Wittenberg

Mic'haglh Autofil and Sir Marcel Tafial are proud to announce l'Institüt del Agroïcismeu Political (the Institute for Political Nerdery). What we want to do here is basically "nerd out" about a subject we enjoy -- the various ways to analyze elections, look at different systems of voting, etc. More serious atmospheres might call this psephology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psephology), but we're pretty sure the Talossan name is actually easier to pronounce!

To start us off, I wanted to talk about a relatively basic measurement: something called the Gallagher index (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallagher_index). The Gallagher Index is a measurement of how disproportionate an election's results are: the greater the difference between parties' share of the vote and their share of seats, the higher the index will be.

How do you calculate it? It's pretty simple, really:

• For each party in an election, take the difference between their percent of the vote, and their percent of seats in the legislature -- in other words, (V - S).
• For each of those differences, square them.
• For all of the squared difference, add them together.
• Take that sum and divide by two.
• Find the square root of that last step's result. That square root is the Gallagher Index.

As an example, let's look at the results from our most recent election:

Party	% Vote	Seats	% Seats	Diff.	Sq. Diff.
PA	43.62	87	43.50	0.12	0.01440
URL	32.98	66	33.00	-0.02	0.00040
Green	13.83	28	14.00	-0.17	0.02890
IDT	7.45	15	7.50	-0.05	0.00250
IG/A-S	2.13	2	2.00	0.13	0.01690
				TOTAL	0.06310
				TOTAL/2	0.03155
				GI	0.17762

That's pretty low! For reference, the lowest one we can find for macronations is Guyana, which as of 2020 had a Gallagher Index of 0.52.

However, we've seen people discussing changing the size of the Cosa recently, so it's not a bad idea to look at how that could affect things. For example, if the Cosa had 20 seats as recently proposed:

Party	% Vote	Seats	% Seats	Diff.	Sq. Diff.
PA	43.62	9	45.00	-1.38	1.90440
URL	32.98	7	35.00	-2.02	4.08040
Green	13.83	3	15.00	-1.17	1.36890
IDT	7.45	1	5.00	2.45	6.00250
IG/A-S	2.13	0	0.00	2.13	4.53690
				TOTAL	17.89310
				TOTAL/2	8.94655
				GI	2.99108

2.99 is still very low -- that would put Talossa between New Zealand (2.63) and Austria (3.21). Using the same method, a 40-seat Cosa, while lacking historical precedent, would have an index of 1.22. All of these would be perfectly acceptable numbers with respect to proportionality! Any of them are in line with some of the nations considered to have extremely healthy democracies. (For reference, nations like the US, UK, Canada, etc are regularly above 5 or even 10, with the UK's 2024 election delivering a Gallagher Index of 23.73!)

It's worth looking at the Senate as well, just for curiosity, using the numbers from the four Senate races in the most recent election:

Party	% Vote (1st Rd.)	Seats	% Seats	Diff.	Sq. Diff.
PA	40.43	3	75.00	-34.57	1195.08490
URL	36.17	1	25.00	11.17	124.76890
Green	4.26	0	0.00	4.26	18.14760
Ind.	19.15	0	0.00	19.15	366.72250
				TOTAL	1704.72390
				TOTAL/2	852.36195
				GI	29.19524

As we can see, the Senate is significantly more disproportionate than even a 20-seat Cosa. This calls into question the motives and reasoning of those who may support keeping the Senate as-is, while opposing decreasing the size of the Cosa as "less representative".

Tbf, the point of the Senäts in the minds of its defenders is precisely to be countermajoritarian. It is supposed to *not* represent the majority, because "stopping the majority doing things" is seen as a benefit in itself.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on December 22, 2025, 09:45:17 PMIt's worth looking at the Senate as well, just for curiosity, using the numbers from the four Senate races in the most recent election:

Party	% Vote (1st Rd.)	Seats	% Seats	Diff.	Sq. Diff.
PA	40.43	3	75.00	-34.57	1195.08490
URL	36.17	1	25.00	11.17	124.76890
Green	4.26	0	0.00	4.26	18.14760
Ind.	19.15	0	0.00	19.15	366.72250
				TOTAL	1704.72390
				TOTAL/2	852.36195
				GI	29.19524

As we can see, the Senate is significantly more disproportionate than even a 20-seat Cosa. This calls into question the motives and reasoning of those who may support keeping the Senate as-is, while opposing decreasing the size of the Cosa as "less representative".

I don't actually have any views on the size of the Cosa, but this insinuation doesn't follow. One could desire one house to be popularly representative and another wholly unrepresentative, or representative of a different set of bodies; therefore, one would object to the reduction in proportionality in the popular house, even as one objected to an increase in proportionality in the other house. In fact, this was the mainstream Anglophone theory into the late 20th century, pretty much!

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on December 22, 2025, 09:42:07 PMMic'haglh Autofil and Sir Marcel Tafial are proud to announce l'Institüt del Agroïcismeu Political (the Institute for Political Nerdery). What we want to do here is basically "nerd out" about a subject we enjoy -- the various ways to analyze elections, look at different systems of voting, etc. More serious atmospheres might call this psephology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psephology), but we're pretty sure the Talossan name is actually easier to pronounce!

Congratulations!!!!  It's always wonderful when someone starts something new, and I wish you the best of luck!

For most people, a new initiative can seem pretty steep, but you guys are both high-achieving and well-organized people with a lot of institutional knowledge already, so I bet you don't need much assistance.  However, I'd love to pick your brains about support you can imagine a newbie needing.  This is exactly the kind of thing we want to help make happen.

I was thinking that in instances like these, some of the following might be helpful to offer:

• Promotional announcements via the Kingdom's social media accounts.
• Guidance on what BBCode might be helpful.
• Advice on what services exist, like special forums, wiki entries, and the like.
• Image resources with common colors and symbols.

Again, you guys personally probably don't need much of this, but I'd love your feedback about what you imagine might be helpful for a less experience or savvy citizen.

I don't want to derail your interesting conversation any further, though, so please feel free to just private message me if you'd prefer.  And congratulations again on your new effort!

Our Gallagher index is low owing to our voting system, correct? Essentially we award seats to parties by using their percentage of total valid votes and using that percentage to get as close as possible to dividing up the 200 seats accordingly. If I'm correct, and I admit my knowledge is scant on voting systems, then using a 200 seat Cosa achieves the will of the voter much better than perhaps reducing the size of it?

-Txec R

The problem here is that seats aren't merely abstract units of representation. A seat corresponds to a person occupying it. That is my main gripe with the 200-seat status quo. Having more seats than citizens who could occupy them will forever be a blemish on Talossan democracy.

The best argument for the smaller Cosă, IMHO, is that right now not all MCs are equal to each other. A 200 seat Cosa means that right now one MC's vote can outweigh another's by 20-1. And that ain't right.

It double ain't right that these assignments are decided, after the election, by party leaders at whim. The 200 seat Cosa means no effective control by voters over who represents them in the Cosă.

The only downside I can see that two parties might end up with the same seats although one had more votes. But this is a question between whether Cosă elections are about electing legislators; or about "competition between different party brands". I, like Marcel, strongly think the former should be the case, because it ensures personal accountability, and degrades the power of party "bosses".

(Of course it also means that a party with too few votes gets no seats, but I consider that a feature, not a bug.)

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on December 23, 2025, 12:31:32 PMThe best argument for the smaller Cosă, IMHO, is that right now not all MCs are equal to each other. A 200 seat Cosa means that right now one MC's vote can outweigh another's by 20-1. And that ain't right.

It double ain't right that these assignments are decided, after the election, by party leaders at whim. The 200 seat Cosa means no effective control by voters over who represents them in the Cosă.

The only downside I can see that two parties might end up with the same seats although one had more votes. But this is a question between whether Cosă elections are about electing legislators; or about "competition between different party brands". I, like Marcel, strongly think the former should be the case, because it ensures personal accountability, and degrades the power of party "bosses".

(Of course it also means that a party with too few votes gets no seats, but I consider that a feature, not a bug.)

Miestra Schiva to the Electors of Bristol:

I'm not 100% sure what is being referred to here, but Zack Polanski is a pretty cool guy

I believe it's in reference to this: Edmund Burke, Speech to the Electors of Bristol (https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch13s7.html), though this seems to say something very different from what Miestră and I are arguing for.

I know that Judge Edwards is a big fan of Edward Burke; even though I am entirely opposed to his political philosophy, I rate him as a thinker and a writer, so I accept the compliment

Miestra was arguing we should elect representatives who use their own judgement and are accountable for their votes, not vote for party machines on whose patronage they depend. Burke's argument was that MPs should be elected as representatives, not delegates simply repeating the will of electors. There is very much a parallel, if loose, and I'm very sympathetic to the idea.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on December 22, 2025, 09:57:09 PMTbf, the point of the Senäts in the minds of its defenders is precisely to be countermajoritarian. It is supposed to *not* represent the majority, because "stopping the majority doing things" is seen as a benefit in itself.

Reposting this for no reason in particular :D