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.

Sad to see the issue of candidate-based voting not further acknowledged. Personally, I'm not willing to give up on this project just yet, as I still think it's worth considering.

As for the bill draft, three things caught my attention:

1) Your new LegOrg.IV.3 would increase the seat limit not by a third, but by four, meaning that two people would suffice to control an absolute majority. The formula should say "forty times the total number of seats in the Cosă divided by three times the number of ballots cast for the Cosă in the most recent General Election, rounded up to the next integer". EDIT: Looks like this has already been taken care of.
2) Does this revision of Lexh.H.4.1 mean the time at which the 20-seat Cosă would enter into effect is reset, or would that still be in accordance to the Pseudo-Real Cosă Act (i.e., next February)?
3) An amendment to revise New Citizen seats has already been passed by this Ziu and will be on the ballot next election. How... problematic is it for two separate referenda to modify the same section of the LegOrg in contradictory ways?

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on May 31, 2026, 09:15:49 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 31, 2026, 02:10:46 PMMaybe we still need seat limits, just higher ones?  Tweak the formula instead.

The current formula for the seat limit is (10 * Cosă size) / turnout, rounded up. If we are to abolish the one-third off-lister allowance, I suppose the equivalent exchange would be to increase the seat limit by one third, i.e. (40 * Cosă size) / (3 * turnout). How much of an increase do you have in mind?

Sorry for not waiting for a response, but I did some math. Under this modified formula, in a 20-seat Cosă the seat limit would be 3 at a turnout between 89 and 133, meaning you would need at least 4 MCs to hold an absolute majority. How does that sound?

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 31, 2026, 02:10:46 PMMaybe we still need seat limits, just higher ones?  Tweak the formula instead.

The current formula for the seat limit is (10 * Cosă size) / turnout, rounded up. If we are to abolish the one-third off-lister allowance, I suppose the equivalent exchange would be to increase the seat limit by one third, i.e. (40 * Cosă size) / (3 * turnout). How much of an increase do you have in mind?

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 31, 2026, 11:08:17 AMI do think that you're going to probably have to leave party leaders in control of submitting a list, subject to their internal processes, since I don't know how else you'd do it.

Aside from legislation mandating that parties follow democratic procedures and allowing legal redress if not, switching to a candidate-based voting system instead of one that strictly hinges on parties would also solve this problem. The power to set up and submit lists is much less serious if voters are free to defy those lists as they please.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 31, 2026, 11:08:17 AMBut I don't think you'd have the possibility of one person controlling things, since there could be a minimum length for party lists.  But maybe still a seat limit, but just raised significantly higher for the formula?

Imagine the minimum length was two. Now imagine a party with two candidates winning a landslide victory, and each candidate would get half the seats of that party. What would happen if one of the two candidates would immediately resign from the Cosă, or refuse to accept the seats to begin with? From what I can tell, without seat limits, all of the party seats would now go to the other candidate, who now controls the Cosă majority by themself.

What I'm saying is that I'd like some assurance that no single candidate could ever end up with a Cosă majority on their own.

QuoteDo you not like the new citizen seats?  They've been very popular.

I'm saying that new citizen seats cannot be a means to replace and replenish Cosă members. In the current implementation, NCs only have one seat each out of 200, meaning they are always politically irrelevant and cannot replace elected Cosă members who usually have 5 to 15 times as many seats assigned on average. At the same time though, if we were to increase the number of seats held by NCs, they would introduce overly large partisan swings and create majorities contrary to the election results, which is a complete no-go.

QuoteSo with this SPAV, would each candidate get a fifty word statement?  Like how are people supposed to know who to vote for?

If they want to run as independents, they could get thir own 50 world statement. Otherwise, candidates could band together and have a joint 50 word statement, or run under a certain party name or ideological affiliation to help with voter orientation. The point though is that the way ballots are tallied is unaffected by how candidates wish to portray themselves, the math is the same.

As an example: if all candidates run under certain party labels, and all voters choose candidates based only on those party labels, the result would be the same as if there had been strict party lists. SPAV is a more generalised version of party lists, and allows people to freely vote across the aisle if they so choose, without any spoiler effects or loss of proportionality.

It's simple, but still leaves party leaders in total control of who gets to be on the list, doesn't address any of Françal's concerns as to why you'd want a candidate-based voting system to begin with (link), and still leaves open the possibility of one person controlling the Cosă singlehandedly thanks to the abolition of seat limits. I'm also not a fan of returning to the 200-seat Cosă, nor do I think that new citizen seats would would "fix" the problem of in-term replacements in any way regardless of Cosă size.

EDIT: Instituting a minimum length for party lists would also bar independent candidates. Do we want that?

EDIT 2: By the way, what's your verdict on SPAV? I can't think of simpler voter instructions than simply "choose everyone you like".

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 31, 2026, 10:25:17 AMThey're made aware of the voting system and how it works and think of it from time to time thanks to the consciousness raised in them by their daily lives, I would imagine.  Everyone in Germany is voting that way, after all.  The news has explainers about it, and their friends are all voting with that same method, and so on.

Interestingly enough, this is not actually the case. Details on the system (including the number of votes and how and when splitting is allowed) depends on the state and county, and federal elections use a different system altogether. What they do have though are very detailed explanations of how to cast a valid ballot on the ballot itself, including the number of total votes, how vote splitting and cumulation works, how to remove candidates from lists, etc.

Perhaps a more in-depth explanation on how to cast ranked ballots would help with RCV, and likewise with other proposed systems.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 31, 2026, 09:46:01 AMMost people make their choices on the ballot based on the statements of the parties, the people listed on the ballot, and any mailers they receive.  You can sneer at that as "choosing a logo," but that's not what I said and it's not the reality.

But the choice they make is effectively only for a logo, since party statements and mailers are fluff, party lists are not-binding, and the current system only allows you to pick one party with no further input allowed. That is the reality, is it not?

QuoteGermans are living in Germany, and there are newspapers, magazine, television, advertisements, and physical mail that call their attention to their politics.  Their daily lives do, as well.  If the roads are rough and poorly maintained, people begin to notice and complain, and if they receive poor constituent services, then their vote might change.  If inflation goes up, they often are inclined to punish the incumbent administration for the rise in the cost of living.  Daily life makes it more likely their political awareness is heightened.

It's an accurate description of how people become politically involved, but none of this has anything to do with how people (both the politically involved and the uninvolved) manage to navigate the "complicated" voting system without any issues. That part remains unexplained.

QuoteI do not think you should mock people who are relatively uninvolved and just like to belong and vote.

It's not mocking. The amount of copy-pasted invalid votes cast last election is genuinely concerning. A sudden spike in invalid votes should concern you, as well.