Azul everybody,

As Minister of Culture, I would like to request this prestigious organization's assistance in an important project.

With the assistance of [mention]Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP [/mention],  [mention]Mximo Malt [/mention] would like to undertake the ambitious task of updating and revising the Talossan version of our nation's Organic Law, and, if all goes well, the even more ambitious task of gradually translating our civil code, El Lexhatx, into Talossan.

Due to the scope and nature of this undertaking, I thought it would be more fitting for it to be a collaborative project between the nation's premiere Talossan language experts with the sponsorship and backing of the Ministry of Culture.

Ideally, S:reu Malt would provide his revisions and translations piecemeal while the rest provide feedback and corrections until the work is done.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on May 06, 2026, 12:10:23 AMThis is just my two bence, but I would argue that the provincial seats in an MMP setup could satisfy this preference, no? Yes, it does still factor into a partisan distribution of seats, but hear me out:

* Talossa as a country does have a fair amount of its activity revolve around politics, regardless of what one may think of this.
* Quite a few Talossans prefer a political system that actually features, well, politics. Discussion, debate, and organization based on ideological and ethical stances, as opposed to politics-as-a-popularity contest. (Some Talossans, to be fair, clearly do not share this preference.)
* An electoral system that seeks to balance the evaluation of individual candidates and evaluation of ideological groupings would, to my eyes, function as a compromise between these two approaches to Talossan politics.
* If we have an MMP system and the party list seats are also chosen via an open-list system, that would be a massive shift towards an individualized approach to politics, but it doesn't completely abandon modern, ideology-based partisan politics, either.

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing against party politics at all, I'm just not a fan of lists in principle because, in my view, it robs the voters choice. As I stated previously, it forces voters to elect their representatives as a block and prevents them from scrutinizing individual candidates. Let's say I ideologically align with Party A, but there's one or two individuals on their party list I disagree with for whatever reason, why should I be forced to elect them into office? What if I want to split my vote because there's someone in Party B who I actually know will be a good MC despite some political disagreements we might have?

Again, with a 20-seat Cosa, I would argue it's even more important that voters get to scrutinize individual candidates and ascertain whether they'd be good, responsible and serious public servants. Having to rely on a party list prevents that from happening because the party itself can pave over whatever flaws their candidates may have. If someone running for office can't stand on their own two feet and articulate why they should be in the Cosa, or if they lack the commitment or time to truly be present and active enough, I'd argue they have no business running for office.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on May 02, 2026, 07:32:11 PMI personally champion a form of Sequential Proportional Approval Voting as a voting system that is partyless, fair, and easy to explain and implement (feel free to ask me if you want to hear details), but any reform that furthers the principles of transparency and returning power to the people will do. Conversely, any reform idea that seeks to systematically deceive voters and trick them into helping people into power against the popular will is dead on arrival.

I'd like to hear more about this and how we would implement it in Talossa.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on May 01, 2026, 09:21:30 PMIt's even less democratic when the party leader just picks the MCs, unrestricted by any list.

Isn't this, in practice, the current system we have now?

What I have in mind is simple: Anybody is free to associate with whatever party they want, but running in an election would be the individual candidate's choice, no lists needed, and the onus is on them to take lead in running their own campaign.

Since we're moving to a 20-seat Cosa, I would argue that individual candidates' ideas and principles should be scrutinized more during an election and voters should have a direct say in who's representing them instead of being forced to pick lists of people.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on May 04, 2026, 10:58:48 PMMr. Speaker,

This enquiry is for the Culture/Finance Minister.

On April 14, Minister @Françal I. Lux informed the nation of his return to service. Minister, if you could please advise the Ziu on your plans for the Culture and Finance portfolios now that you are back.

Thank you for the question.

Mr. Speaker, my main priority for the next month is resuming my previous plans for the Culture Ministry. With the help of S:reu Malt and under the supervision of our Ladîntsch Naziunál, the Ministry of Culture will be sponsoring a translation project, first to update the Talossan version of the Organic Law, and, if all goes well, the gradual translation of the nation's statutes.

I'm not suggesting we abandon party politics and I'm not explicitly commited to STV, but I'd like for everyone to consider shifting elections to focus more on individual candidates running for office instead of accepting them in bulk on a party list.

We should give the electorate the option to choose which candidate(s) they want to represent them while also forcing the candidates themselves to actually campaign for votes instead of relying on the party to carry them.

How is it democratic when we allow parties to curate who the candidates will be beforehand then present a list of people to the electorate as if to say these are your options, now pick. If John Smith likes MC A from Party 1 but also MC B from Party 2, why shouldn't he have the option to split his vote? What if John Smith doesn't like MC C from Party 1 because, say, they're not a very active public servant? In a party list, he has no choice but to vote for that candidate because he has no other option since Party 1 best represents his vote.

If we allow individuals to run on their own merits, then candidates would be compelled to defend their own ideas, campaign for their own success, and it'd likely discourage anyone who isn't really serious or committed to public service from running.

This might be a nonstarter but does the system have to be party-focused? Have we considered transitioning to a candidate-centric voting system for the Cosa?

I would argue it would eliminate many of the issues we're having as far as accountability and party transparency. If we use a system like Single Transferable Vote for example, we can elect individual candidates based on their merits instead of voting for a party who then decides which candidates to give seats to. I imagine this would reduce the propensity of MCs to vote solely based on party interests as they would be directly accountable to the electorate and it would allow citizens to split their votes if they choose instead of being forced to side with one party and tacitly endorse everyone on the list regardless of preference.

Congrats everyone! I remember how excited I was when I received my CoA. Wear it proudly!

I would like to inform the public that I am back and, when recess concludes, would like to resume my work in the Cabinet.

It has been an eventful few weeks for me personally, but I'm glad to be back!

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on March 30, 2026, 04:31:24 PMXhorxh, we've talked about this: your staffers can't wear something this shockingly stylish, since it would make everyone else upset.  How is poor @Françal I. Lux going to feel when he puts on his regulation onesie?

I love the outfit! Putting all of us to shame ;)

I will be back stateside on April 10th after spending an extended period of time visiting with family. I hope everyone's doing well!

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on March 23, 2026, 01:54:44 PM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on March 18, 2026, 10:49:18 AM@Sir Lüc Pluribus is good but some folks have complained about it being slow. I confess that I found myself liking the Joined.

I am currently planning to watch the new seasons of Paradise, For All Mankind, and need to restart watching Star Trek: Starfleet Academy.

Saddened to report that Star Trek: Starfleet Academy has been canceled after its next season.

I feel bad about this. There's so much hate for the show I personally don't get it.

Congrats on the your citizenship!

Quote from: No·ac'h L. Clå on March 22, 2026, 01:32:53 PMI'll have a gander at it. Thanks a bunch and much love my friend!

You're welcome! Feel free to post your thoughts too. I love good, in-depth conversations about philosophy and history :)

Been watching a lot of cartoons on Boomerang for nostalgia lol

I highly recommend Ryan Reeves's content if you want a scholarly perspective on the church's development and early history. In my experience, many Christians do not know nor care to understand where and how the religion developed, which is why a lot of people have all sorts of misunderstandings of its traditions, particularly Catholicism.

https://youtube.com/@ryanreevesm?si=yjwQdRGO6jx2Hsqg

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on February 26, 2026, 08:19:00 AM@Françal I. Lux Best wishes for a positive resolution for your family.

Thank you.

I hope to be back sooner than later.

Congratulations your majesty!

I am interested in joining this esteemed institution.

Mick! Mick! Mick!

Hong Kong, Barbados, Montenegro and Mexico