Quote from: Tric'hard Lenxheir on August 29, 2026, 12:07:03 PM

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on August 29, 2026, 10:46:52 AM

Quote from: Glüc on August 29, 2026, 04:30:39 AMIt might be actually good for Talossa to have both of them in government for a term. If Miestra and AD formed a party together I'd vote for that I think.

<soapbox>If this isn't an argument against party-based voting and in favour of direct candidate-based voting, I don't know what is.</soapbox>

The party based voting is actually an individual based vote. Everyone knows who basically runs each party and they are voting for that person to lead his/her party in the direction they feel is correct.

What I mean is, in the current system there is no option to vote for both AD and Miestra if you like them both. You are given a limited set of choices instead, and forced to choose between those and only those. It stifles cross-partisan dialog and supports hackery.

Quote from: Glüc on August 29, 2026, 04:30:39 AMIt might be actually good for Talossa to have both of them in government for a term. If Miestra and AD formed a party together I'd vote for that I think.

<soapbox>If this isn't an argument against party-based voting and in favour of direct candidate-based voting, I don't know what is.</soapbox>

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on August 17, 2026, 04:18:58 PMThere are certainly some changes that could be made to our system of law, but there's already a requirement that an accused individual be informed within seven days of a charging instrument being accepted.  I think it would be a bad idea to require public disclosure, since it's very possible some proceedings might be sealed for the sake of victims.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but arent trials all public on Witt? What difference would making indictments public make then? If a case does end up being sealed, just seal the indictment with it.

QuoteIt would be wiser to put in a decision point in that regard, instead.  The person who really needs to know is the accused, and it's not otherwise always in the public interest to require publication of unproven charges and information about criminal activity.  Prompt the judge to decide, with a direction to default to public proceedings.

For one, all charges start off as unproven before they come before a judge, right? Isn't that how trials work? For two, regardless of one's stance on making indictments public in general, since we are talking about potential election interference, I'd say it is absolutely in the public interest in this case.

QuoteI'd suggest another concern is that it doesn't seem possible to collect affidavits or sworn testimony without first beginning cort proceedings, which is why charges were filed.

How would public indictments stop one from collecting affidavits and sworn testimony?

Quote from: Tric'hard Lenxheir on August 17, 2026, 09:26:21 AMDidn't really want to know who voted just a running total like you see on tv in the United States

You don't have that in the US either, what you see during Election Night are the numbers coming in as they count all the ballots after the polls are closed.

Hm... concerning.

I've been showing the mail-in ballot around my groups of friends and they've all loved it so far. Great work as always, Lüc!

Yeah... even though me and AD have basically agreed that the next Cosă will have 200 seats, I still don't agree that enshrining a smaller Cosă in the OrgLaw would be subject to the same timetable (or any timetable) as statutory changes such as the Pseudo-Real Cosă Act, and I suspect there is no real way of clearing this up before the election.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on August 04, 2026, 07:42:08 PMI think there's no barrier to these things being expected to come into effect immediately upon ratification:

• Seat limit change

I think that these requirements require a process that cannot be expected to have occurred (ranked lists) or which have a timer running, and so they will happen with the 64th Cosa:

• Baseline 20 seats
• Ordered list
• Redistribution via ordered list
• Consent to be on a list required

The seat limit change is related to the abolition of off-listers, so as long as off-listers are abolished for the 63rd Cosă onwards, I believe this timeline should be fine.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on August 04, 2026, 05:27:14 PMThe Ziu affirmed a change, yes.  But it also affirmed the requirement that a change to the size of the Ziu would happen after the clock ran.

Where? If you agree with my interpretation that baseline changes are immediate and only statutory changes are subject to delays (you called my interpretation to that effect "spot-on" half an hour ago), then the effect would be immediate. When and where did the Ziu agree that this particular baseline change to Org.IV.2.1 would only enter into effect during or after February?

QuoteI don't think there's anything to hold up anything like the ironclad Cosa lists, which will come into effect immediately after the referendum is passed (so everyone should prepare for that now!)

That's an interesting point, actually. Miestră believes that ironclad lists cannot come into effect immediately because electoral lists under the current pre-referendum system are not the same form as the ironclad post-referendum system, i.e. they're not numerically ordered. In her view, the Cosă constitutes under the old rules as soon as the election results are published, but before any amendments enter into effect.

If this isn't a reason for all of us to come to an agreement as to when and how the amendment enters into effect and what ramifications it would have, I don't know what is.

But even if the amendment's changes enter into effect immediately rather than next year, would that mean the 63rd Cosă would have 20 seats? And what about the other changes to the Cosă's composition such as seat limits and iron-clad party lists, would they come into effect with the 63rd Cosă or the 64th? We've actually been debating this on the URL Discord and it seems the only thing we could agree on is that this stuff is confusing lol. I believe there is a lot of potential for confusion and grave misunderstandings here that we would be better avoiding at all costs, so it'd be practical to collectively agree on some sort of "timeline of events" beforehand.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on August 04, 2026, 05:11:14 PMYour interpretation is spot-on, but that doesn't really have any bearing on what I'm saying.  I'm saying that this was a change to the party seats that has been set by law, and that change happened with the passage of the statutory change earlier in the term.  The Organic Law says that "such change" takes effect after a certain amount of time.  That limit was just affirmed by the Ziu again.

What I'm saying is that the Ziu has actually affirmed a change of the baseline during the last Clark by passing the Democracy Act and Amendment, independent of any statutory changes that will enter into effect as per the relevant proviso sometime next year. After all, should the amendment pass its referendum, Org.IV.2.1.1 will say "The party seats shall total 20, [...]", with the rest being equal.

This has nothing to do with annoyance. Just to be clear, here is the sentence in question:

QuoteThe party seats shall total 200, or another number which may be set by law, with the provisos that any such change will not take effect until the next election following the passage of a calendar year; and that this number may never be less than twice the number of Senators minus one.

The way that IV.2.1.1 is phrased currently, the word "such" in the subordinate clause listing the provisos refers back to the directly preceding subordinate clause, not the whole sentence. Choosing to interpret that sentence in such a way that these provisos apply to all changes to the size of the Cosă instead of merely "such" change such as "another number which may be set by law" would risk rendering it ungrammatical to me. Amending this part of the OrgLaw is not merely setting "another number" "by law", but a direct modification of the baseline, and the provisos still would only apply to statutory law overriding that baseline.

Then again, maybe I'm not as good at speaking English as I thought...!

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on August 03, 2026, 07:01:09 PMIn my opinion, it's hard to read "law" in such a way that it doesn't include the Organic Law, though, and I wouldn't quite understand how to make it that way so that the proviso doesn't apply.

Not hard at all: "set by law" refers to statute, like elsewhere in the OrgLaw. Org.IV.2.1 allows itself to be overridden by statute, with some added conditions, namely that enforcement is delayed by at least 12 months and that the statutory Cosă size may not dip below 15. When this section gets modified by an amendment directly, these restrictions shouldn't apply.

Splitting this from the main thread was the right call, but I do hope this will get cleared up before Balloting Day.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on August 03, 2026, 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.