Wittenberg

WHEREAS Talossa is not roleplaying, and
WHEREAS therefore, operating under a "D&D Cosă" with more seats than voting citizens is untenable, and
WHEREAS political power ought not be a matter of course that is bought and paid for, but a privilege derived from sufficient popular mandate (or for our newest citizens, a courtesy extended by law),

NOW THEREFORE, be it enacted that the following provision be added to el Lexhatx as subsubsection H.4.1.1:

QuoteThe total number of party seats is twenty.

FURTHERMORE, according to LegOrg IV.2.1, this change will not take effect until the next election following the passage of a calendar year.

Uréu q'estadra så:
Marcel Tafial

Excellent work.

This proposal forms the first step in laying out the URL's broader Democracy Agenda, in response to a Government who's happier to include absolute monarchists than it is to cooperate with a much larger democratic party. It is vital for political health that it be possible to lose elections.

So this proposal would reduce the size of the Cosa from 200 to 20, but would still permit new citizens to claim seats?

Yes - up to, as the existing legislation provides, 7.5% of the Cosa rounded up - i.e. 2 extra seats in total. Enough to make thing spicy lol

I'm not a math whiz, so I might be wrong.  But this means the first two new citizens can claim seats, and those seats will be equivalent in voting power to 5% of the vote, instead of the current 0.5%... something like six votes in the most recent election, for example?  Is that right?

You can -- and should -- consider whether very large reaction memes are a great way to discuss legislation, Max.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on December 07, 2025, 07:40:25 PMYou can -- and should -- consider whether very large reaction memes are a great way to discuss legislation, Max.

You have a point...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can someone please explain to me how this works. I don't see how this reduces the size of the Cosa, so maybe I'm reading it incorrectly.

-Txec R

Quote from: King Txec on December 07, 2025, 07:42:49 PMCan someone please explain to me how this works. I don't see how this reduces the size of the Cosa, so maybe I'm reading it incorrectly.

-Txec R

As I understand it, the total number of seats that can be assigned would be reduced to 20, and this means that the Cosa would be less representative of the vote.  So someone can vote for themselves and still not get a seat, since you'd need multiple votes to get even one seat.

Ok I think this is mostly right:

PARTY	#	%	/20	Seats
Progressive Alliance	41	43.62	8.7	9
Uniun dels Reformistaes Livereschti	31	32.98	6.59	7
Green Party	13	13.83	2.76	3
In Defensa Traditionis	7	7.45	1.49	1
Independent Green/Anarcho-Surrealist	2	2.13	0.42	0

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on December 07, 2025, 07:33:07 PMSo this proposal would reduce the size of the Cosa from 200 to 20, but would still permit new citizens to claim seats?

Yes. The number of party seats in the Cosă can be changed by statute, whereas abolishing New Citizens' seats would require modifying the Organic Law. I wouldn't want to do that, anyway.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on December 07, 2025, 07:44:26 PMSo someone can vote for themselves and still not get a seat, since you'd need multiple votes to get even one seat.

Yes, that is by design. Under the 200-seat Cosă, a party with only one vote would be entitled to at least 2 seats. I never really understood the point of that.

Quote from: Max Maltezos on December 07, 2025, 07:37:15 PM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on December 07, 2025, 07:34:07 PMYes - up to, as the existing legislation provides, 7.5% of the Cosa rounded up - i.e. 2 extra seats in total. Enough to make thing spicy lol

<snip>


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do you want to say something?

I'm curious as to what the advantages are of keeping the current 200-seat model as opposed to reducing it to 20?

I think probably just that it's more granular, which this bill is specifically supposed to change.  So I guess it depends on whether or not you think it's good that the Cosa more closely resembles the actual vote.

Not speaking for the entire Green Party just as an individual MC. I would be voting against this as it is currently written.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on December 08, 2025, 08:41:11 AMNot speaking for the entire Green Party just as an individual MC. I would be voting against this as it is currently written.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on it.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on December 08, 2025, 05:33:25 AMI think probably just that it's more granular, which this bill is specifically supposed to change.  So I guess it depends on whether or not you think it's good that the Cosa more closely resembles the actual vote.

The Cosă as it stands is more granular than the actual vote tally! I don't believe this sort of granularity for its own sake outweighs the impracticality of MCs consistently holding two digits worth of seats.

I also think that in the current setup, political power is something that can be easily bought on a whim, which cheapens it. One thing that I always appreciated about Talossa is that citizenship and titles are handed out based on commitment and merit instead of simply being for sale like in other similarly sized but no doubt more recognisable nationettes such as Sealand. Thus it seems strange to me that while citizenship and titles need to be earned, this same standard is not consistently applied to power.

I definitely think it's worth considering this change.  But I think that the fact that the Cosa is so representative is a significant good thing.  It's really a matter of weighing both factors, and deciding which is more important: respecting the democratic vote as much as possible or making political power more rarefied.

Will there be any effect on things like the party seat rules or the number of seats a person can hold?

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on December 08, 2025, 09:18:30 AMI definitely think it's worth considering this change.  But I think that the fact that the Cosa is so representative is a significant good thing.  It's really a matter of weighing both factors, and deciding which is more important: respecting the democratic vote as much as possible or making political power more rarefied.

Will there be any effect on things like the party seat rules or the number of seats a person can hold?

I would think that is the reason this bill was made, Honourable Baron.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on December 08, 2025, 09:18:30 AMWill there be any effect on things like the party seat rules or the number of seats a person can hold?

The formula used to determine the maximum amount of seats an MC can hold (party seats * 10 / number of votes, rounded up) remains unchanged.

To clarify, I mean the total number of seats each individual was permitted to hold.  For example, this Cosa it's 20 seats maximum per person.  Would it be 2 seats maximum per person under this new law?

EDIT: Okay, so it sounds like it would be 2 per person for an election like this one.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on December 08, 2025, 09:24:01 AMTo clarify, I mean the total number of seats each individual was permitted to hold.  For example, this Cosa it's 20 seats maximum per person.  Would it be 2 seats maximum per person under this new law?

EDIT: Okay, so it sounds like it would be 2 per person for an election like this one.

Yeah, as much as I would like a proper Real Cosă (and this could be easily achieved by deleting Lexh.H.4.1), I understand that we currently don't have the manpower to have 20 individual MCs — hence why this is called the Pseudo-Real Cosă Act.

20 feels like quite a jump, and I'm a little bit nervous we haven't thought about the downstream implications yet.  I also don't honestly have much of a sense about why we'd want to do this.  I get that you shouldn't be able to buy a seat in the Cosa, but that's more of an argument for getting rid of fees than anything else.

Obviously, the bill would bar small parties from the Cosa.  That doesn't seem like it's necessarily a good thing.  Right now, it seems like a benefit that we get to enjoy a combination of direct democracy and representative democracy.  Other countries aren't so lucky.

The bill would also raise the bar to form a government.  A majority of 20 is 11, so you'd need to assemble 55% of the vote or more.  I don't know that's necessarily good or bad, but we shouldn't overlook it.

New citizens would be wildly more influential.  Right now, they get a token seat so they can jump right in and participate, but now they'd wield much more power.  The temptation to broosk would be much higher -- no vote necessary, just get someone new to join your party and it's the same as getting 5% of the vote.  That seems like it hasn't been thought out very much.

And of course, the Cosa would be less representative of the vote.  This is just an unmitigatedly bad thing.

So I'm not necessarily opposed, and I'm persuadable, but I think we have a lot more thinking to do.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on December 18, 2025, 12:16:20 PM20 feels like quite a jump, and I'm a little bit nervous we haven't thought about the downstream implications yet.  I also don't honestly have much of a sense about why we'd want to do this.

As you know, it's not just some arbitrary value: the Cosă used to be 20 seats big until 2003. There are several reasons why one would want to go back to that value. For instance, because 200 is simply too big. It's more than the total population, what is the point of that? The way that seat distribution works also gives too much emphasis on political parties rather than MCs, whose job it ostensibly is to represent the people. In the current set up, it seems more like MCs themselves are an afterthought and serve no real purpose in and of themselves, and I find this to be anathema to the concept of representative democracy.

QuoteI get that you shouldn't be able to buy a seat in the Cosa, but that's more of an argument for getting rid of fees than anything else.

The problem is not that it costs money to sit in the Cosă. The problem is a combination of seats being readily available (just vote for yourself). This ready availability goes against what I consider the concept of popular mandate. The Cosă is supposed to reflect the popular mandate, and being in the position to represent this mandate is something that should be earned, and not merely demanded, just like citizenship and peerage is earned in this country. One person who simply demands to have power but can't even convince one other person to vote for them is not reflective of popular mandate. Which brings us to:

QuoteObviously, the bill would bar small parties from the Cosa.  That doesn't seem like it's necessarily a good thing.  Right now, it seems like a benefit that we get to enjoy a combination of direct democracy and representative democracy.  Other countries aren't so lucky.

This makes it sound like other countries would rather prefer our current system but are prevented for some reason. On the contrary, other countries disagree that letting everyone who wants to wield power over their fellow citizens do so is a benefit. Countries like Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands, some of the most democratic in the world, institute explicit electoral thresholds to exclude tiny parties that do not reflect a sufficient popular mandate, and in Germany the threshold of 5% is a consequence of Weimar-era political chaos, and is meant to ensure stable and responsible government.

My proposal does not institute such an explicit threshold, instead a party simply needs enough votes to earn a seat. 5% are needed to guarantee a seat, but 2.5% (which is to say, 2 to 3 votes depending on turnout) are enough to qualify for a seat. Convincing one or two other people to vote for you should not be a big hurdle. I managed it twice before, completely by accident.

QuoteNew citizens would be wildly more influential.  Right now, they get a token seat so they can jump right in and participate, but now they'd wield much more power.  The temptation to broosk would be much higher -- no vote necessary, just get someone new to join your party and it's the same as getting 5% of the vote.  That seems like it hasn't been thought out very much.

The ratio of New Citizen seats to Cosă seats is competely unchanged. I'm not exactly sure who came up with the 7.5% figure or why this had to be an OrgLaw amendment, but if you believe that having up to 7.5% of seats be unelected victims of broosking will be a problem, then surely it is also already a problem now. If this is deemed an issue worth fixing, it can be remedied by abolishing New Citizen seats again (should this bill pass, we would have more than a year to get the necessary OrgLaw amendment through before the bill comes into effect).

QuoteAnd of course, the Cosa would be less representative of the vote.  This is just an unmitigatedly bad thing.

The 200 seat Cosă is more "representative" than the total voting population, let alone the total number of cast non-Present ballots. I am not sure how this sort of exaggerated representativeness, seemingly for its own sake, is worth holding onto.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on December 18, 2025, 02:05:09 PMThere are several reasons why one would want to go back to that value. For instance, because 200 is simply too big. It's more than the total population, what is the point of that? The way that seat distribution works also gives too much emphasis on political parties rather than MCs, whose job it ostensibly is to represent the people. In the current set up, it seems more like MCs themselves are an afterthought and serve no real purpose in and of themselves, and I find this to be anathema to the concept of representative democracy.

So I get that you think 200 is too big and you don't like it, but I'm not sure how switching to 20 would change the role of MCs.  Could you unpack that for me a little?  What's the difference between your party leader assigning you 2 seats instead of assigning you 20?

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on December 18, 2025, 02:05:09 PMThe Cosă is supposed to reflect the popular mandate, and being in the position to represent this mandate is something that should be earned, and not merely demanded, just like citizenship and peerage is earned in this country. One person who simply demands to have power but can't even convince one other person to vote for them is not reflective of popular mandate.  ...
other countries disagree that letting everyone who wants to wield power over their fellow citizens do so is a benefit. Countries like Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands, some of the most democratic in the world, institute explicit electoral thresholds to exclude tiny parties that do not reflect a sufficient popular mandate, and in Germany the threshold of 5% is a consequence of Weimar-era political chaos, and is meant to ensure stable and responsible government.

I think that there's a significant difference in how our Cosa is run versus how the Danish Folketing is run, but I'd point out that they use a threshold of 2% -- effectively the same as us.  And in the Netherlands the threshold is 0.67%.

Anyway, something to note is that people are accounted the amount of power that they personally wield in our political system.  The "earning" is the power of using their vote to make their choice... it's not a job or an honour.

In the purest sense of the word, it is much more democratic to allow people to personally wield their own share of political power in the legislature.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on December 18, 2025, 02:05:09 PMThe ratio of New Citizen seats to Cosă seats is competely unchanged. I'm not exactly sure who came up with the 7.5% figure or why this had to be an OrgLaw amendment, but if you believe that having up to 7.5% of seats be unelected victims of broosking will be a problem, then surely it is also already a problem now.

You're focusing on the ratio, but I'm pointing out the individual power each new citizen would wield.  It currently is half a percent, but this bill would increase it to 5% of the legislative power in the Cosa.  This has been called "spicy" elsewhere in the thread for good reason: it would be very destabilizing and antidemocratic.

There's not a lot in here that's a nonstarter, but I consider this aspect something that would absolutely need to be fixed before I could support something like this.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on December 18, 2025, 02:05:09 PMThe 200 seat Cosă is more "representative" than the total voting population, let alone the total number of cast non-Present ballots. I am not sure how this sort of exaggerated representativeness, seemingly for its own sake, is worth holding onto.

Maybe not 200, although I think we'll grow into that number before too long as we turn things around.  But maybe we should set the size of the Cosa as the size of the electorate.

Should be pointed out that your math is backwards. Our "threshold", such as it exists, is not 2%, it's 0.5% (1/200). Realistically it's probably even less than that, as anything above 0.25% would be "rounded up" to one seat.

Given our current electorate's size, even one vote puts you well over either.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on December 18, 2025, 02:24:33 PMSo I get that you think 200 is too big and you don't like it, but I'm not sure how switching to 20 would change the role of MCs.  Could you unpack that for me a little?  What's the difference between your party leader assigning you 2 seats instead of assigning you 20?

The main difference is that a party leader can either assign 1 or 2 seats to somebody, instead of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,... or 20. I admit this is partially psychological, but assigning an MC either 1 or 2 seats is less arbitrary feeling than assigning them, say, 17. I intend this to be a small step towards making individual MCs more responsible for the power they wield. Ultimately, I would like a full return to a proper Real Cosă. This could then be done by repealing or revising Lex.H.4.1. The reason why I didn't do that here was manpower concerns. We do not currently have 28 concurrent active citizens to be in the legislature, and as I understand it, your party was already struggling to assign seats under the current D&D approach, so switching to a Real Cosă right now would only exacerbate this issue.

QuoteI think that there's a significant difference in how our Cosa is run versus how the Danish Folketing is run, but I'd point out that they use a threshold of 2% -- effectively the same as us.  And in the Netherlands the threshold is 0.67%.

The difference, I assume, is that the Folketing is an actual parliament and not a congregation of party block votes with extra steps like the current Cosă, but that's what I would like to fix.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the Danish 2% threshold is "effectively the same as us". The effective threshold in the 200-seat Cosă is around 0.25%, or less than a quarter of a vote under the most recent turnout. And the Dutch threshold is the percentage of the vote needed to guarantee a seat, the Talossan equivalent of which would be 0.5% in the current Cosă. The Netherlands are an outlier for how low their statutory threshold is (most other thresholds are around 3%), but I mentioned them because they have a threshold. This was intended to rebutt your "Other countries aren't as lucky" statement.

QuoteAnyway, something to note is that people are accounted the amount of power that they personally wield in our political system.  The "earning" is the power of using their vote to make their choice... it's not a job or an honour.

In the purest sense of the word, it is much more democratic to allow people to personally wield their own share of political power in the legislature.

I'm not sure what this means, really. Of course representing the people is a job and an honour. Why wouldn't it be?

And if you want to abolish representative democracy outright then just say so. I wouldn't be opposed to this either: there are ways of arranging this, or even to establish a proper mixed form of direct and representative democracy called Liquid Democracy, but the point is that a pseudo-parliament is neither the simplest or the best way of going about this. If anything, if we are going to have a parliament, then why not let it look, sound and work like one, instead of making it partially representative, partially direct, partially a giveaway and full of backbenchers? No one is best served with the current arrangement.

QuoteYou're focusing on the ratio, but I'm pointing out the individual power each new citizen would wield.  It currently is half a percent, but this bill would increase it to 5% of the legislative power in the Cosa.  This has been called "spicy" elsewhere in the thread for good reason: it would be very destabilizing and antidemocratic.

There's not a lot in here that's a nonstarter, but I consider this aspect something that would absolutely need to be fixed before I could support something like this.

I focussed on the ratio because that seems to be the real issue. If you're serious about wanting to reach more than 200 voting citizens within this term, would it not be at least in the realm of possibility that the same 7.5% ratio of New Citizen seats that is problematic in a 20 seat Cosă would be filled out in a 200 seat Cosă -- which would mean 15 new citizens claiming a seat?

But it's a valid concern no matter what. New Citizen seats can only be abolished via an OrgLaw amendment, which is outside the purview of this bill. If you want, we can get together and work on that right away. And even if we don't do this right away, this bill does not take effect immediately. We would have an entire calendar year and then some to abolish New Citizen seats. I've already mentioned this in the message you responded to, I'm not sure that was not part of the block quote...

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on December 18, 2025, 02:05:09 PMMaybe not 200, although I think we'll grow into that number before too long as we turn things around.  But maybe we should set the size of the Cosa as the size of the electorate.

Again, why bother with a Cosă if what you really aim for is an Athenian-style Ecclesia?

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on December 18, 2025, 03:36:01 PMThe main difference is that a party leader can either assign 1 or 2 seats to somebody, instead of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,... or 20. I admit this is partially psychological, but assigning an MC either 1 or 2 seats is less arbitrary feeling than assigning them, say, 17.

Okay, so you see a benefit in the psychological difference, and because it would smooth the way for a Real Cosa in the future.  I'm not sure I'm on board, but I think I understand.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on December 18, 2025, 03:36:01 PMThis was intended to rebutt your "Other countries aren't as lucky" statement.

Sure, and I was pointing out that some of these have a fairly low threshold, although I got my math wrong.  I do think we get to enjoy unique benefits because of how small we are, though, and I'm not sure why that's bad.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on December 18, 2025, 03:36:01 PMI'm not sure what this means, really. Of course representing the people is a job and an honour. Why wouldn't it be?

Well, you were making an argument from principle that it's wrong that people can wield power by demanding it, but I was pointing out that they're wielding their own share of power.  You made the comparison to something earned, but they don't need to earn their own political power.  Sorry, we have a lot of things going at the same time here!

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on December 18, 2025, 03:36:01 PMAnd if you want to abolish representative democracy outright then just say so.

I don't!  Saying I think it's good that we offer both Pepsi and Coke doesn't mean that I want to abolish Coke, it means that I think it's good we currently get to have both.

It's interesting there's other ways of having both direct and representative democracy.  Is liquid democracy simple?

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on December 18, 2025, 03:36:01 PMI focussed on the ratio because that seems to be the real issue. If you're serious about wanting to reach more than 200 voting citizens within this term, would it not be at least in the realm of possibility that the same 7.5% ratio of New Citizen seats that is problematic in a 20 seat Cosă would be filled out in a 200 seat Cosă -- which would mean 15 new citizens claiming a seat?

We should be so lucky!

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on December 18, 2025, 03:36:01 PMBut it's a valid concern no matter what. New Citizen seats can only be abolished via an OrgLaw amendment, which is outside the purview of this bill. If you want, we can get together and work on that right away. And even if we don't do this right away, this bill does not take effect immediately. We would have an entire calendar year and then some to abolish New Citizen seats.

If there's no rush, then my preference would be to take the time to fix it all now, not hope we can pass a related amendment later.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on December 18, 2025, 03:36:01 PMI've already mentioned this in the message you responded to, I'm not sure that was not part of the block quote...

I apologize, I missed that.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on December 18, 2025, 02:24:33 PMMaybe not 200, although I think we'll grow into that number before too long as we turn things around

lolwut?

Well, we currently have 137 citizens. If we added a citizen a month and only lost a few each year, then we would have more than 200 citizens in 8 years. If we had two citizens a month on average , then it'll be even less time. But if a network effect kicks in, where we add a percentage rather than a steady rate, then it would take a lot less time.

I've never actually looked back at the immigration data to see if there's a correlation between total number of citizens and the immigration rate.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on December 18, 2025, 03:49:30 PMI don't!  Saying I think it's good that we offer both Pepsi and Coke doesn't mean that I want to abolish Coke, it means that I think it's good we currently get to have both.

To sorta continue this metaphor, we don't currently get both. Or rather, we do, but not in the sense that everyone gets to choose either Pepsi or Coke for themselves, instead everyone currently gets a mix of both Pepsi and Coke at fixed ratios, so people who only like one of the two are left unsatisfied. And for me as a fan of Coke, it's especially strange to be served a mixed beverage like this when the bottles and dispensers, as well as the invitational flyers, are all labelled "Coke". It almost verges on false advertising.

QuoteIt's interesting there's other ways of having both direct and representative democracy.  Is liquid democracy simple?

It's similar to seat claiming in M-M, where people either claim a seat, or elect someone as their proxy. I'm not sure if this is the case in M-M, but proxies can also elect metaproxies for themselves, etc. In the end, you would have a Ecclesia of both seat claimants and representatives, which sounds like it would be right up your alley.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on December 18, 2025, 05:55:52 PMTo sorta continue this metaphor, we don't currently get both. Or rather, we do, but not in the sense that everyone gets to choose either Pepsi or Coke for themselves, instead everyone currently gets a mix of both Pepsi and Coke at fixed ratios, so people who only like one of the two are left unsatisfied. And for me as a fan of Coke, it's especially strange to be served a mixed beverage like this when the bottles and dispensers, as well as the invitational flyers, are all labelled "Coke". It almost verges on false advertising.

No one's making you drink both... you can engage in a form of direct democracy and claim a tiny fraction of the Cosa, or you can engage in party politics and campaign.  You're complaining that the sheer availability of Pepsi is annoying to you.

I think we've probably strained that metaphor to the breaking point, but the essential point I'm making is that there's not much real harm done.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on December 18, 2025, 05:55:52 PMIt's similar to seat claiming in M-M, where people either claim a seat, or elect someone as their proxy. I'm not sure if this is the case in M-M, but proxies can also elect metaproxies for themselves, etc. In the end, you would have a Ecclesia of both seat claimants and representatives, which sounds like it would be right up your alley.

That sounds incredibly complicated for the average citizen, when we're already having trouble getting RCV to catch on, but it is neat.  Is there a way this might be feasible?

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on December 18, 2025, 06:06:45 PMNo one's making you drink both... you can engage in a form of direct democracy and claim a tiny fraction of the Cosa, or you can engage in party politics and campaign.  You're complaining that the sheer availability of Pepsi is annoying to you.

I think we've probably strained that metaphor to the breaking point, but the essential point I'm making is that there's not much real harm done.

I'm not surprised you'd say that, you like the mixed drink after all. I meanwhile feel falsely advertised to.

QuoteThat sounds incredibly complicated for the average citizen, when we're already having trouble getting RCV to catch on, but it is neat.  Is there a way this might be feasible?

How is "either claim a seat or choose a proxy" incredibly complicated when this is effectively already the system that M-M uses for its General Assembly? As great as our province might be, it would be careless to try and argue that the average Talossan is that much dumber than the average M-Mer...

The cons of this change are significant, since it would make the legislature somewhat less representative of the vote and it would increase the risk of broosking and destabilize government somewhat more with surprise 5% swings.  These are real concerns that I have.  Less significant is that it would bar the smallest of parties like Garth's, although I'm still not happy about that.

I think it's generally neutral to me that it would increase the threshold to form a government by 4% of the vote, among other things.

The pros are that it would be more aesthetically pleasing in some ways.  Could we list some other positives from this potential change?

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on December 18, 2025, 06:10:10 PMHow is "either claim a seat or choose a proxy" incredibly complicated when this is effectively already the system that M-M uses for its General Assembly? As great as our province might be, it would be careless to try and argue that the average Talossan is that much dumber than the average M-Mer...

Well, I think I can count the current citizens who have been members of the Assembly on one hand, and they're some of the most politically active people in the country.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on December 18, 2025, 06:18:20 PMThe cons of this change are significant, since it would make the legislature somewhat less representative of the vote

Overrepresentativeness for its own sake is not a boon. We've already been over this, I fail to see how this is a significant con.

Quoteand it would increase the risk of broosking and destabilize government somewhat more with surprise 5% swings.

That is independent of this bill. We have also been over this. You would need to pass an amendment to the OrgLaw to fix this, and if you were to post a bill to this effect to the Hopper, if in return this bill passes, I would support you.

Instead what I suspect will happen is that you would reject this bill because of your aforementioned swings, and then also reject an OrgLaw amendment to abolish New Citizen seats for some other reason. I would be happy to be proven wrong.

QuoteThe pros are that it would be more aesthetically pleasing in some ways.  Could we list some other positives from this potential change?

Empowerment of individual MCs and moving the Cosă away from a glorified block vote institution to a genuine parliamentary system is not simply "aesthetically pleasing in some ways". I am a supporter of parliamentarianism, I was under the impression that this country had a parliament. Unfortunately it doesn't, so I would like to get us there if possible. And if it's not possible, at the very least we could stop calling it a parliament if it isn't one.

Quote

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on December 18, 2025, 06:10:10 PMHow is "either claim a seat or choose a proxy" incredibly complicated when this is effectively already the system that M-M uses for its General Assembly? As great as our province might be, it would be careless to try and argue that the average Talossan is that much dumber than the average M-Mer...

Well, I think I can count the current citizens who have been members of the Assembly on one hand, and they're some of the most politically active people in the country.

Do you think this is because of how complicated the concept of choosing a proxy is, or rather because provinces are generally devoid of life? I don't really understand your argument here.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on December 18, 2025, 06:33:15 PMOverrepresentativeness for its own sake is not a boon. We've already been over this, I fail to see how this is a significant con.

I disagree.  I think it's generally a good thing in a democracy for the legislature to resemble the voter's will as much as possible.  I don't think this is an insuperable flaw in the plan, but it is a con.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on December 18, 2025, 06:33:15 PMThat is independent of this bill. We have also been over this. You would need to pass an amendment to the OrgLaw to fix this, and if you were to post a bill to this effect to the Hopper, if in return this bill passes, I would support you.

Instead what I suspect will happen is that you would reject this bill because of your aforementioned swings, and then also reject an OrgLaw amendment to abolish New Citizen seats for some other reason. I would be happy to be proven wrong.

I know we've been "over it," but why not just pass a bill that fixes both problems at the same time?  You seem to be rejecting that out of hand, and I'm not sure why.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on December 18, 2025, 06:33:15 PMEmpowerment of individual MCs and moving the Cosă away from a glorified block vote institution to a genuine parliamentary system is not simply "aesthetically pleasing in some ways". I am a supporter of parliamentarianism, I was under the impression that this country had a parliament. Unfortunately it doesn't, so I would like to get us there if possible. And if it's not possible, at the very least we could stop calling it a parliament if it isn't one.

Sure, we can label this however you want.  Are there other positive effects we might expect from this bill?

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on December 18, 2025, 06:33:15 PMDo you think this is because of how complicated the concept of choosing a proxy is, or rather because provinces are generally devoid of life? I don't really understand your argument here.

The same point I made at the beginning: I think this liquid democracy sounds a little complicated for people to do, at least as it was described.  But I'd be interested to hear more.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on December 18, 2025, 06:58:47 PMI know we've been "over it," but why not just pass a bill that fixes both problems at the same time?  You seem to be rejecting that out of hand, and I'm not sure why.

This bill is very simple, and makes use of the express provision in the OrgLaw to modify the number of Cosă seats without amendment. But on that topic, I have decided to post an amendment that fixes this problem as a separate bill in the Hopper (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=4844.msg39524#msg39524), let me know what you think about it.

Quote

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on December 18, 2025, 06:33:15 PMEmpowerment of individual MCs and moving the Cosă away from a glorified block vote institution to a genuine parliamentary system is not simply "aesthetically pleasing in some ways". I am a supporter of parliamentarianism, I was under the impression that this country had a parliament. Unfortunately it doesn't, so I would like to get us there if possible. And if it's not possible, at the very least we could stop calling it a parliament if it isn't one.

Sure, we can label this however you want.  Are there other positive effects we might expect from this bill?

I think we misunderstood each other. This bill is supposed to move the Cosă towards a proper parliamentary system. If this proves impossible for whatever reason and we are stuck with a pseudo-parliamentary pseudo-direct arrangement, a separate bill would be in order to get rid of the misnomers.

Quote

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on December 18, 2025, 06:33:15 PMDo you think this is because of how complicated the concept of choosing a proxy is, or rather because provinces are geenerally devoid of life? I don't really understand your argument here.

The same point I made at the beginning: I think this liquid democracy sounds a little complicated for people to do, at least as it was described.  But I'd be interested to hear more.

I don't see how your assessment that being given a choice between claiming a seat directly and choosing a representative is complicated for voters has to do with the general sorry state of provincial activity in this country.

The system is genuinely really basic. Voters would have a choice of 1) claiming a seat, 2) choosing someone to represent them, or 3) neither. That's about it.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on December 18, 2025, 07:14:01 PMThis bill is very simple, and makes use of the express provision in the OrgLaw to modify the number of Cosă seats without amendment. But on that topic, I have decided to post an amendment that fixes this problem as a separate bill in the Hopper (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=4844.msg39524#msg39524), let me know what you think about it.

So if the limit is 4.5% rounded down, then that means that there would be no new citizen seats if we switch to 20, right?  Since that would make them worth 5%?

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on December 18, 2025, 07:14:01 PMI think we misunderstood each other. This bill is supposed to move the Cosă towards a proper parliamentary system. If this proves impossible for whatever reason and we are stuck with a pseudo-parliamentary pseudo-direct arrangement, a separate bill would be in order to get rid of the misnomers.

I meant we can label the benefit I'm calling aesthetic as whatever you want to call it.  I'm not trying to be flip about it --  I was trying to move past that one point to get some more idea of the benefits we might expect from this bill.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on December 18, 2025, 07:24:07 PMSo if the limit is 4.5% rounded down, then that means that there would be no new citizen seats if we switch to 20, right?  Since that would make them worth 5%?

The reasoning is slightly different (20 * 4.5% = 0.9, rounds down to 0) but yes. That would fix the swings you mentioned before.

QuoteI meant we can label the benefit I'm calling aesthetic as whatever you want to call it.  I'm not trying to be flip about it --  I was trying to move past that one point to get some more idea of the benefits we might expect from this bill.

It's a very simple bill. It sets the Cosă seats to 20 since I believe it would help empower MCs to act more independently, stops the practice of someone buying their way into power with literally no one else wanting them there, and yes, clears the way to a proper Real Cosă in the future. I'm not sure what further effects one would expect from a law of this caliber, but there you go.

May I suggest it might be easier to just add in a bit here to this bill to eliminate the new citizen's seats, then?  It feels excessively complicated to leave in a formula that would technically get rid of them with this change but make it look like they still exist.  That would also ensure that both changes happen, not just one.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on December 18, 2025, 09:18:11 PMMay I suggest it might be easier to just add in a bit here to this bill to eliminate the new citizen's seats, then?  It feels excessively complicated to leave in a formula that would technically get rid of them with this change but make it look like they still exist.  That would also ensure that both changes happen, not just one.

The issue I'm having with adding that to this bill, aside the fact modifying Cosă size is a regular bill and abolishing New Citizen seats is an amendment so the two have different thresholds to clear, is that of timing. Namely, modifying Cosă seats as per LegOrg.IV.2.1 only takes effect after a calendar year plus the next election, but an amendment would take effect immediately after it has passed the Ziu, the King, and a referendum. I think it would be poor craftsmanship to mix both acts together and make the exact timing at which they would take effect less clear.

There have been many bills in the past which only took effect upon another bill's passage, or which had a provision which only came into effect at a certain date.  I think either solution would work here.  You could add a section here which removed the new citizen seats and then just add another clause specifying that nothing in the bill will be considered to take effect until such-and-such a date.  I'd be happy to help with writing that, if it's a problem.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on December 18, 2025, 09:56:17 PMYou could add a section here which removed the new citizen seats and then just add another clause specifying that nothing in the bill will be considered to take effect until such-and-such a date.  I'd be happy to help with writing that, if it's a problem.

That would be very kind, thank you for your help.

Of course!  I'll probably only get to it tomorrow or the next day, since I need to get some other appointments written and some stuff moving.  Thank you for being willing to chat about this at such length and explain things to me.

THEREFORE, be it enacted that the following provision be added to el Lexhatx as subsubsection H.4.1.1:

QuoteThe total number of party seats is twenty.

FURTHERMORE, Org.IV.4, which currently reads:

Quote1. In addition to the seats apportioned between parties after a General Election, the Secretary of State shall assign one Cosa seat to any citizen who becomes eligible to vote after the most recent Election Deadline but before the dissolution of the Cosa, upon the request of such citizen, up to a maximum number as this Organic Law might provide. Any additional seat so assigned shall cease to exist should its holder vacate or be removed from the seat and shall not be subject to the procedures for filling vacancies in the Cosa, and shall also cease to exist upon the dissolution of the Cosa.. (sic)
2. The maximum number of seats that may be assigned to new citizens between general elections shall be 7.5% of the seats apportioned between parties, rounded up to a whole number of seats.

shall be struck from the law.

FURTHERMORE, Section 5 of Article IV, which currently reads:

QuoteEach person holding one or more seats is a representative known as a "Member of the Cosa" (MC). MCs may not be removed from office except by a two-thirds vote by the Cosa and approval by the King. An MC vacates his seats if he fails to vote on two consecutive Clarks, or if he resigns from office or dies. The seats of any MC who is removed or vacates shall be reassigned according to Section 4, above.

shall be renumbered as Section 4 and altered to instead read:

QuoteEach person holding one or more seats is a representative known as a "Member of the Cosa" (MC). MCs may not be removed from office except by a two-thirds vote by the Cosa and approval by the King. An MC vacates his seats if he fails to vote on two consecutive Clarks, or if he resigns from office or dies. The seats of any MC who is removed or vacates shall be reassigned according to Section 3, above.

FURTHERMORE, Section 6 of Article IV shall be renumbered as Section 5,

FURTHERMORE, Section 7 of Article IV shall be renumbered as Section 6,

FURTHERMORE, Section 8 of Article IV shall be renumbered as Section 7,

FURTHERMORE, Section 9 of Article IV shall be renumbered as Section 8,

FURTHERMORE, Section 10 of Article IV shall be renumbered as Section 9,

FURTHERMORE, Section 12 of Article IV shall be renumbered as Section 10,

FURTHERMORE, all the changes described in this bill shall only take effect after ratification by referendum and after a full calendar year has passed, and will otherwise be considered to be null and void.

Okay, I think that's everything?  I also fixed the blank section of that article.

Excuse me, how does this fix the timing issue I mentioned earlier?

The last provision is "FURTHERMORE, all the changes described in this bill shall only take effect after ratification by referendum," so the statutory change is held up until the referendum passes to ratify the rest.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on December 20, 2025, 01:35:44 PMThe last provision is "FURTHERMORE, all the changes described in this bill shall only take effect after ratification by referendum," so the statutory change is held up until the referendum passes to ratify the rest.

I don't understand. The statutory changes can only take effect after at least a full calendar year as per OrgLaw IV.2.1, whereas the amendment to the OrgLaw itself would take effect immediately after the referendum has passed. That's the exact timing problem that I was talking about.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on December 20, 2025, 01:40:00 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on December 20, 2025, 01:35:44 PMThe last provision is "FURTHERMORE, all the changes described in this bill shall only take effect after ratification by referendum," so the statutory change is held up until the referendum passes to ratify the rest.

I don't understand. The statutory changes can only take effect after at least a full calendar year as per OrgLaw IV.2.1, whereas the amendment to the OrgLaw itself would take effect immediately after the referendum has passed. That's the exact timing problem that I was talking about.

Oh, of course.  I forgot that bit.  Let me fix it real quick.

Sorry about that.  Okay, I think this should do it:

"FURTHERMORE, all the changes described in this bill shall only take effect after ratification by referendum and after a full calendar year has passed, and will otherwise be considered to be null and void."

Hm, this isn't right either... I don't know.

Really?  As it's written, the effects of the bill would start if and only if both a full year has passed and it was ratified.  I think I did it right, anyway.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on December 20, 2025, 02:16:14 PMReally?  As it's written, the effects of the bill would start if and only if both a full year has passed and it was ratified.  I think I did it right, anyway.

The wording in OrgLaw IV.2.1 is that statutory changes to party seats "will not take effect until the next election following the passage of a calendar year", and it seems counterintuitive that the statutory change should be rendered null and void even though a technically unrelated referendum handling a separate issue fails. Trying to unify both changes into one bill like this seems much more complicated than to have them be separate bills, though I sincerely appreciate your help.

Well, I guess you could also have two bills, and put in triggering clauses in each that they only come into effect if the other one does too.  That seems more complicated to me, but it's probably just a matter of taste.

@Sir Lüc , I would like this referred to the CRL, please.

Done for both bills you requested to be moved.

I approve of this (my) bill.

I approve