See raw votes here, under "Summary of Provincial Votes" / Fiova

Total votes: 11
Quota for a seat on the Praisidïeu: 2.76

First Preference votes:

Miestra Schiva 5
Gödafrïeu Valcádac'h 5
C. Carlüs Xheraltescù 1

Schiva and Valcádac'h are elected.

Count for the last seat progresses.

HA HA HA HA lolwut?

The FreeDems did better than I expected but not as well as I hoped. I am surprised that Balançéu didn't do better with their vigorous campaign, and that the TNC and Dien did so well. I would like to congratulate the LCC on sticking to their principles even though taking an electoral beating for it; and commiserate with Marcel T on getting an extra vote and his whole shtick being ruined. Glüc and Eric also certainly existed :D (just joking guys, I love you, well done)

The four parties who supported the Historic Compromise as contained in 55RZ21 got 120 seats, short of the 2/3 majority to push it through. However, as mentioned before the election, discussions have been going on with the monarchist parties and I think there is still a good chance that Talossa will choose its king, this term - in one way or another.

As for the Senäts, the result in Cézembre is unexpected but gratifying: the result in Florencia is hilarious, but I believe since one of the candidates is also Florencia's premier, he gets to break the tie in favour of himself :D

Free Democrats have a mandate to take the lead on forming a new Government, and making Txoteu Davinescù the new Seneschál; but there needs to be a lot of discussion before we finalise who will be in that government. I don't get a final say in anything, but I'd really prefer a Cabinet of People Who Will Actually Do The Work this time - which might include people from all across the political spectrum. We shall all see.

1/6/04 NEVER FORGET

Quote from: mpf on May 31, 2021, 06:57:29 AM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 31, 2021, 02:07:49 AM
I am informed by citizen B. Higgs of Fiova, who is an IT professional, that there is a problem with SSL injection (or something like that?) with the automated Chancery emails, which gets them trashed by Gmail accounts in particular. I see that a majority of those who haven't voted yet have Gmail accounts. It may well be that Gmail spam detection has been "souped up" since the last election;

Could I get more information? If I do, I might be able to fix it quickly.

"There's SSL mismatched content on the page, SSL validation breaks partially with this, it'll help delivery if link destinations are all perfect. 🙂" - Brad

I am informed by citizen B. Higgs of Fiova, who is an IT professional, that there is a problem with SSL injection (or something like that?) with the automated Chancery emails, which gets them trashed by Gmail accounts in particular. I see that a majority of those who haven't voted yet have Gmail accounts. It may well be that Gmail spam detection has been "souped up" since the last election; if so, this means that bugs in the National Database (of great venerability) have gotten to the point where they are actively sabotaging Talossan democracy.

If I am part of the next Government, bringing the database into "present time" technically speaking, and integrating it with the National Webspace, will be a matter of very great importance.

(Of course, I have an alternative theory on turnout, and that is that the proliferation of barely-distinguishable centrist parties is just confusing less-active voters. Certainly the most clearly ideologically defined parties, the Free Dems and Balançéu, don't seem to be having turnout problems.)

4 of the 8 parties running in this election are brand new. It's hard to get information out when there's only 1 or 2 people in the party.

This thread from the old forum

If you had to know anything or be intelligent to be a leader in Talossa, there would be no leadership at all, lol

But this was something the outgoing government wanted to do, but couldn't manage: create a structure so new citizens could volunteer for "internships" or whatever in Ministries/public organisations to "learn the ropes". Maybe our successors will do it, who knows.

Have you seen the Free Democrats' website and public forum, Tric'hard?

I should note that we also have a Facebook group, but that's members-only precisely because the way we have been successful is having an "internal life" where we can speak freely without - for example - grim humour being spun into proof of moral turpitude by opponents acting in bad faith.

In fact, Talossa has a government agency precisely for this kind of work, the Bureau for Humanitarian Aid and International Development . Sadly, it hasn't done anything for a while. It's been very annoying that in the Governments I've led that various Interior Ministers have neither done anything with it nor abolished it, but it's very annoying in general that I can't actually make people do what they say they will.

Maybe you want to take charge of it after the election, Tric'hard?

^^^^^ As long as monarchists are happy making eliminationist comments like this, Talossa will never have happiness or peace.

Ah, gotcha. I think what I meant is that I don't think a one-off "simulated coup" would solve anything; whereas a mechanism for triggering Votes of Confidence in the monarchy as and when necessary, one much easier than the current II.4, would be a different matter.

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on May 26, 2021, 08:16:16 AM
With respect, I'm pretty sure this contradicts your earlier statement opposing the Simulated Coup Amendment.

I went back and checked OldWitt's Hopper thread on that amendment and I can't find anything where I'm opposing it. My memory is hazy, but I think the issue that the Free Democrats had with the bill as written is that the process was too complicated, not with the principle; though I'd appreciate correction.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on May 26, 2021, 08:24:41 AM
Ever since I started offering my Talossan translation services for free, not one person actually came and asked.

Er, every time I talk to you about doing language stuff (not translations), you say you're far too busy with university work!

Quote from: xpb on May 25, 2021, 11:39:06 PM
I suppose that those who were not satisfied with (whatever titled) 7 year term executive leader after 3 months or 3 years would not have to wait and could act to remove, impeach, etc.  But is that not already the case now?

The Organic Law II.4 requires either a doctor's certificate of incapacity or conviction by the UC for the elected officials to even begin to remove the King. That part remains. It was always an irony that II.3, stating who the King is, was far easier to change.

It was rather fatal to make it harder to remove the King under the Organic Law, than to simply amend the Organic Law. The life term of the monarchy would not be under threat if the Organic Law made it easier to remove a King who had "gone rogue".