Wittenberg

On the one hand: the old system whereby political parties could give seats to whoever they wanted enabled corruption and meant no democratic accountability of who got in the Cosa.

On the other hand: it allowed new citizens to get involved in national legislation right away, should they want to.

POSSIBLE COMPROMISE: reserve a certain amount of seats in the Cosa (7.5% of the Cosa, 15 out of the current 200? or in addition to the current 200?) for the Secretary of State (not the parties) to allocate to people who immigrated since the last election, maximum of 1.5% of the Cosa per person. This is not dissimilar to how other countries have reserved seats which are nominated (not elected) to bring minority or marginalised groups into the legislature. So random newbie turns up, SoS says "here are your 3 seats". If we run out of seats because more than 5 newbies show up, the SoS can redistribute the allocations. I doubt we'd get more than 15 per term.

This would allow newbies to get involved right away without having to pledge allegiance to one or another political party right off the bat. It would mean influence over legislation, and possibly over VoCs, but not disproportionately so (perhaps the allocated seats wouldn't get to vote on the VoC?) However it would need an OrgLaw amendment to IV.1 and IV.2.

Comments?

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on December 27, 2021, 04:23:00 PM
On the one hand: the old system whereby political parties could give seats to whoever they wanted enabled corruption and meant no democratic accountability of who got in the Cosa.

On the other hand: it allowed new citizens to get involved in national legislation right away, should they want to.

POSSIBLE COMPROMISE: reserve a certain amount of seats in the Cosa (7.5% of the Cosa, 15 out of the current 200? or in addition to the current 200?) for the Secretary of State (not the parties) to allocate to people who immigrated since the last election, maximum of 1.5% of the Cosa per person. This is not dissimilar to how other countries have reserved seats which are nominated (not elected) to bring minority or marginalised groups into the legislature. So random newbie turns up, SoS says "here are your 3 seats". If we run out of seats because more than 5 newbies show up, the SoS can redistribute the allocations. I doubt we'd get more than 15 per term.

This would allow newbies to get involved right away without having to pledge allegiance to one or another political party right off the bat. It would mean influence over legislation, and possibly over VoCs, but not disproportionately so (perhaps the allocated seats wouldn't get to vote on the VoC?) However it would need an OrgLaw amendment to IV.1 and IV.2.

Comments?

This could work -- if checks and balances are maintained, such as having a monarch (king or queen) not subject to standing for election -- vs a president elected each 5 years (even if they have a different title assigned)

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on December 27, 2021, 04:23:00 PM
Comments?

I like this idea! This makes sense not just as a way to get people involved right away, but also to make sure that citizens who have not yet had the opportunity to vote have at least a minimal amount of representation in the Cosa.

I would suggest allowing the SoS to give new citizens one seat each, upon the request of the citizen, and I would probably add them to the existing 200 (so you don't have to take seats away from anyone, though we'd probably need to check with the Chancery to see how easily the database can accommodate additional seats). Three seats would overrepresent new citizens compared to people who actually voted in the last election, which is why I suggest only one:  I don't think new citizens should get more of a voice in the Cosa than voters. Even two seats would overrepresent them if election turnout exceeds 100, but one seat would be fine until we get turnouts of over 200 voters, at which point we could work something out else out.

The database can accommodate more than 200 seats. I agree that one seat per new citizen is still a good way to get involved.

Oh yeah, on the question of whether the newbie seats should be able to vote on the VoC, I can see arguments both ways. On the one hand, if we have a lot of new citizens who feel unrepresented by the current government, maybe they should have a say in whether to dissolve the Cosa and hold new elections early. On the other hand, our elections aren't that far apart anyways and maybe it's reasonable to expect them to spend a few months getting acclimated before giving them the power to potentially bring down the government.

What about making the seats consultative? New citizen consultative seats can debate and even submit to the hopper, perhaps, but not vote. So, 200 regular and however many consultative seats needed. And maybe their consultative status would last for one full Cosa session.

Hopper submissions and debates are already open to all.

Very good to see that there's some cross party buy-in for this idea!

So let's get to specifics. Let's look at current OrgLaw IV.1:

QuoteCosa is the national legislative assembly, and is composed of 200 seats apportioned among political parties based on their performance in the General Election. It may administer itself as it sees fit.

The bolded bit is the part which would right now make this suggestion unconstitutional. So - how should we change it?

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on December 28, 2021, 01:49:30 PM
Hopper submissions and debates are already open to all.

Someone who is not a member of the Cosa, Senate, or the King can not submit to the Hopper if I recall correctly. So not open to all.
I am trying to ensure that consultative members of the Cosa would be able to do so as well. 

I am referencing Article VII, Section 5 of the OrgLaw.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on December 28, 2021, 02:38:40 PM
Very good to see that there's some cross party buy-in for this idea!

So let's get to specifics. Let's look at current OrgLaw IV.1:

QuoteCosa is the national legislative assembly, and is composed of 200 seats apportioned among political parties based on their performance in the General Election. It may administer itself as it sees fit.

The bolded bit is the part which would right now make this suggestion unconstitutional. So - how should we change it?

If there are few cascading effects of the change then would it be simplest to just add language saying "and one additional seat per new citizen within the current Cosa session."

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on December 28, 2021, 03:19:55 PM
Someone who is not a member of the Cosa, Senate, or the King can not submit to the Hopper if I recall correctly.

You don't recall correctly. (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=647.0)

Quote from: El Lexhatx H.6.1
6.1. All citizens of Talossa are entitled to participate fully in discussions and debates in the Hopper, within the bounds of law and of the decisions of the administering and presiding authorities of the Hopper. Any citizen may submit a draft of legislation to the Hopper, though these shall not be considered to be "legislative proposals" until sponsored by one or more individuals authorised to submit legislative proposals under Organic Law VII.5.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on December 28, 2021, 03:31:37 PM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on December 28, 2021, 02:38:40 PM
Very good to see that there's some cross party buy-in for this idea!

So let's get to specifics. Let's look at current OrgLaw IV.1:

QuoteCosa is the national legislative assembly, and is composed of 200 seats apportioned among political parties based on their performance in the General Election. It may administer itself as it sees fit.

The bolded bit is the part which would right now make this suggestion unconstitutional. So - how should we change it?

If there are few cascading effects of the change then would it be simplest to just add language saying "and one additional seat per new citizen within the current Cosa session."

This sounds excellent.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on December 28, 2021, 03:34:45 PM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on December 28, 2021, 03:19:55 PM
Someone who is not a member of the Cosa, Senate, or the King can not submit to the Hopper if I recall correctly.

You don't recall correctly. (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=647.0)

Quote from: El Lexhatx H.6.1
6.1. All citizens of Talossa are entitled to participate fully in discussions and debates in the Hopper, within the bounds of law and of the decisions of the administering and presiding authorities of the Hopper. Any citizen may submit a draft of legislation to the Hopper, though these shall not be considered to be "legislative proposals" until sponsored by one or more individuals authorised to submit legislative proposals under Organic Law VII.5.

Is this a conflict? Or an extension of the OrgLaw?

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on December 28, 2021, 03:35:20 PM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on December 28, 2021, 03:31:37 PM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on December 28, 2021, 02:38:40 PM
Very good to see that there's some cross party buy-in for this idea!

So let's get to specifics. Let's look at current OrgLaw IV.1:

QuoteCosa is the national legislative assembly, and is composed of 200 seats apportioned among political parties based on their performance in the General Election. It may administer itself as it sees fit.

The bolded bit is the part which would right now make this suggestion unconstitutional. So - how should we change it?

If there are few cascading effects of the change then would it be simplest to just add language saying "and one additional seat per new citizen within the current Cosa session."

This sounds excellent.

Thanks S:reu Davis for furthering the discussion. That feedback means a lot. [No snark intended]

If it is that simple I can go ahead and prepare an amendment for submission to the Hopper. This is definitely a wonderful idea.

You will get unanimous support from the FreeDems if you also include our language on allowing the number of Cosa seats to be varied:

QuoteThe number of seats in the Cosa may be changed by law, with the provisos that any such change will not take effect until the next general election of the Cosa; and that the number of seats in the Cosa may never be less than twice the number of Senators minus one.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on December 28, 2021, 04:17:36 PM
You will get unanimous support from the FreeDems if you also include our language on allowing the number of Cosa seats to be varied:

QuoteThe number of seats in the Cosa may be changed by law, with the provisos that any such change will not take effect until the next general election of the Cosa; and that the number of seats in the Cosa may never be less than twice the number of Senators minus one.

I will include that.
Thank you for bringing forth this wonderful idea and letting me take a crack at drafting the legislation.
I will have it ready tomorrow.
I am about to go get a tattoo of my cat.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on December 28, 2021, 02:38:40 PM
The bolded bit is the part which would right now make this suggestion unconstitutional. So - how should we change it?

You could add the words "except as otherwise provided in this article" after the bolded bit, then a new section later in Article IV to address the additional seats. I think the place where section 8 used to be would do nicely. Maybe something like the following:

"In addition to the seats assigned to parties on the basis of election results, 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. 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."

Then add additional sentences as necessary to restrict voting on the VoC, or make the seats nonvoting/consultative. This is a bit wordier than the language suggested previously in this thread by Breneir, but I think the bits addressing vacancies are useful. I also think seats should only be granted to those who request them, not created automatically whenever anyone is naturalized (but I wouldn't see any problem with informing immigrants of their right to request a seat as part of the routine welcoming process). Not everyone wants or should be expected to serve in the Cosa.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on December 28, 2021, 04:17:36 PM
You will get unanimous support from the FreeDems if you also include our language on allowing the number of Cosa seats to be varied:

QuoteThe number of seats in the Cosa may be changed by law, with the provisos that any such change will not take effect until the next general election of the Cosa; and that the number of seats in the Cosa may never be less than twice the number of Senators minus one.

I don't think this is a good idea, but in the interest of furthering this effort, perhaps we can compromise and just increase the time before the change would take effect to the next election following the passage of a calendar year, rather than a single election. I can think of some possible abuses of this power, but none that could happen over such a timeframe.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on December 28, 2021, 04:37:03 PM
perhaps we can compromise and just increase the time before the change would take effect to the next election following the passage of a calendar year, rather than a single election. I can think of some possible abuses of this power, but none that could happen over such a timeframe.

I don't see the point of the extra time, but if that's what it takes to get flexibility, okay. Actually interested to hear the possibilities of abuse that this would cut out.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on December 28, 2021, 04:52:46 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on December 28, 2021, 04:37:03 PM
perhaps we can compromise and just increase the time before the change would take effect to the next election following the passage of a calendar year, rather than a single election. I can think of some possible abuses of this power, but none that could happen over such a timeframe.

I don't see the point of the extra time, but if that's what it takes to get flexibility, okay.

Thank you!

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on December 28, 2021, 04:17:36 PM
You will get unanimous support from the FreeDems if you also include our language on allowing the number of Cosa seats to be varied

A thought regarding the interplay between this proposal and the seat number proposal: if new citizens get the right to request a Cosa seat, and then the Ziu passes a law significantly reducing the base number of Cosa seats, that means new citizens could be significantly overrepresented in the Cosa compared to ordinary voters. If the base number of Cosa seats is really small (say 20 seats like in the "Real Cosa" days) and we get a significant number of immigrants in a short time, they could conceivably end up controlling the Cosa. Is this something we should worry about being abused?

There may be ways to build safeguards into the mechanism. For example (just one idea, I'm sure there are others) we could cut off handing out additional seats if the number of Cosa seats gets too low or the number of voters gets too high. Something like: "The SoS shall not grant requests for additional seats if the ratio of the existing number of Cosa seats to the number of ballots cast in the most recent general election is less than one." (Note that this specific proposal would cut off additional seats after the first one is granted if MPF's DC proposal is implemented.)

Quote from: C. M. Siervicül on December 28, 2021, 07:23:15 PMif new citizens get the right to request a Cosa seat, and then the Ziu passes a law significantly reducing the base number of Cosa seats, that means new citizens could be significantly overrepresented in the Cosa compared to ordinary voters. If the base number of Cosa seats is really small (say 20 seats like in the "Real Cosa" days) and we get a significant number of immigrants in a short time, they could conceivably end up controlling the Cosa.

My initial proposal would have been set an upper bound of 7.5% of the Cosa for these additional seats. In a 200 seat Cosa, that would mean 15. For a 20 seat Cosa, that would mean 2 (rounding up).

Look, I hesitate to do this because the Senator from Florencia was so excited about drawing up an amendment. But an argument has been made in another thread of the constitutional propriety of any laws mandating how a party can assign its seats. So best to fix that now while we have the chance. Added text in bold:

Quote
Section 2 Based on the final results of the General Election, the Secretary of State shall calculate the apportionment of seats among the parties. Each party shall receive a percentage of the seats as equal as possible to its percentage of the popular vote, but each party shall receive a whole number of seats, and in turn, each party shall assign these seats to individuals, in accordance with law. The Secretary of State shall employ whatever mathematical formulae and calculations in the apportionment of seats as are set by law, or, in the absence of such law, as will best reflect the intentions of this Organic Law. The Uppermost Cort shall be the final judge in case of mathematical disputes.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on December 28, 2021, 11:11:40 PM
Look, I hesitate to do this because the Senator from Florencia was so excited about drawing up an amendment. But an argument has been made in another thread of the constitutional propriety of any laws mandating how a party can assign its seats. So best to fix that now while we have the chance. Added text in bold:

Quote
Section 2 Based on the final results of the General Election, the Secretary of State shall calculate the apportionment of seats among the parties. Each party shall receive a percentage of the seats as equal as possible to its percentage of the popular vote, but each party shall receive a whole number of seats, and in turn, each party shall assign these seats to individuals, in accordance with law. The Secretary of State shall employ whatever mathematical formulae and calculations in the apportionment of seats as are set by law, or, in the absence of such law, as will best reflect the intentions of this Organic Law. The Uppermost Cort shall be the final judge in case of mathematical disputes.

Makes sense to me.

DRAFT AMENDMENT ON RESERVED SEATS FOR NEW CITIZENS

Whereas, the retention of new immigrants is an ongoing challenge for the Kingdom, and

Whereas, the option for new citizens to become immediately engaged in the Kingdom's government might lead to higher retention and activity levels.

Therefore be it resolved, that Organic Law Article IV, Section 2 is amended to read as follows:

QuoteOrgLaw IV. 2: The Cosa is the national legislative assembly, and is composed of 200 seats. Based on the final results of the General Election, the Secretary of State shall calculate the apportionment of seats among the parties. Each party shall receive a percentage of the seats as equal as possible to its percentage of the popular vote, but each party shall receive a whole number of seats, and in turn, each party shall assign these seats to individuals, in accordance with law. The Secretary of State shall employ whatever mathematical formulae and calculations in the apportionment of seats as are set by law, or, in the absence of such law, as will best reflect the intentions of this Organic Law. The Uppermost Cort shall be the final judge in case of mathematical disputes. Except as otherwise provided in this article.

OrgLaw IV. 2.1: In addition to the seats assigned to parties on the basis of election results, 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. 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.

OrgLaw IV. 2.2: The number of seats in the Cosa may be changed by law, with the provisos that any such change will not take effect until the next election following the passage of a calendar year; and that the number of seats in the Cosa may never be less than twice the number of Senators minus one. The Cosa may administer itself as it sees fit.

Upon further discussion with the FreeDems. Would there be more support for a shift to a Direct Cosa (1 vote = 1 seat) rather than allowing flexibility?

I like the fact that the Cosa and Senats are different in how they approach representation, and that the size of the Cosa is the same for easy and intuitive comparisons.  Could we stick with the approach that we've worked out in principle? 

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on December 29, 2021, 04:06:12 PM
DRAFT AMENDMENT ON RESERVED SEATS FOR NEW CITIZENS

Whereas, the retention of new immigrants is an ongoing challenge for the Kingdom, and

Whereas, the option for new citizens to become immediately engaged in the Kingdom's government might lead to higher retention and activity levels.

Therefore be it resolved, that Organic Law Article IV, Section 2 is amended to read as follows:

QuoteOrgLaw IV. 2: The Cosa is the national legislative assembly, and is composed of 200 seats. Based on the final results of the General Election, the Secretary of State shall calculate the apportionment of seats among the parties. Each party shall receive a percentage of the seats as equal as possible to its percentage of the popular vote, but each party shall receive a whole number of seats, and in turn, each party shall assign these seats to individuals, in accordance with law. The Secretary of State shall employ whatever mathematical formulae and calculations in the apportionment of seats as are set by law, or, in the absence of such law, as will best reflect the intentions of this Organic Law. The Uppermost Cort shall be the final judge in case of mathematical disputes. Except as otherwise provided in this article.

OrgLaw IV. 2.1: In addition to the seats assigned to parties on the basis of election results, 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. 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.

OrgLaw IV. 2.2: The number of seats in the Cosa may be changed by law, with the provisos that any such change will not take effect until the next election following the passage of a calendar year; and that the number of seats in the Cosa may never be less than twice the number of Senators minus one. The Cosa may administer itself as it sees fit.

Is this dead? Or is there hope for this being on the sixth Clark?

Why would this be dead? It needs to have approval from the CRL (or to be in the Hopper for 30 days) before it can be Clarked, but I'm very happy with the general principle.

Let me suggest some edits to make it easier to read, and which make sure that the provisions for new seats don't conflict with other provisions in the OrgLaw:

Quote
DRAFT AMENDMENT ON RESERVED SEATS FOR NEW CITIZENS

Whereas, the retention of new immigrants is an ongoing challenge for the Kingdom, and

Whereas, the option for new citizens to become immediately engaged in the Kingdom's government might lead to higher retention and activity levels.

Therefore be it resolved, that Organic Law Article IV, Sections 1-4 are amended to read as follows:

QuoteOrgLaw IV.1: The Cosa is the national legislative assembly, and is composed of a number of seats apportioned among political parties based on their performance in the General Election, as well as any additional seats authorised by this Organic Law.

OrgLaw IV.2. Based on the final results of the General Election, the Secretary of State shall calculate the apportionment of seats among the parties, hereinafter referred to as "party seats".

OrgLaw IV.2.1 The party seats shall total 200, or another number which may be set by law, with the provisos that any such change will not take effect until the next election following the passage of a calendar year; and that this number may never be less than twice the number of Senators minus one.

OrgLaw IV.2.2. Each party shall receive a percentage of party seats as equal as possible to its percentage of the popular vote, but each party shall receive a whole number of seats, and in turn, each party shall assign these seats to individuals, in accordance with law. The Secretary of State shall employ whatever mathematical formulae and calculations in the apportionment of seats as are set by law, or, in the absence of such law, as will best reflect the intentions of this Organic Law. The Uppermost Cort shall be the final judge in case of mathematical disputes.

OrgLaw IV.2.3. Only registered political parties may obtain party seats. Parties which win votes but are not registered may not assume their seats in the Cosa until they register. The process to register a party shall be defined by law. The Secretary of State may request from all parties a registration fee, to be set by law, to cover the cost of the election. This fee shall be uniform for all parties.

OrgLaw IV.3. In the case of vacant party seats occurring between elections, the Secretary of State shall inform the King and the leader of whatever party held the vacant seat. The King shall appoint a replacement to each vacancy. If the seat belonged to a party with a functioning party leader, the King must appoint as a replacement whichever person shall be so designated by that party's leader. If there is no functioning party leader, or if the party leader refuses to designate a replacement, the King shall appoint the replacement according to his own best judgement.

OrgLaw IV.4.1: 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.

OrgLaw IV.4.2 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.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on December 30, 2021, 05:38:31 PM
Why would this be dead? It needs to have approval from the CRL (or to be in the Hopper for 30 days) before it can be Clarked, but I'm very happy with the general principle.

Let me suggest some edits to make it easier to read, and which make sure that the provisions for new seats don't conflict with other provisions in the OrgLaw:

Quote
DRAFT AMENDMENT ON RESERVED SEATS FOR NEW CITIZENS

Whereas, the retention of new immigrants is an ongoing challenge for the Kingdom, and

Whereas, the option for new citizens to become immediately engaged in the Kingdom's government might lead to higher retention and activity levels.

Therefore be it resolved, that Organic Law Article IV, Sections 1-4 are amended to read as follows:

QuoteOrgLaw IV.1: The Cosa is the national legislative assembly, and is composed of a number of seats apportioned among political parties based on their performance in the General Election, as well as any additional seats authorised by this Organic Law.

OrgLaw IV.2. Based on the final results of the General Election, the Secretary of State shall calculate the apportionment of seats among the parties, hereinafter referred to as "party seats".

OrgLaw IV.2.1 The party seats shall total 200, or another number which may be set by law, with the provisos that any such change will not take effect until the next election following the passage of a calendar year; and that this number may never be less than twice the number of Senators minus one.

OrgLaw IV.2.2. Each party shall receive a percentage of party seats as equal as possible to its percentage of the popular vote, but each party shall receive a whole number of seats, and in turn, each party shall assign these seats to individuals, in accordance with law. The Secretary of State shall employ whatever mathematical formulae and calculations in the apportionment of seats as are set by law, or, in the absence of such law, as will best reflect the intentions of this Organic Law. The Uppermost Cort shall be the final judge in case of mathematical disputes.

OrgLaw IV.2.3. Only registered political parties may obtain party seats. Parties which win votes but are not registered may not assume their seats in the Cosa until they register. The process to register a party shall be defined by law. The Secretary of State may request from all parties a registration fee, to be set by law, to cover the cost of the election. This fee shall be uniform for all parties.

OrgLaw IV.3. In the case of vacant party seats occurring between elections, the Secretary of State shall inform the King and the leader of whatever party held the vacant seat. The King shall appoint a replacement to each vacancy. If the seat belonged to a party with a functioning party leader, the King must appoint as a replacement whichever person shall be so designated by that party's leader. If there is no functioning party leader, or if the party leader refuses to designate a replacement, the King shall appoint the replacement according to his own best judgement.

OrgLaw IV.4.1: 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.

OrgLaw IV.4.2 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.

Excellent, thanks for the edits, Miestra. Sponsors?

In case anyone's interested in the numbers: if the last election had been a Direct Cosa election, there would have been 73 seats distributed between parties, and - under these provisions - 6 seats would have been available for new citizens.

I will not be supporting this bill in its current form. I like the idea, but not when it is combined with getting rid of the Organic requirement of 200 Cosa seats.

I am sorry I did not post in this thread earlier; I know I made comments elsewhere but apparently not here.

At some point I will hit an arbitrary deadend and stop reviving old threads today...

I voted against this amendment as a private citizen, and here's why: As we continue to amend the OrgLaw by piecemeal, it is going to become an unruly monstrous spaghetti mess again, which was precisely the thing that we hoped to rectify in 2017.

I recall a somewhat-recent amendment that the Ziu passed, which hoped to clarify some details about Senäts qualifications (the exact details escape me at the moment). No less than King John himself had authored the section and insisted that his intent should trump the plain language, which was extra ironic, because none of us could even agree on what the plain language meant.

Case in point: While the author must have thought that "never less than twice the number of Senators minus one" were clear, I would like to ask which of the following mathematical inequalities is accurate, not to the intent of the author, but to the plain language?

• a ≥ (2n) - 1
• a ≥ (2n - 1)
• a ≥ (2) × (n - 1)

While you're pondering that, I wonder if the following phrases would have been clearer?

• Never fewer than one less than a product of twice the Senators.
• Never fewer than the sum of one less than a product of twice the Senators.
• Never fewer than a product of one less than the number of Senators.*

Unfortunately, "knowing the order of operations" is a woefully insufficient excuse. If that were enough, professional mathematicians would forego the multitude of parentheses that they use in actual proofs and theorems – which is to say that, in some instances, and especially in a constitution (as the OrgLaw is), clarity should trump brevity.

I guess we'll have to file another amendment, or file another lawsuit, in order to determine this question, which is a sad state.

And, if you're reading a tone of sarcasm or bitterness, you'd be correct. I have made this complaint publicly and privately, and perhaps the most telling response that I got was: "This is democracy, so get used to it."

Woe unto me for wanting clear, concise, and complete laws so that justice is not perverted, needless lawsuits are avoided, and our Government can accomplish its duties without being bogged down by painfully ambiguous constitutional amendments.

*Edit: See how dangerous it is to introduce maths to a constitution? Even while trying to be careful, I made a mistake. I need to amend (pun intended) the third statement to read: "Never fewer than a product equal to twice the sum of one less than the number of Senators".

We have tried several times to rewrite the OrgLaw from scratch and it has never worked
-It takes more than one person to get anything with broad support, and organizing that many people for that long is impractical, based on experience
-Even if an entirely new document we're produced, it would be bound to have a lot of its own problems. At least with our current OrgLaw we already know what most of the issues are.

We did successfully restructure the Organic Law in 2019 to make it clearer. Obviously it wasn't perfect, but it had the benefit of not starting from nothing.

Plus, the King has a veto. The options are:

a) an OrgLaw that pleases Colorado John
b) an OrgLaw which has support of 75% of the Cosa (and therefore the blessing of fans of Colorado John)
c) start your own Talossa, with blackjack, and hookers, and an OrgLaw written however you want it, preferably without a Royal veto

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 18, 2022, 09:46:10 PMc) start your own Talossa, with blackjack, and hookers, and an OrgLaw written however you want it, preferably without a Royal veto

1) And this has already been done, no less
2) Didn't you point out gambling is now legal anyway under Talossan law after shaking off the legal Cheesehead Yoke?
3) "In fact, forget the Talossa and the blackjack!"