Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on Today at 08:51:27 PM

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Today at 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 Today at 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 Yesterday at 09:15:49 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 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 Yesterday at 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 Yesterday at 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 Yesterday at 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 Yesterday at 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 Yesterday at 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.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 09:18:41 AMNo one's saying that people aren't smart,

It may not seem like it to you, but whenever you dismiss a voting system that lets voters have more say than just selecting a logo as "complicated", it comes across as incredibly condescending, and as if you don't trust people to even have that much of a say to begin with.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 09:18:41 AMThis is because the majority of Talossans aren't party activists or legislators or even very present on Wittenberg, and there's no forcible penetration of Talossa into their daily life. [...]

I don't know what your perception of the average German or the average Australian for that matter is, but we're not all party activists or legislators or even politically active either, and it still works somehow. Why might that be? Elections are voluntary in Germany, so the fact that being Talossan and participating in Talossan elections is also voluntary is not a satisfying answer, either.

Perhaps the problems run deeper than just Talossa being a voluntary association, when we have voters whose only contribution to the country is showing up every 9 months to submit a copy-pasted partially invalid public vote in the voting thread. Perhaps it would benefit the country if we made more of an effort to educate voters on the powers they have. But, I don't know.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 08:57:21 AMThis is really complicated and seems prone to gamesmanship

I must say, it is really frustrating that any voting system more involved than "choose one and only one" is immediately dismissed as too complicated for the 71% college-educated Talossan public, when rural Germans have no issues with it whatsoever. Likewise, if the system was prone to gamesmanship, I suppose it would've already been gamed, and to my knowledge it hasn't.

I reject the insinuation that Talossans are simply not smart enough to be given a say on who actually represents them, and instead have to make due with choosing which label, colour and logo they like best.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 08:28:19 AMWow, this is a little bit confusing.

Let me first say that this proposal (not my favourite but one which still acknowledges parties) is based very heavily on the system of panachage used in German local elections. Which is to say, it works and has been shown to work for decades. It's not the simplest system in the world, but then again, simplicity is often the antithesis of fairness when it comes to voting (see FPTP).

QuoteAlso, I suspect we're going to have a problem with the practical implementation of this.  We should expect a majority of people to do what they've always done: cast party votes.

Sure, most would. That's why this is an explicit option.

QuoteThat means that we're giving wildly disproportionate power to people who cast individual votes.  They're steering all of those party votes' distribution.  (Also, what happens if a party gets no individual votes?)

I don't know what you mean by "wildly disproportionate" here. People who vote for a single list accept the list and the ordering of its candidates without change. People who vote for individuals care about ordering or cross-partisan support. If a party gets no individual votes, the party seats are distributed evenly among all candidates on the list, with preference given to candidates on the top of the list.

QuoteThis obviously disadvantages small parties, of course.

How?

QuoteIn our past, many times new or small parties have only had one or two candidates -- practically speaking, this system would force voters to spread out their vote if they choose candidates.

If people prefer a small party to the exclusion of all others, then they can just vote for that small party directly, no splitting required. If they choose to split their votes, they can. I don't see where or how voters would be forced to do anything.

QuoteThis seems like there'd be no seat maximum?  And it says nothing about replacement seats?

The way seat maximums and replacement seats are handled would be unaffected, which is why I didn't mention them.

QuoteHonestly, I'm not sure this proposal works for us just because we're so small.

What does size have to do with giving voters more of a say?

I have implemented an Approval Voting tabulator compatible with the Pseudo-Real 20 seat Cosă. Feel free to play around with it, and let me know what you think.

Link

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 28, 2026, 09:53:46 AMThe people's will is best and most directly expressed by their vote, and we should be careful about wise elders deciding when the people's will shouldn't count.

This is exactly why I oppose expanding off-list appointees or softening party list requirements any further, since it is essentially elder party leaders deciding that the directly expressed preference for a certain slate of candidates should not count as long as it's convenient for them.

But setting all that aside, what do you think of the voting system I proposed a few posts ago?

QuoteElections to the Cosă shall be conducted following the principles of personalised proportional voting.

• Voters shall be given the choice to either vote for a single party list at-large, or to distribute exactly 20 individual votes among all candidates listed on all party lists. A single candidate may be awarded up to three individual votes.
• Seats shall be apportioned among party lists according to their at-large party list votes as well as the total individual votes for their candidates using the largest remainder method. Individual candidate votes shall count as one twentieth of an at-large party list vote for the purposes of party seat apportionment. In case of a tie, the party with the higher total vote count is prefered.
• Party seats shall be apportioned among their list candidates according to their individual votes using the largest remainder method. In case of a tie, the candidate listed higher on the list is prefered.

I've heavily edited my previous post to fix several syntax and phrasing errors, for the record.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 28, 2026, 09:40:00 AMRight, but circumstance we're discussing is a new party whose share of the vote expands faster than their personal recruitment.  It's already tight, and we're proposing making it much worse.

Your party is not exactly "new", is my point. You should've foreseen that the same people that were highly popular before under a different label would still be popular now, and accounted for it. If the demand exceeds the supply, it is your responsibility as a party leader to keep up with the demand.

QuoteI'm not really presupposing that... it's been a fact in the past -- Dien is the only one who has ever run for office with no party list, I think, and he got only a few votes (presumably from people who did indeed want that!)

Not even remotely the same as what you've been suggesting here. Plus, I don't think "we've always done it like this" is a good enough argument to continue flaunting the basic principles of democratic conduct. Talossa, in the past, has not been a good democracy. It should be in the people's interest to improve Talossan democracy, not worsen it.

QuoteBut this flexibility doesn't exist for convenience, it exists because power should be distributed according to the will of the people, as much as we can manage.  This is the most basic of basic democratic principles.

The power to concentrate power in a few unelected appointees loyal only to the party leadership is absolutely only a convenience, and enabling this conduct any further is the exact opposite of democracy. It may be *your* will, but it's not the people's will.

Quote from: Françal I. Lux on May 27, 2026, 04:26:48 PMAs long as the voters can choose who they want as their representatives regardless of party affiliation, I would be ok with an open list voting system as a compromise.

What do you think of something like this?

QuoteElections to the Cosă shall be conducted following the principles of personalised proportional voting.

• Voters shall be given the choice to either vote for a single party list at-large, or to distribute exactly 20 individual votes among all candidates listed on all party lists. A single candidate may be awarded up to three individual votes.
• Seats shall be apportioned among party lists according to their at-large party list votes as well as the total individual votes for their candidates using the largest remainder method. Individual candidate votes shall count as one twentieth of an at-large party list vote for the purposes of party seat apportionment. In case of a tie, the party with the higher total vote count is prefered.
• Party seats shall be apportioned among their list candidates according to their individual votes using the largest remainder method. In case of a tie, the candidate listed higher on the list is prefered.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 28, 2026, 09:07:54 AMYes, fast-growing because our appeal at the ballot box has dramatically increased in a short period of time, faster than active Talossans have been initiated into the party and established that they are good representatives of party interests.  I have no idea what planning could have prevented this

Simply by having more people on the list than the absolute bare minimum. These people don't even have to be a member of your party, mind you.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 28, 2026, 09:07:54 AMWe shouldn't soften basic democratic standards, and a pretty darn important one is that the outcome should match the vote.  When we argue that voters shouldn't get what they want, it's concerning.

You're presupposing that voters want to be represented by unelected, unaccountable off-list appointees, or alternatively that they want to concentrate all power into a single person. The fact that Talossa currenty even allows off-list MCs or more than one seat per MC is a grave violation of basic democratic principles, and it exists solely to make the lives of Talossan party leaders easier. I find it concerning that these generosities are not only taken for granted but considered not generous enough.