Quote from: Françal I. Lux on May 05, 2026, 10:59:38 AM

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.

The way it works is that voters would be given a ballot with all the candidates on it, and then would be asked to vote for every candidate they approve of. There is no minimal or maximal number of approvals, and no ranking between approved candidates, every approval is worth the same. You can think of it as "building your own party list" if you like.

Ballots would then be counted in rounds, one round for each open seat. In the first round, the candidate with the most total approvals wins. Before every subsequent round, ballots are weighted: ballots who approve of one winner are worth 1/2, those that approve of two winners are worth 1/3, those that approve of three are worth 1/4 etc, and after the weighting is done you count the totals and whoever has the highest total wins that round. Repeat until all seats are filled.

This sort of voting system is proportional thanks to the ballot weighting mechanism, partyless because party affiliation doesnt matter for a candidate's victory, and much easier to implement than STV (speaking from first-hand experience); switching the database over to this kind of voting system would as far as I can tell not be super difficult, and the counting and weighting steps are very easily automatisable.

I also think the explanation is simpler than for STV (especially with regards to like, how to handle fractional overflow or what have you) but I'm biased so I'll let you be the judge of that.

The goal of any Ziu reform should be to increase transparency in government and to give back power to the people, instead of centralising it in party bigwigs. Party lists are a simple way of ensuring transparency (even if the current laws concerning off-listers are way too lax), but still rest all power in the bigwigs as Françal rightfully pointed out.

I 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.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 29, 2026, 07:26:43 PMWe use RCV for the Senats, but I don't know how you have parliamentary democracy without party politics.  Also that might be a bridge too far for right now.  I don't know, though?

Parties will always exist, but I guess it's a matter of how institutionalised they are.

With the current closed party list voting system, parties are strongly institutionalised, and ultimate power ultimately rests with party leadership.

With a more open and direct voting system, hopefully power would be transfered to the voters and the MZs they elect, regardless of party affiliation (if any). I've spent several years researching proportional voting systems that do not require strongly institutionalised parties to function, and I feel like they might bring a positive change to the current culture.

Quote from: Mximo Malt on April 28, 2026, 06:03:09 PMWhen did we start doing this?

When did we start doing what, exactly?

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on April 27, 2026, 05:55:36 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 27, 2026, 04:44:12 PMlet's say that Party A won 50%, Party B won 25%, and Party C won 25%.  In a 20-seat Cosa, that's 10 seats for A, 5 seats for B, and 5 seats for C.  But if B won six of the provincial seats, then they'd have 30% (more than their share of the national vote) and so A and B would need extra until things were proportional.

You could do it that way, but that's the harder way. The simpler option would be to just live with the overhang. Let's say A and C both won 1 province. Then, Party A gets 9 party list seats (to sum up to 10) and Party C gets 4 seats (to sum up to 5). So that's a total Cosa of 21 seats. Party B gets a small bonus.

Yeah, that's the original MMP system that is still in use in New Zealand. What AD mentioned are called compensatory seats and Germany moved to a system with compensatory seats because the Constitutional Court ruled that the old system was unconstitutionally disproportional (mainly Bavaria's fault), which in turn lead to ever bigger parliament sizes... the system we use now caps parliament size at 630, and abolishes overhang seats entirely: now, if a party wins more constituencies than their party vote would justify, the candidates that won by the narrowest margin simply don't get in, meaning some constitutuencies (IIRC again mainly Bavarian ones) not having a local representative.

My country pioneered MMP in 1949, ask me anything as well.

As much as I think the system has served Germany well, it is a bit difficult to understand at times, especially with regards to overhang seats and independents.

For instance, in the German way, independents who win a local seat do not constitute an overhang, and instead reduces the total number of seats taken in account for top-up purposes by one, i.e. if an independent wins their district in a 20-seat Cosă, the total number of seats stays at 20. However, because independents don't affect the party-based distribution of the remaining seats, people who voted for a winning independent have their party vote ignored, lest they have double the influence on the result as other voters. This step is necessary because otherwise, local candidates could all choose to run as independents while the party vote stays unaffected, transforming Mixed-Member Proportional into Mixed-Member Majoritarian à la Japan.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 15, 2026, 05:44:00 PM

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on April 15, 2026, 05:42:25 PMI have no idea what you're even arguing here.

The "terms" are that you man up and take responsibility for your actions, in such a way that Lüc, the victim of your harassment, accepts it. That's it.

Yes, man up and make a third apology rather than refer you back to those already made.
And ignore the name-calling of those who claim to be building a culture of respect and decency.

You can make as many half-hearted and non-serious 'apologies' as you want, if your victim doesn't accept them then they're not worth anything.
Of course, if you want to make excuses, feel free.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 15, 2026, 05:40:28 PMMiestra I think the architects of the ostracizing and their terms is actually quite relevant. No one could argue that the Secretary of State's willingness to accept the apologies is of vital importance but it does not erase the fact that apologies have been made, actions have changed, and the behavior of the people who are attempting to ostracize is driving people out of the Kingdom.

I have no idea what you're even arguing here.

The "terms" are that you man up and take responsibility for your actions, in such a way that Lüc, the victim of your harassment, accepts it. That's it.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 15, 2026, 12:42:42 PMRepeatedly calling someone a sex pest and a predator is a campaign of hatred. Bringing a family member into a political attack is unacceptable. I have heard from one person that even more outrageous claims have been made against me in private. It is no surprise that people are getting tired of this, Marcel.

I, too, am tired of your dishonest framing and incessant self-victimisation, as are most people involved, I imagine. Ideally, you would've taken responsibility for your hurtful actions a year ago, instead of lashing out for a bit and turning your lack of responsibility into your personal campaign bus, and we collectively could've moved on from this.

Quote from: Tric'hard Lenxheir on April 15, 2026, 12:09:55 AMUntil the recent hatred for one citizen I had really enjoyed my time as a Talossan but if someone can be ostracized because, in the opinion of some, he didn't apologize enough, then I want nothing to do with this country.

The person in question is being ostracised because of prolonged sexual harassment, and because he has never accepted responsibility for his own actions and the harm he caused, but merely apologised for his victim ostensibly misinterpreting things, as if it's the victim's fault for feeling harassed. He has since decided to frame the backlash against him as some sort of vendetta campaign against him either personally or politically, and hopes that if he just waits for long enough and broadcasts his own one-sided story loud enough, the average person gets fed up and demands that the harasser be allowed to get away with it.

It saddens me to see that his tactics are working.

Quote from: Barclamïu da Miéletz on March 15, 2026, 04:41:20 PM

Quote from: Barclamïu da Miéletz on March 15, 2026, 04:40:29 PMI wonder if there is a Talossan word for gendamerie

Maybe @Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP could help out.

There isn't one. You probably could build one based on the French blueprint (gens d'armes "people of arms" --> gendarme --> gendarmerie), which would give you something like xhints d'armeux --> *xhindarmeu --> *xhindarmerïă.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on March 14, 2026, 09:16:48 AMI'll be making that motion, then.  I'd like to discuss some data points, a month of recess, and a problem in the law right now when it comes to the Hopper.

As a heads-up, usually agenda items have fairly descriptive titles so other members have an idea of what they're about. "Some data points" doesn't tell us anything about what anything. But you can be more specific during your motion later today.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on March 13, 2026, 12:47:29 PMI have a brief presentation with accompanying slideshow I'd like to make to the Ziu, as well, if that's okay.

If that's part of a bill debate, then sure. If not, you'll have to move to add the topic of your presentation to the agenda during the session.

Quote from: King Txec on March 06, 2026, 12:58:48 PMIf one is held, I'll be there of course.

-Txec R

We will try at least. If the Ziu will actually be in session that day will depend on attendance (e.g. last time not one member of the Government was present, rendering the whole pursuit pointless).

Anyone?

It's not in my position to interpret the law, but in my unqualified layman's opinion that seems to be the case.

Personally I believe it would be more reasonable to define the Opposition as whoever has not voted ÜC or does not intend to vote ÜC on the VoC instead (i.e. everyone who isn't explicitly part of the Government; this would match my intuitive understanding of what "opposition" means in parliamentary contexts). Perhaps something that this Cosă should look into.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on March 01, 2026, 12:55:36 PMAny interest in the morning of the 14th instead?

That would also work for me, but what's more important really is if it works for everyone else.

The February Session didn't really go anywhere, in part because I took too long to determine a date and time. I would like there to be a session this month, presumably again on the 21st at 11 AM TST. Please let me know ahead of time if I should reschedule.

I approve.

I approve.