Calculations using the last election's numbers

The Government's Coalition Agreement specified setting up a bipartisan Senäts committee to discuss possible changes to Talossa's electoral system. That was the responsibility of the Attorney-General, who is on extended leave; the Deputy Attorney-General has not yet stepped up to announce whether he's keen to take that over or not.

With that in mind, I was just reminded of my post from last year suggesting an Electoral Reform for Cosă elections which would work well with any number of Cosă seats, whether 15 or the current 200. The tradeoff is: a "realler" Cosă means an effective "threshold", beneath which the smallest parties would get no seats. It is up to the Ziu as a whole to decide whether any threshold is appropriate.

The principles are:

• A "circular" party list. Seats would now be allocated automatically by the SoS, one each to every candidate on the list, in order, and when the list comes to an end, it begins again from the beginning. Example: a party which has 5 members on the list but wins 8 seats would end up giving 2 seats to the first 3 people on the list, and 1 to everyone else. The effective change here is that it would no longer be up to party leaders to give a big chunk of seats to some MCs and maybe only 1 to others; all MCs, plus or minus 1 seat, would be equal.
• The current "1/3 allocations off list" would be changed to "a party may add 1/3 extra members, rounded up, to its list after the election". If your original list had 5 people on it you could add another 2 later. If you only had 1 person on your list, you could only add 1 later.
• Existing provisions barring MCs from individually holding more than x% of the Cosa would still exist, meaning there would be a limit to how many seats could be held by a 1-person party.
• Seats would be allocated by a rounding system known as Largest Remainder Method with a Hare quota, which is essentially the status quo.
• The basic idea is for a 15 seat Cosa, which would mean that - based on the votes from the last election - a party would need 6 votes to guarantee a Cosă seat, though depending on other results, they could possibly win one with 3 votes. If this threshold is considered too stringent, the model would work well with more MCs. If one or more parties were "tied" for the last seat, they would all get a seat and thus the Cosa would be slightly expanded.

Draft legislation:

Amendments to OrgLaw IV

QuoteSection 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. This number shall be twice the number of Senators, minus one, or a greater number than this designated by law, except that no change in the size of the Cosă shall take effect until the next General Election. The Coså may administer itself as it sees fit.

Section 4 Vacant seats occurring between elections shall be filled in accordance with law.

Amendment to El Lexhatx B.2.3

Quote2.3 The ballot must also include, for each party contesting the election, a ranked list of citizens to whom the party intends to award Cosa seats. If a party does not submit a candidate list to the Secretary of State before the election, the party leader shall be considered the only person on that party's list.

2.3.1. Pursuant to Organic Law IV.2, the Secretary of State shall apportion seats to parties on the basis of their vote totals by use of the Largest Remainder Method, using a Hare quota (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_remainder_method).

2.3.1.1. If one or more parties are "tied" for the last seat or several seats, then the Secretary of State shall be entitled to assign one seat to all of the said parties and therefore to temporarily expand the size of the Cosa to more than the number otherwise set by law.

        2.3.2. Up until 10 days after the opening of the First Clark, a party leader may amend their list by adding names to it, in ranked order after the original names. The maximum number of names that may be added is 50% of the number of names originally on the list, rounded up.

2.3.3. After all lists are finalised and before the conclusion of the First Clark, the Secretary of State shall announce the distribution of each parties' seats as follows:

2.3.3.1. One seat will be given to each candidate on the list, in ranked order.

2.3.3.2. If all members on the list have received a seat and there are still additional seats, the process in 2.3.2.1 shall be repeated until no more seats are available.

2.3.3.3. If any person assigned a seat as above either
- already has the maximum number of Cosă seats allowable;
- declines their seat(s);
these seats will be reallocated according to the criteria above. 

2.3.3.4 If a party cannot assign all of their seats under the criteria above, the additional seats are forfeited.

2.3.4. Any vacant seats occurring between elections shall be reassigned according to the procedure in 2.3.3 above.

WHEREAS Organic Law VII.5 sets a small list of which Talossans are entitled to "submit legislative proposals... for the consideration of the Ziu", i.e. to "clark Bills";

AND WHEREAS Organic Law VII.4 states that the Secretary of State is to maintain the Hopper as "a public venue for the inspection of legislative proposals before they become bills";

AND WHEREAS the word "public" in OrgLaw VII.4 is ambiguous as to exactly who is entitled to participate in the Hopper, outwith the specific power to turn legislative proposals into bills;

AND WHEREAS the sections of El Lexhatx governing the Hopper (H.6, 7, 13 and 21) do not resolve this ambiguity;

AND WHEREAS it is my general belief that maximising public participation in the legislative process is a good thing, and I see absolutely no reason why all Talossan citizens should not be entitled to participate fully in the Hopper, including submitting draft legislation, only excluding the power to actually "Clark bills";

AND WHEREAS the Regent has humbly offered his opinion over and over again that excluding Talossans from the legislative process depresses activity, and this measure will allow all citizens to help shape the law, while ensuring that the legislative power remains with elected officials and not beneficiaries of patronage of party bosses;

AND WHEREAS, while doing research for this bill, I found quite a few messes, missing sections, and notes by the Scribe of Abbavilla which should be cleaned up, no matter the substantive question of this bill;

AND WHEREAS the amendment to H.6.4 below removes the possibility of someone dredging up a "stale bill" which has remained un-proposed for months or even years and putting it on the Clark long after everyone's forgotten the issues involved;

AND WHEREAS H.13. is a noble sentiment, but the phrase "if at all possible" makes it inoperative and a waste of space:

BE IT ENACTED by the Ziu of the Kingdom of Talossa as follows:

1. El Lexhatx H.4. shall read in its entirety:

QuoteOn each Clark, the Vote of Confidence shall read as follows: "Do you wish the current Government to continue in its term of office?"

2. El Lexhatx H.6.4 shall be amended to read as follows:

QuoteIf a legislative proposal has remained in the "The Hopper" for more than 59 days, the Secretary of State may remove it it shall be considered to have been removed, though any person entitled to do so may subsequently re-publish it.

3. A new section, H.6.8, is added to El Lexhatx as follows:

QuoteAll 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" within the meaning of H.6 until sponsored by one or more individuals authorised to submit legislative proposals under Organic Law VII.5, under the process contained in H.8.

4. El Lexhatx H.13, currently reading:

QuoteIf at all possible, bills presented for review in the Hopper should be translated into Talossan before being Clarked.

is DELETED IN ITS ENTIRETY and replaced with the following text:

QuoteAll bills submitted for the Clark shall be in one of the national languages.

5. The numbering of El Lexhatx H.24 is hereby confirmed, and the Scribe's note there attached is DELETED.

As to the substantive content of this proposal, I will reserve judgement until the Attorney General, Senator dal Vàl, and his Deputy, s:reu Davinescù MC, have weighed in. I would only ask the esteemed Justice to give a brief summary of what (if any) are the substantive changes brought in by this bill, as opposed to just a re-editing of what was already in there.

I would like to thank Justice Marcianüs very much for this contribution. I just want to comment on a housekeeping issue here.

While there is a small list of people who are allowed to propose legislation/put it on the Clark (OrgLaw VII.5), and Justices of the CpI are not on that list, there seems to be no limits on who can put draft proposals in the Hopper. However, my reading of OrgLaw VII.4 and El Lexhatx H.6 lead me to believe that a draft bill posted in the Hopper does not become a "legislative proposal" (qualified for being Clarked) until given approval by one of the people named in OrgLaw VII.5.

Thus:
1) I am happy to, hereby, pro forma submit the above bill as a legislative proposal under my name, to resolve all legal ambiguity.
2) The Law (organic and/or statutory) has to be revised to clarify the ambiguity I've raised above. I personally believe we should change Talossan law to make it clear that all citizens are entitled to fully participate in the Hopper and to offer draft bills - though I want to maintain the status quo of OrgLaw VII.4 as to who can actually "Clark" bills. This would be a boon for "participatory democracy".

What do others think? Will offer substantive suggestions as to this bill later.

Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on December 31, 2020, 04:27:31 PM
The Seneschal and Deputy Avocat-Xheneral declined to discuss the matter, insisting that I was "refusing" to appoint all three nominees and sharing excerpts of the conversation on the Facebook group for the Free Democrats.

OH NOES HEAVEN FORFEND

The Regent never explained why this (bolded) - me consulting with Dr Nordselva re: what he wanted to do, and keeping my political allies up to date- was worthy of comment in any way. The seemingly resentful tone of "how dare you ever tell anything what goes on in our conversations" - for me, no formal discussion between Government and Regent has a presumption of confidentiality unless explicitly established - combined with his long-term and on-going problem with the fact that other people have discussion forums where he isn't invited, is a bit creepy.

Um, yeah, sure.

As authorised by El Lexhtatx L.5, I recommend to the King of Talossa acting through his appointed Regent that Sir C. M. Siervicül be named the Squirrel King of Arms.

When he became SoS, because the two roles are incompatible

Absolutely yes

Really good to see so much enthusiasm for this important role!

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on December 23, 2020, 09:55:03 AM
I honestly think he is referring to Talossan far-left opinions, ie Republicanism, given that extra-Talossan politics aren't discussed very much here, and this opinion fits with the overall negative feelings these respondents voiced toward the Talossan left.

Do you remember when I. Canún was revealed as doing time for child rape, and the King himself went off on a rant about how sexual abuse convictions were not to be trusted because (to paraphrase) bitches and libruls be lyin' to throw sturdy, noble men in jail? The same guy who switched churches because the Catholics were too liberal these days?

With the prominent exception of the current Regent, the old RUMP membership was and is overwhelmingly American-style conservative (i.e., by global standards, frothing reactionaries). It is possible that you just didn't notice this, or, for example, what the Senator for Maricopa has to say on the legal status of homosexuality under Indian law, etc. There are a LOT of US-style culture warriors in Talossa. You might not remember that it wasn't just King Robert I who used transphobic abuse as a prime weapon of attack against the Republic, but many of the RUMP leadership as well. I remember, for obvious reasons.

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on December 22, 2020, 09:28:27 AM
1) Foreign political spectra have little correspondence to the Talossan political spectrum;

You are very wrong about this both in contemporary and historical terms. When an anonymous citizen in the National Survey bemoaned "intolerance of opinions that are not far left", what do you think that was referring to?

Quote
2) Even if your only purpose was to rain on the Government's parade, you could not do so very effectively given that you would only have a fairly weak veto and that you would be subject to removal. Also, with the exception of getting rid of the nobility, it would be pretty clear to everyone that your sole objective was to be a stick in the mud rather than voice any kind of principled objection.

No different than Absentee John, in other words, and we couldn't get rid of him, and we still might not be able to do so. I specified in my hypothetical that I would be facing a conservative majority, not a supermajority.

Hello, yes. If the Mençéi has no objections, I would like to Clark the bill elevating Istefan Perþonest to the Cort pü Inalt.

Kudos to the Regent for admitting when he got it wrong. May we all have that level of integrity. I'm not satisfied myself with how much new citizens are stepping up and getting involved; but that's the next issue on the pipeline.

Anyway, back on topic. A line which the Regent and others bring up is always that raising the constitutional question "ruins Talossa" for conservatives and drives down activity. That has never been the case. I can't remember whether it was KR1 or another old Growther who said it, but "Talossa is never more active than when we're debating what Talossa is" is stil true, for me. (In the old days it was more Derivative vs. Peculiar than Monarchy v. Republic, but I think it's an existential question either way.)

What really strikes me is that last week, the Ministry of STUFF brought about the talossa.net social media network, the biggest and most exciting endeavour IMHO in Talossan history since Wittenberg itself - and it's criminally underused. And yet this thread, on the age old constitutional question, gets a whole bunch of input. I leave you to draw your own conclusions.

Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on December 21, 2020, 03:55:05 PM
We've had one new immigrant in the last six months or so, if I'm reckoning right.  If our immigration process has slowed to that pace, then the track we're on can't possibly be good.

You're not reckoning right. We've had 16 applications for citizenship in the last month alone.

See, this is the thing. You say things like "why can't we be greater friends"? Because your main occupation is to pop up in Talossa and tell me that everything I and my allies do is ruining Talossa and we should be ashamed and resign and become inactive, that's why.

I guess I have showed that the only reason people support monarchy is they think monarchy will keep Talossa just the way they like it - i.e. for purely selfish, partisan reasons. If the monarch was not of their political persuasion, they would become republicans overnight.