interest in them. It has NO relation to the Senäts seat. I would love Fiova's delightful direct-democracy constitution to get more interest, but whether it does or not has no relation to whether we keep giving GV an uncontested legislative seat every 2 years or not.

I certainly didn't claim that the existence of the Senats promotes activity in the provinces, lol.  Instead, the existence of the Senats helps protect the sheer continued existence of the provinces.  There is someone whose job it is to represent their province, and they run for election regularly.  I don't know that it's a hugely strong influence, but it's definitely there.  If we asked our senators whether or not it's part of their job to look out for the well-being of their provinces in particular, I hope they'd agree.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on May 31, 2025, 07:36:23 PMAnd Mic'haglh keeps talking to you about his MMP Cosa idea, which IMHO makes the provincial connection stronger. Adopting it along with an at-large Senäts seems a fine tradeoff.

Party seats would still be in the gift of the party leader.  There'd be zero reason to care about your province.  In fact, there would be heavy incentive for party leaders to assign seats to those who were more loyal to their party than their province!  Why choose someone who's going to kick up a fuss just because you want to mess with their province?

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on May 31, 2025, 07:36:23 PM

QuoteIf we're going to do this, we'll be abandoning some old traditions and history,

Or going back to even older ones? Talossan history didn't start in 1997.

Talossa has had the Senats in its current form for most of her history... and that's even counting the earliest years when the government was just "whatever Robert I decided that week!"  If we go from when the Kingdom started to become a nation of laws in like 1988, with the Constituziun, then we have had the current Senats format for 81% of our history -- including all of our modern history and the entire time everyone involved in this discussion has been a Talossan.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 31, 2025, 08:12:12 PM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on May 31, 2025, 07:36:23 PMAnd Mic'haglh keeps talking to you about his MMP Cosa idea, which IMHO makes the provincial connection stronger. Adopting it along with an at-large Senäts seems a fine tradeoff.

Party seats would still be in the gift of the party leader.  There'd be zero reason to care about your province.  In fact, there would be heavy incentive for party leaders to assign seats to those who were more loyal to their party than their province!  Why choose someone who's going to kick up a fuss just because you want to mess with their province?

Candidates who are elected for constituency seats are not "assigned" by the party leadership. They are directly elected by their province. Unless you mean to say that being assigned by a party leader to run in a specific constituency in the first place would lead to the incentive to prioritise party loyalty over province loyalty you spoke of, but in that case, parties already have that kind of influence over senatorial candidates in the current system, whether we continue to pretend that Senators are above party politics or not. What am I missing here?

Deleted a post because it made my point inexpertly, let's see if this is better:

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 31, 2025, 08:12:12 PMthe existence of the Senats helps protect the sheer continued existence of the provinces... If we asked our senators whether or not it's part of their job to look out for the well-being of their provinces in particular, I hope they'd agree.

You're doing that thing again where you act like the purpose of democratic elections is to preserve the institutions, rather than the institutions serving a democratic function.

The provinces existed before the Senäts and were just as lively (or not).

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on May 31, 2025, 09:02:33 PMwhether we continue to pretend that Senators are above party politics or not.

Yeah, this is part of what I'm getting at. AD is pretending (or, as he says, "hoping") that current Senators are "loyal to their province" - i.e. he would prefer that they act if that was the case. Because if they're not, if - for example - the Senäts is just as partisan as the Cosa only not elected on a proportionally representative basis - then his argument about the incentives the Senäts provides are inoperative.

It's actually a wider issue of pretending that Talossa is a federation. It's not, even though the 1997 OrgLaw was copied from that of an actual federation (Australia, thank you Evan). Again: provinces were created top-down by the Kingdom. They're analogous to maybe English counties, which have pomp and tradition and value but not a guaranteed seat in Parliament.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on May 31, 2025, 09:02:33 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 31, 2025, 08:12:12 PM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on May 31, 2025, 07:36:23 PMAnd Mic'haglh keeps talking to you about his MMP Cosa idea, which IMHO makes the provincial connection stronger. Adopting it along with an at-large Senäts seems a fine tradeoff.

Party seats would still be in the gift of the party leader.  There'd be zero reason to care about your province.  In fact, there would be heavy incentive for party leaders to assign seats to those who were more loyal to their party than their province!  Why choose someone who's going to kick up a fuss just because you want to mess with their province?

Candidates who are elected for constituency seats are not "assigned" by the party leadership. They are directly elected by their province. Unless you mean to say that being assigned by a party leader to run in a specific constituency in the first place would lead to the incentive to prioritise party loyalty over province loyalty you spoke of, but in that case, parties already have that kind of influence over senatorial candidates in the current system, whether we continue to pretend that Senators are above party politics or not. What am I missing here?

If we're talking about a specific bill (I guess the one in the Hopper?) where each province gets to pick specific individuals who represent that province, then we can probably make that easier by just keeping the Senats.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on May 31, 2025, 09:05:39 PMDeleted a post because it made my point inexpertly, let's see if this is better:

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 31, 2025, 08:12:12 PMthe existence of the Senats helps protect the sheer continued existence of the provinces... If we asked our senators whether or not it's part of their job to look out for the well-being of their provinces in particular, I hope they'd agree.

You're doing that thing again where you act like the purpose of democratic elections is to preserve the institutions, rather than the institutions serving a democratic function.

The provinces existed before the Senäts and were just as lively (or not).

I think that our institutions have value beyond the needs of the moment, and shouldn't be sold like secondhand chairs at a fire sale.  And as proof, I present to you an active and engaged monarch, helping others and promoting our culture.  That would be impossible if the monarchy had been eliminated -- if people like me hadn't fought for to protect it.

We need to think about tomorrow's Talossa, not just today.  Let's plan for a vibrant and growing country.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 31, 2025, 09:36:14 PMI present to you an active and engaged monarch, helping others and promoting our culture.  That would be impossible if the monarchy had been eliminated

Can we go to the alternate universe where President Nordselvă took office 10 years ago and is on his third term of doing an excellent job? In that alternate universe, I can also imagine that Talossa has 200 active citizens who are all fluent conversationalist in ár glheþ, because I'm not wedded to status-quo bias.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on May 31, 2025, 09:55:13 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 31, 2025, 09:36:14 PMI present to you an active and engaged monarch, helping others and promoting our culture.  That would be impossible if the monarchy had been eliminated

Can we go to the alternate universe where President Nordselvă took office 10 years ago and is on his third term of doing an excellent job? In that alternate universe, I can also imagine that Talossa has 200 active citizens who are all fluent conversationalist in ár glheþ, because I'm not wedded to status-quo bias.

If we're allowed to submit alternate universes as proof that we're right, then we should all be libertarians since Atlas Shrugged exists, or socialists since News from Nowhere exists, or... well, I don't know what lesson we'd learn from the Butlerian Jihad of Dune.

Listen, actual reality is pretty good evidence that there's real merit to preserving institutions and traditions.  It's not the only thing that's important: when I remade the Zuavs, we discarded all that they had been, and I think Talossa is the better for it.  But this stuff is important as we weigh the costs and benefits of any change.

It's actually especially important in a country like our own, since there's no brick-and-mortar Ziu building to act as a physical symbol.  For as long as all of us discussing this have known Talossa, and for four-fifths of her existence as a nation of laws, the Senats has served to allow for individual representation of the interests of each province.  That's not everything, but it's not nothing.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 31, 2025, 09:36:14 PMIf we're talking about a specific bill (I guess the one in the Hopper?) where each province gets to pick specific individuals who represent that province, then we can probably make that easier by just keeping the Senats.

...what? I'm not talking about a specific bill, I'm talking about how constituency seats under MMP work.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 31, 2025, 10:37:38 PMthe Senats has served to allow for individual representation of the interests of each province

See, I don't believe that provinces in Talossa have distinct interests, with the possible exception of Cezembre.

I support the continued representation in the Senate of one resident of that province as senator.

At large representation is already handled by the Cosa.  Should there be more or fewer provinces in the future, then there will be more or fewer Senators.

Quote from: Munditenens Tresplet on May 30, 2025, 08:21:50 AMWould this amendment actually end the push to dissolve the Senate and/or force the merger of provinces over their will? It seems like it would, and that would be a strong reason to favor it, given the political push in the other direction. (This isn't to say I'm in support of the amendment at this time, just that I continue to keep an open mind.)

As noted earlier in the thread, for my part I have accepted that the Senate will continue to exist for the foreseeable future; continuing to move its workings in a more democratic direction is something I like to think more people could agree on than outright abolition.

As to forcing provinces to merge, I'll admit to some confusion as to what you refer to. While I've been a strong proponent of reducing the number of provinces, and even trying to coordinate those on a "big-picture" level, I'm not sure if anyone is under the impression one can Organically force provinces to merge without their consent. I don't believe this is possible; the whole thing is down to negotiation and compromise, as with pretty much anything else in politics.

I would still argue that either of my proposed reforms to the Cosa -- including the Mixed-Member Proportional proposal, but the "Biproportional" plan as well -- retain a degree of provincial representation, since I see that some people view that as a sticking point (and I myself am in favor of retaining it to some extent), but do so in a more democratic fashion.