For my part I simply can't make the draft on Saturday, but I've got my preferred list put in to the computer, so it will pick what it can.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on September 25, 2024, 05:12:00 PM

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on September 25, 2024, 04:42:06 PMIf we were to move to an MMP Cosa, it may make it possible to hold "mid-term" elections, so to speak.

Electing provincial seats separately from list seats would make it not MMP, but its much less proportional cousin Parallel Voting. Speaking strictly for myself, I would oppose such a system.

I mean, if we were to also re-elect list seats at the mid-year election, it would qualify as MMP, no? At that point, provincial seats are provincial seats, regardless of whether they were up for election, because the party list seats will still even out the count as much as possible.

I'm not super-jazzed about this proposal either, since it really means that we have two Cosas per year of four Clarks each, but I was trying to find something to go along with AD's suggestion for frequent elections as a thought experiment if nothing else.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on September 25, 2024, 10:59:02 AMMore predictable elections, for example, might be a good thing... but not by making them so less frequent.  Talossans love elections.  They're the time people are most interested in Talossa.  If we have fewer elections, it won't magically force people to learn the language or start a newspaper... they'll just be less interested in Talossa!

Given that predictability would imply a fixed schedule, is your solution then to increase the frequency of elections?

QuoteThe Crown provision would just "trade" the current very weak veto for nothing, unless you're saying the king would have the power to pick any Seneschal they please -- and that'd be too much power for the monarch.

A 2/3 threshold is in fact quite strong. Even the proposed threshold is not something the incumbent Government could overcome; no government since the Schiva III Cabinet (during the 55th Cosa) would have had those numbers. As a result, the override still requires opposition support outside of an overwhelming electoral mandate.
And yes, the idea was that the King would have discretion when appointing a Seneschal -- though that Seneschal would naturally need to survive votes of confidence.

QuoteWe already have barely any checks in our system to curtail a Government.  They have steadily vanished over the years.  This would eliminate yet another.  This is a serious problem.

The best solution would be to move to a model of government in which the executive and legislature are separated. Thankfully, we have a party dedicated to advocating for that.

QuoteFrom the look of things, in Option 1 we'd expect Fiova to have as many seats as Maritiimi-Maxhestic and Florencia combined.  And Maricopa would have twice as many seats as Vuode.

Yes, this is how apportionment by population works. The tradeoff is that this makes an individual voter in M-M more powerful when it comes to selecting who earns their province's seats.

QuoteLikewise, it also seems like a problem that Option 2 gives no reason for anyone to care about Vuode's interests as a province.

A fair concern, though as the Cosa is currently constructed, this is also the case. I will freely admit that Option 1 is my preferred of the two systems.

QuoteIf you want to transition into this system, fine, but it's unwise to give any credence to the idea that they need to be compensated for their fee.

I think it equally unwise to simply say "hey, we're pulling the rug out from underneath you now". This is a one-time, transitional measure, and is meant as a compromise and acknowledgement to incumbent Senators.

This last part isn't particularly directed at the Baron, but it is at least inspired by his feedback. If we were to move to an MMP Cosa, it may make it possible to hold "mid-term" elections, so to speak. I envision the yearly schedule looking a little something like this:

• January: Balloting begins for "Class A" seats (one-half of each province's seats, rounded up) along with all Party List seats (15th)
• February: Polls close (1st); Certification due (14th)
• March: First Clark (1st - 21st)
• April: Second Clark (1st - 21st)
• May: Third Clark (1st - 21st)
• June: Fourth Clark (1st - 21st); Balloting begins for "Class B" seats (one-half of each province's seats, rounded down) (along with all Party List seats?) (15th)
• July: Polls close (1st); Certification due (14th)
• August: Fifth Clark (1st - 21st)
• September: Sixth Clark (1st - 21st)
• October: Seventh Clark (1st - 21st)
• November: Eighth Clark (1st - 21st)
• December: No Clarks

Realistically what this actually does is make two "mini-Cosas" throughout the calendar year, but I'm trying to think outside the box if we are to follow his logic to its conclusion. This makes elections more frequent, yet still on a predictable schedule.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on September 24, 2024, 11:41:52 PM

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on September 23, 2024, 02:34:07 AMMCs may petition the Chancery for official recognition / "parliamentary status" for a new party in the middle of a Cosa term.

• Each MC who defects from their original party forfeits half of their personally-assigned seats to do so (which, as all their seats do, return to the original party).
• Each MC may not defect more than once per Cosa term.

For goodness sakes, yes.

I thought these limitations on your suggestion were reasonable to prevent abuse while still respecting MCs' freedom of association. Glad to see you agree!

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on September 24, 2024, 11:41:52 PMI would suggest that this should also be applied to questions of Cosa reform. "Big-pants" countries have put electoral reform to a referendum. I believe this occurred for MMP in New Zealand in the 1990s and again in the 2010s?

I had been referring to a commission for provincial reform, but it sounds like you're talking about a referendum. I'm not opposed to a "Cosa Reform Commission", but at some point we just get caught in an endless loop of "X has been referred to the Sub-Committee on the So-and-so".

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on September 24, 2024, 11:41:52 PMWith the current FreeDems composition of the Senats you are NEVER going to get them to support this. Open Society gives it a thumbs up though.

This feels a little uncharitable, given Miestra herself has supported unicameralism but last month.

Also, given the "merging" in of incumbent Senators, that would further help to soften the impact.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on September 24, 2024, 11:41:52 PMLong-term whether we have a president or a king, Open Society supports the preservation of some reserve powers for the head of state, with the stipulation that their use is limited, to extraordinary circumstances.

Do I understand correctly that you are in favor of keeping said royal Organic veto?

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on September 24, 2024, 11:41:52 PMNotes for potential addition:

-(CRL Abolition) Luc has made an important point concerning the CRL. The Scribery or some other body would be a more elegant solution to the problem the CRL was proposed to solve.
-(Mandatory Live Cosa Session) We really need to make better use of technology to connect. In combination with longer parliamentary terms we should have one live session (during the middle of the term perhaps) where we actually have direct terpelaziuns and ministerial reports. Let's be honest it is fun and notable when we actually get to see one another even if we nurture dislike of the words we see from each other.

Both fine points, and things I support, but I felt they were outside the scope of this proposal.

Quote-(No Directorate?!) Color me shocked there is no suggestion for a directorial republic.

Soon (TM)

QuoteOne more note:
I am highly amused by the "King? No, thank you" logo.

The Smiling Sun is ripe for parody. It seemed a natural fit.

Quote from: GV on September 25, 2024, 12:31:48 AMIf at all possible, we should set up computer-systems to simulate elections with whatever MMP-Cosâ we can dream up.  I'm no good with such things, but this is 2024, and putting things together like this has honestly never been easier.  In fact, I urge the Powers-that-Be to strongly consider digital simulations of such new-Cosâ setups.

Well, as you can see, I've already simulated the outcome of the "Biproportional Representation" system, in the linked document in the OP. I ran the numbers on an MMP system here quick this morning, in three different variations. (see attached)

• Provinces are assigned an equal number of seats such that the total number of provincial seats does not exceed half the nominal size of the Cosa -- with 8 provinces, this means 12 seats per province for 96 / 200 seats.
• The remaining 104 are distributed proportionately between parties using the Webster method still for sake of continuity.
• I re-used the assumptions on how each province voted from the methods I discussed above.
• Provincial seats were elected using first-past-the-post, since I have no real way of judging how a ranked-choice election would have gone (I did use my best judgement in a sort of "ranked-choice" election since one province did have a tie).
• The first result caps the number of Cosa seats at 200. This has the potential to result in "overhang seats", which are those provincial seats which exceed the proportion of seats the party would be entitled to on the list vote. The FreeDems won 4 such seats.
• The second result increases the size of the Cosa beyond its nominal size by the number of overhang seats. This ensures that every party receives its proportion of the nominal size, while also not taking away from the parties that do very well in provinces. With four overhang seats, this results in a 204-seat Cosa.
• The third result increases the size of the Cosa such that every party receives a proportionate number of seats -- the more overhang seats there are, the greater the size of the Cosa is likely to be. This is effectively just proportional representation with extra steps, and is my least-preferred of the three variations.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 23, 2024, 08:23:03 PM[...] and I'm in favour of unicameralism/an MMP Cosă if it can be done with minimal fuss.

I think we've discussed in the past that my own sympathies are with MMP, however I went with the current system for two reasons:
- It would actually appear easier to implement than an MMP Cosa, and
- Given the potential for outcomes that are notably more disproportionate than either the current method or the proposal, it seemed to be a more difficult method to gain support for.

Quote from: Tric'hard Lenxheir on September 23, 2024, 08:10:08 AMIf it were to be instituted retroactively I would immediately lose my citizenship. [...] I know I am not intelligent enough to hold any office higher than that which I hold now (senator).

This law cannot be applied retroactively; Org.VII.14 explicitly prohibits ex post facto laws.

Also, Tric'hard, you need to stop selling yourself short, ok?

As part of the Government's commitment to revitalize and improve the structure of our state apparatus, we have thus far held a discussion in which many valuable ideas were submitted, discussed, and initially refined. The next step is to allow, as per the Avant! coalition agreement, "each party [to] promote its own preferences." To that end, I submit the Reform Plan (in that it is the proposal of the Reform Party, not the definitive roadmap for reform -- cf. the Virginia Plan, the New Jersey Plan, etc.) Keep in mind of course that this is not a concrete legislative proposal -- we need to know what the goal is in order to know what legal changes must be proposed, after all!

The main points of the plan can be found here.

For a bit more detail:
Crown Reform:

• The Crown and Ziu execute a bit of power-swapping arrangement.
• The King regains the right to appoint a Seneschal after consultations with the various party leaders in the Cosa, but it also becomes easier for the Cosa to override a royal veto.
• The royal veto on Organic amendments is eliminated, simplifying the process and ensuring vital amendments are not logjammed by a single individual.

Ziu Reform:

• The Senäts is abolished with the general election following ratification of the relevant Organic amendment.
• Because Senators pay to serve in the Senäts, and in doing so directly contribute to the upkeep of our nation (web presence etc), I believe it unfair to strip them of something before they have gotten that which they pay for. As a result, I believe it necessary to "grandfather" in Senators to Cosa membership for the remainder of their Senatorial term -- effectively making this somewhat of a "merger" as opposed to an "abolition". There are two ways to do this that I foresee, which I will go into more detail below.
• Option 1: Biproportional Representation:
  • As a means of retaining a form of "provincial representation" despite a lack of Senäts, the Cosa is now elected using electoral districts (which for the sake of ease are coterminous with provinces). (I should point out here that this practice is actually fairly common, very few proportional-representation legislatures use the entire country as a single electoral district.)
  • Seats are apportioned among each province based on how many votes were cast from that province in the previous election. This is meant to be equivalent to "apportionment by population", but renders useless any attempts to "gerrymander" catchment areas. It also is useful as a tool to both encourage and reward activity.
  • Parties are awarded seats within a given province based on their proportion of votes within that province (these seats do not necessarily need to be assigned to an MC from that province).
  • Any seats that cannot be assigned to a single party (for example, if one province has two seats left to be apportioned and three parties equally deserving) are awarded at the national level via a "topping-off" once all provincial seats possible are awarded. This method takes all provincial seats into account as well as the nationwide proportional vote.
  • The apportionment of seats to provinces and the awarding of seats to parties (both at the provincial level and the nationwide "topping-off" stage) is all accomplished via the Webster method.
  • In this case, incumbent Senators at the time of the Senäts' dissolution (of which there would be five) are automatically assigned half of their respective province's seats for each election during the remainder of what would have been their current Senatorial term. Should any of these ex-Senators appear on a party's list (with their consent) during such an election, their automatic seat assignment will count towards that party's seats in that province instead.
• Option 2: Retain a Single District:
  • The Cosa remains elected on a purely nationwide basis, but the Webster method is still adopted. This maintains a very proportionate outcome in terms of seats awarded to each party, but also abolishes the "percentile dice" system currently in place for something that uses straightforward mathematical rule as opposed to pseudo-random number generation.
  • In this case, incumbent Senators could be granted some equal number of Cosa seats (perhaps 10 each?) outside of the 200 seats normally elected. In other words, this would see the Cosa increase from 200 to 250 at the Senäts' dissolution, shrink to 220 at the next election after that, and then return to 200 seats starting with the election after that. Ex-Senators may still be assigned party seats, but are of course subject to the same limit as every other MC on the number of seats an individual MC may hold, and these additional seats count towards that limit.

A Fixed Legislative Schedule:

• Elections now occur annually from January 15 - February 1.
• This increases the length of a Cosa term from six Clarks to nine. Namely, March through November, with December kept clear for the sake of the Chancery (preventing too much overlap between holidays and election prep work).
• The Seneschal may still issue a single month of recess per Cosa term, but this no longer pushes back subsequent Clarks (in other words, this Cosa will instead have eight Clarks instead of nine). This aligns with the preceding point of keeping December clear.
• Because elections are now fixed, a Vote of Confidence is no longer capable of calling a new election. As a result, VoCs now become "constructive" -- MCs voting Non are asked to provide a replacement candidate for Seneschal, who, upon review by the King and consultation with party leaders, can name a new Seneschal should a VoC fail (as per their restored power to do so anyway).

Other Reforms:

• MCs may petition the Chancery for official recognition / "parliamentary status" for a new party in the middle of a Cosa term.
  • Each MC who defects from their original party forfeits half of their personally-assigned seats to do so (which, as all their seats do, return to the original party).
  • Each MC may not defect more than once per Cosa term.
• A convention / commission / panel / what-have-you will examine, in a coordinated manner, the best possible paths to reduce the number of provinces. Individual provinces are strongly encouraged to heed their recommendations.

RZ3: Con
RZ4: Aus
RZ5: Per
RZ6: Per
RZ7: Per
RZ8: Per
RZ9: Aus
RZ10: Per
RZ11: Per
RZ12: Per
RZ13: Per

VoC: Üc

I suppose as one of the resident hockey fans I should probably join in, lol. I'll send you my email.

Quote from: Sir Lüc on September 12, 2024, 12:56:36 PM(I personally think the Scribery should just hire a deputy instead of needlessly cross-breeding different branches of the Civil Service)

The Scribery has a Deputy.

As an alternative, instead of adding this to the Chancery's plate, we could potentially give the responsibility to assist the Royal Archivist to the Scribery instead?

Estimat Tuischac'h,

I have consulted with the Royal Archivist on the best path forward here and we agree that the best method is to move these to a sub-board which he controls as RA. From there, he can archive them in some other place -- say, perhaps, as part of the new Database -- at his pace.

I thank the Member for his question and apologize for the delay.

Ministry staff (namely myself, the Deputy Minister, and the Backend Secretary) have a running document we are using to keep track of several of our projects, including the hosting transition -- notes, thoughts, suggestions, etc. At this time, we have a several candidates sourced, but no conclusions have been made as of just yet.

Quote from: xpb on August 30, 2024, 11:55:13 AMI will work up a prototype of a challenge coin that could be a commemorative item - I can lasercut acrylic to be similar in size to a poker chip with an appropriate graphic etched.  These could be produced in quantity and witha material on hand such that any citizen could request just with required postage and the new Monarch could have a supply dispense for meetings or good works.

This is a fantastic idea.

Not quite lasercutting -- and not quite related specifically to the coronation -- but additive manufacturing/3D printing has to have been a boon for micronationalism. Wonder what we could do with it.

Please clark the Riverbank Beautification Act.