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.

If you're worried about having the seat limit or whatever reverted immediately, don't be. I'm more so concerned that every small modification to the voting system itself would only take effect on the election after the next one, which would make "bug-fixing" it more problematic.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on June 03, 2026, 01:41:03 AMBut, @Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP , do you think this would authorise SPAV to be brought in by statute as well?

It would not. The phrasings used throughout make it clear that the system has to feature voting for and assigning seats to party lists in some capacity, which SPAV (as well as STV and other candidate-based systems) lacks. I'm generally pretty skeptical of enshrining the minutia of the voting system into the Organic Law directly, rather than deferring these details to statute.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on June 01, 2026, 08:51:27 PM

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on June 01, 2026, 08:34:43 PMNot directly related to what's going on here right now, but since it seems like we'll be going ahead with cyclical party lists, I've added cyclical tie-breaks to my SPAV tabulator. I have yet to hear anything about it... feel free to tell me if I should stop referencing it here.

I checked it out but wasn't sure how to use it, Marcel.

Upload a ballot file -- you can download an example file based on the December 2025 election (I just noticed it was broken, I fixed it now), enter the turnout (last election's turnout was 105), select a tie-break method, and you should be getting the results.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 01, 2026, 08:40:22 PMWhat kind of feedback were you looking for?  Should a bunch of us try it out?

It's meant to illustrate how SPAV tabulation works in practice, in case my explanation of it in this thread was too abstract or anything. The example file provided is based on the most recent election, and the output is what this Cosă would've looked like under 20-seat SPAV, provided that all voters chose to vote along partisan lines.

The table shows total (weighted) vote counts per candidate (row) and round (column), and a winning candidate is highlighted in yellow.

EDIT: Then again, since it isn't really the focus of this thread right now, I might as well stop linking to it for now.

Not directly related to what's going on here right now, but since it seems like we'll be going ahead with cyclical party lists, I've added cyclical tie-breaks to my SPAV tabulator. I have yet to hear anything about it... feel free to tell me if I should stop referencing it here.