Miestra was arguing we should elect representatives who use their own judgement and are accountable for their votes, not vote for party machines on whose patronage they depend. Burke's argument was that MPs should be elected as representatives, not delegates simply repeating the will of electors. There is very much a parallel, if loose, and I'm very sympathetic to the idea.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on December 23, 2025, 12:31:32 PMThe best argument for the smaller Cosă, IMHO, is that right now not all MCs are equal to each other. A 200 seat Cosa means that right now one MC's vote can outweigh another's by 20-1. And that ain't right.

It double ain't right that these assignments are decided, after the election, by party leaders at whim. The 200 seat Cosa means no effective control by voters over who represents them in the Cosă.

The only downside I can see that two parties might end up with the same seats although one had more votes. But this is a question between whether Cosă elections are about electing legislators; or about "competition between different party brands". I, like Marcel, strongly think the former should be the case, because it ensures personal accountability, and degrades the power of party "bosses".

(Of course it also means that a party with too few votes gets no seats, but I consider that a feature, not a bug.)

Miestra Schiva to the Electors of Bristol:

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on December 22, 2025, 09:45:17 PMIt's worth looking at the Senate as well, just for curiosity, using the numbers from the four Senate races in the most recent election:

Party	% Vote (1st Rd.)	Seats	% Seats	Diff.	Sq. Diff.
PA	40.43	3	75.00	-34.57	1195.08490
URL	36.17	1	25.00	11.17	124.76890
Green	4.26	0	0.00	4.26	18.14760
Ind.	19.15	0	0.00	19.15	366.72250
				TOTAL	1704.72390
				TOTAL/2	852.36195
				GI	29.19524

As we can see, the Senate is significantly more disproportionate than even a 20-seat Cosa. This calls into question the motives and reasoning of those who may support keeping the Senate as-is, while opposing decreasing the size of the Cosa as "less representative".

I don't actually have any views on the size of the Cosa, but this insinuation doesn't follow. One could desire one house to be popularly representative and another wholly unrepresentative, or representative of a different set of bodies; therefore, one would object to the reduction in proportionality in the popular house, even as one objected to an increase in proportionality in the other house. In fact, this was the mainstream Anglophone theory into the late 20th century, pretty much!

"TST/CST"

A. IDT
B. NA
C. No
D. Yes, I would like a seat.

I had missed this. Very sad. What a lovely guy.

Due process is not a bonus privilege under the OrgLaw and its antecedents, so probably the Bill's approach to the accused's right of response should grapple with that.

Much missed.

So we're agreed that such changes may be "frequent" but are not essential to Parliamentary democracy.

I'm not particularly convinced that either of the first two clauses are factually true (though perhaps they are morally true or desirable, by a given standard).

Is it necessary to clarify that the new term would start in January 2026? That would seem to be the implication of "Every Judge of the Cort pü Inalt shall be subject to a re-appointment in intervals of five years, measured from when their initial appointment." - that is, the reappointment is necessary in January 2021.

Logically such action should apply across all "equivalent" Talossan-owned accounts on social media etc - Facebook, Witt, etc. It would not reasonably apply to, say, a private political party Discord - this is not civil disability, it's a moderation decision by the Governmant about Government-administered property.

Great work summarising and pointing out the contours of the debate, Mic'haglh.

There are obviously a few concerns going into these proposals, a few angles.

(1) Provincial life is weak and we need more loci of Talossan life, so an obvious way is to do something with the provinces to make them more active. Thus: merge.

(2) A roadblock to this is the Senate's apportionment, but some people want to change Senatorial representation or abolish it.

I'm trying to work out what the necessary, the absolute, and the accidental connections are here. My main thought is that provincial mergers are unlikely to spark much extra provincial life, because the slightly higher concentration of active residents will very likely not touch the essential reasons for Talossan inactivity and over-focus on political snark. My second thought is just a slight sense that all the tree-shaking is primally connected, and my own reaction is to want to back away and leave things be rather than shake all the trees to see what falls out.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on April 13, 2025, 01:27:53 AMIf you just want *no* quality control on immigration, for all immigration applications to be automatically posted to this board, just say so.

I wouldn't want this, personally.

Obviously speaking with interest, but:

Is the 2/3 requirement a particular burden? supermajority for such things seems normal

If you want to avoid AI, make it handwritten. (This will not be adopted, I understand. I'm just telling you that between that and actual invigilated exams, those are the only reasonable methods we have against AI cheating academically - and even they are only "very good", not perfect.)

The RUMP never ceased to exist. I hear it now runs AVANTS from a shadowy room.

COSA: PROG
SENATS: Sant-Enogat
REFERENDUM:60RZ06 Per, 60RZ21 Contra
ETATS: Uc

Just reread an old interview I did with Miestra in about...2014? It has a lot of stuff about contemporary politics and a then-very-hot rivalry, but ends with...

"OE: Who's more of a babe: Daniel Vettori or Ross Taylor? and Which failed Soviet ideologue of the 1920s would you recruit to Talossa?

MS: Daniel Vettori was cute as anything when he was a 17 year old who resembled a taller Harry Potter. Do poets count as "failed ideologues'? If so, the answer is Mayakovsky."
"

Explosive claims.

Quote from: Munditenens Tresplet on February 10, 2025, 08:56:54 PMI agree with all the above. I'd also note that I personally see an Aus vote as recording your presence for the purpose of establishing a quorum, so yes, one Per would pass a bill in the presence of such quorum.

This is not an uncommon practice - UK charities, especially member charities, often use this kind of method - though they usually also count it AGAINST the vote on something requiring a formal vote and success threshold (such as election of certain officers). Not suggesting we should do that latter, just citing a parallel