Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 06:46:11 PMI think you could make that case for sure if that provision had been removed from the Organic Law, but we made sure to keep it in and it refers to laws in general. This was even discussed during the drafting process specifically, with regards to what effect it would have on the clock - it didn't reset the clock, but neither did it eliminate the clock.

No, this was in reference to something else. I was asking whether specifically renumbering Lexh.H.4.1.1 would reset the clock, and came to an understanding that it didn't. Enshrining the 20-seat Cosă into the OrgLaw was something I insisted on pretty much at the tail end of the drafting process, and personally I had assumed that all amendments enter into effect immediately after the appropriate referendum passes, and that the one-year delay refers exclusively to statutory changes -- if it didnt, the word "such" in "with the provisos that any such change" wouldn't make much sense to me, though this could be a language barrier thing.

EDIT: I don't mean to kick off a debate in this thread, I was moreso wondering about the precise wording of the referendum question, and whether that's all legally sound. As far as I understand it as a non-lawyer it wouldn't be, and I wanted to direct attention to it to clear up potential misunderstandings.

I have a question about the referendum on 62RZ26.

It mentions that the reduction of the Cosă's size to 20 seats would only take effect after February 2027, which is the timeline set forth from the Pseudo-Real Cosă Act. However, since 62RZ26 is an amendment, and the delayed effect of Cosă size changes only applies to changes made via statute (at least that's how Org.IV.2.1 reads to me), is it not rather the case that, were the referendum to pass, the size change would go into effect immediately?

I'd like to register as a candidate for the Maritiimi-Maxhestic senatorial race.

My 50 word statement is as follows:
My aim is to maintain fair, pragmatic and productive dialogue in the Ziu, and to give more power to voters at the ballot box. / Va tocă c'e mamtenençar el dialog xhust, pragmatic es red in el Ziu, es zonar el pevar da phü àls voteirs din l'urnă da votaziun.

It's a shame that this event just kinda, fizzled out without resolution, but I thought it was fun, and I'd be up for another one of these next time one is organised.

Approved.

Approved.

I approve.

I approve.

I approve.

Approved.

Quote from: Barclamïu da Miéletz on June 21, 2026, 12:51:36 PM

Quote from: Moinul Moin on June 21, 2026, 10:11:14 AM

Quote from: Barclamïu da Miéletz on June 21, 2026, 07:50:37 AM

Quote from: Moinul Moin on June 21, 2026, 04:57:32 AMGermany is another country high on my list

Avoid Berlin.

Interesting! Out of curiosity, why would you recommend avoiding Berlin? @Barclamïu da Miéletz

Horrible city, isn't even beautiful (is also overrated). There's also lots of criminal activity. Visit Munich, Augsburg and Lindau instead.

I've been to Berlin once, it was fine.

Hm... the proposed LegOrg.IV.3 should probably say "rounded to the nearest non-zero integer" rather than the "next" to make absolutely clear what rounding method is intended.

Once that change has been made, I will approve.

With regards to LegOrg.IV.3: Not "rounded up", merely "rounded". Rounded up or down depending on the number involved.

Before we do that, one thing:

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on June 04, 2026, 07:29:11 AM

QuoteOkay, the change sounds good to me.  I'll make it: "3. No person shall hold more seats in the Cosă than thirty times the total number of seats in the Cosă divided by two times the number of ballots cast for the Cosa in the most recent General Election, rounded up to the next integer."

Under this formula, the seat limit in a 20-seat Cosă is 4 if turnout dips below 100, which as far as I could tell is the normal case. This has to do with how the limit strictly rounds up. Perhaps the following would future-proof things somewhat:

Quote"3. No person shall hold more seats in the Cosă than thirty times the total number of seats in the Cosă divided by two times the number of ballots cast for the Cosa in the most recent General Election, rounded up to the next non-zero integer."

EDIT: An as a side note, if you insist on moving voting system minutiae into the OrgLaw to make them harder to edit in the future, I expect we could just as well move the 20-seat Cosă in there, instead of continuing the "200 by default unless otherwise specified by law" dealio. In fact, I insist.

I will be busy with uni work this month, so if there is a session of the Cosă, informal or otherwise, I won't be able to attend it.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 04, 2026, 06:24:39 AMOkay, the change sounds good to me.  I'll make it: "3. No person shall hold more seats in the Cosă than thirty times the total number of seats in the Cosă divided by two times the number of ballots cast for the Cosa in the most recent General Election, rounded up to the next integer."

Under this formula, the seat limit in a 20-seat Cosă is 4 if turnout dips below 100, which as far as I could tell is the normal case. This has to do with how the limit strictly rounds up. Perhaps the following would future-proof things somewhat:

Quote"3. No person shall hold more seats in the Cosă than thirty times the total number of seats in the Cosă divided by two times the number of ballots cast for the Cosa in the most recent General Election, rounded up to the next non-zero integer."

The Organic Law already imposes a special condition on statutory changes to the Cosă size and that seems to work well enough (i.e., resizing the Cosă via statute takes at least a year, resizing the Cosă via amendment takes one term like normal). What I was suggesting wouldn't be too different from that in my opinion.

I would prefer that, yeah.

Also, if majorities needed to make changes are what's worrying you, maybe you could still defer it to statute with an added proviso for a higher bar for change or something, assuming that's allowed.

Right, I meant 30 * Cosă size / (2 * turnout). Basically, scaling up the current cap by 3/2 instead of 4/3 as previously proposed.

As mentioned before, scaling it by 3/2 is better for a 200-seat Cosă, while 4/3 is better for a 20-seat Cosă, all else being equal.

Speaking of bug fixes...!

It has come to my attention that the formula that I suggested for an increased seat limit was incorrect. To fully compensate the abolition of off-seat appointments, the increase has to be 50% instead of 33%, so the formula should be 30 * Cosă size / (2 * turnout), and I recommend that you change it in the draft amendment accordingly.

EDIT: This corrected formula works best with the 200-seat Cosă, but with a 20-seat Cosă, the previous uncorrected formula would be better because of some rounding shenanigans. Alternatively, we could change the way the seat limit is rounded from always rounding up to rounding normally with a lower bound.

...now, imagine if we had only found this mistake in a few months, then it would've taken us a whole Cosă term and referendum to correct this error simply because it was enshrined in the Organic Law. I really think it should be part of the statute instead.