Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on Yesterday at 09:55:13 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 09:36:14 PMI present to you an active and engaged monarch, helping others and promoting our culture.  That would be impossible if the monarchy had been eliminated

Can we go to the alternate universe where President Nordselvă took office 10 years ago and is on his third term of doing an excellent job? In that alternate universe, I can also imagine that Talossa has 200 active citizens who are all fluent conversationalist in ár glheþ, because I'm not wedded to status-quo bias.

If we're allowed to submit alternate universes as proof that we're right, then we should all be libertarians since Atlas Shrugged exists, or socialists since News from Nowhere exists, or... well, I don't know what lesson we'd learn from the Butlerian Jihad of Dune.

Listen, actual reality is pretty good evidence that there's real merit to preserving institutions and traditions.  It's not the only thing that's important: when I remade the Zuavs, we discarded all that they had been, and I think Talossa is the better for it.  But this stuff is important as we weigh the costs and benefits of any change.

It's actually especially important in a country like our own, since there's no brick-and-mortar Ziu building to act as a physical symbol.  For as long as all of us discussing this have known Talossa, and for four-fifths of her existence as a nation of laws, the Senats has served to allow for individual representation of the interests of each province.  That's not everything, but it's not nothing.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Yesterday at 09:02:33 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 08:12:12 PM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on Yesterday at 07:36:23 PMAnd Mic'haglh keeps talking to you about his MMP Cosa idea, which IMHO makes the provincial connection stronger. Adopting it along with an at-large Senäts seems a fine tradeoff.

Party seats would still be in the gift of the party leader.  There'd be zero reason to care about your province.  In fact, there would be heavy incentive for party leaders to assign seats to those who were more loyal to their party than their province!  Why choose someone who's going to kick up a fuss just because you want to mess with their province?

Candidates who are elected for constituency seats are not "assigned" by the party leadership. They are directly elected by their province. Unless you mean to say that being assigned by a party leader to run in a specific constituency in the first place would lead to the incentive to prioritise party loyalty over province loyalty you spoke of, but in that case, parties already have that kind of influence over senatorial candidates in the current system, whether we continue to pretend that Senators are above party politics or not. What am I missing here?

If we're talking about a specific bill (I guess the one in the Hopper?) where each province gets to pick specific individuals who represent that province, then we can probably make that easier by just keeping the Senats.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on Yesterday at 09:05:39 PMDeleted a post because it made my point inexpertly, let's see if this is better:

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 08:12:12 PMthe existence of the Senats helps protect the sheer continued existence of the provinces... If we asked our senators whether or not it's part of their job to look out for the well-being of their provinces in particular, I hope they'd agree.

You're doing that thing again where you act like the purpose of democratic elections is to preserve the institutions, rather than the institutions serving a democratic function.

The provinces existed before the Senäts and were just as lively (or not).

I think that our institutions have value beyond the needs of the moment, and shouldn't be sold like secondhand chairs at a fire sale.  And as proof, I present to you an active and engaged monarch, helping others and promoting our culture.  That would be impossible if the monarchy had been eliminated -- if people like me hadn't fought for to protect it.

We need to think about tomorrow's Talossa, not just today.  Let's plan for a vibrant and growing country.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on Yesterday at 07:36:23 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 30, 2025, 11:04:02 AMIf we switch to an at-large Senats, then we're divorcing provinces from their only meaningful connection with the national legislature.  That's what this bill would do.  That puts the provinces in danger,

No they're not. Before 1997, when there was no Senäts, the provinces were intermittently active when anyone took an interest in them (usually to annoy the Kingdom government). Since 1997, the provinces have been... intermittently active when anyone takes an interest in them. It has NO relation to the Senäts seat. I would love Fiova's delightful direct-democracy constitution to get more interest, but whether it does or not has no relation to whether we keep giving GV an uncontested legislative seat every 2 years or not.

I certainly didn't claim that the existence of the Senats promotes activity in the provinces, lol.  Instead, the existence of the Senats helps protect the sheer continued existence of the provinces.  There is someone whose job it is to represent their province, and they run for election regularly.  I don't know that it's a hugely strong influence, but it's definitely there.  If we asked our senators whether or not it's part of their job to look out for the well-being of their provinces in particular, I hope they'd agree.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on Yesterday at 07:36:23 PMAnd Mic'haglh keeps talking to you about his MMP Cosa idea, which IMHO makes the provincial connection stronger. Adopting it along with an at-large Senäts seems a fine tradeoff.

Party seats would still be in the gift of the party leader.  There'd be zero reason to care about your province.  In fact, there would be heavy incentive for party leaders to assign seats to those who were more loyal to their party than their province!  Why choose someone who's going to kick up a fuss just because you want to mess with their province?

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on Yesterday at 07:36:23 PM

QuoteIf we're going to do this, we'll be abandoning some old traditions and history,

Or going back to even older ones? Talossan history didn't start in 1997.

Talossa has had the Senats in its current form for most of her history... and that's even counting the earliest years when the government was just "whatever Robert I decided that week!"  If we go from when the Kingdom started to become a nation of laws in like 1988, with the Constituziun, then we have had the current Senats format for 81% of our history -- including all of our modern history and the entire time everyone involved in this discussion has been a Talossan.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on May 29, 2025, 04:37:41 PMThat's the problem with political conservatism - there can never be a problem with the institutions, the question has to be how do we recruit to structures that people objectively aren't interested in.

Of course, institutions can have problems and need reform.  I didn't rework our disparate body of laws into a legal code for the fun of it!  Instead, people -- such as yourself! -- identified a serious issue that needed to be fixed, and I agreed with your reasoning.  We lost a little -- there was some charm and a lot of history to those forty years of laws! -- but the benefits were far greater.

But just because some reforms are necessary doesn't mean all reforms are a good idea.  That's why I'm asking to discuss the merits of this one in detail.  And we just saw last election that the voters do not want this stuff shoved down their throat.  There was a historic rejection of a referendum, something that has almost never happened in our history, and so you should maybe take my concerns seriously.  Every province would need to vote in favor of a bill like this, so you need pretty broad agreement.

Again: my concern is that we're contemplating a permanent loss to deal with temporary lower levels of activity.  That seems short-sighted to me.

If we switch to an at-large Senats, then we're divorcing provinces from their only meaningful connection with the national legislature.  That's what this bill would do.  That puts the provinces in danger, since there's no one who's assigned in the Ziu to care about any particular province.

We're also making the Senats function more like a smaller Cosa, eliminating one of the fundamental differences between the two chambers. If the two function similarly and one of the main virtues of the Senats is eliminated, then it makes it a lot easier to eliminate the Senats entirely.  It's hard to mix oil and water, but easy to mix saltwater and freshwater.

If we're going to do this, we'll be abandoning some old traditions and history, we'll be endangering the provinces, we'll be endangering the Senats, and we'll be losing some of the benefits of the current Senats.  Given all of that, we need pretty compelling benefits.  So can we focus a little more on that side of the balance sheet?

Quote from: Munditenens Tresplet on May 30, 2025, 08:21:50 AMWould this amendment actually end the push to dissolve the Senate and/or force the merger of provinces over their will? It seems like it would, and that would be a strong reason to favor it, given the political push in the other direction. (This isn't to say I'm in support of the amendment at this time, just that I continue to keep an open mind.)

I also continue to keep an open mind, but there's no reason to think clearing the path for someone is going to discourage them from continuing on their way.

Quote from: King Txec on May 29, 2025, 11:08:38 AM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 29, 2025, 11:07:31 AM

Quote from: King Txec on May 29, 2025, 11:01:30 AMQuite a nice offer. I myself remember re-rendering my own arms years ago to a style that suited me a bit more. Thank you to El Coletxüt del Fotz Mesquaic for the generous offer!

-REH

I wonder if we should modify our displayed rules to emphasize that enblazonments can be done any time and by anyone and in any style?  We definitely have a house style (clear-cut shapes, full color, etc.) but I sometimes think that people are still confused that the actual official thing is the blazon.

-SVA

Darn, I was in the process of translating part of my response into Talossan when you quoted me! :-)

-REH

Denounce Nickelback and I'll delete my quote.

-SVA

Quote from: King Txec on May 29, 2025, 11:01:30 AMQuite a nice offer. I myself remember re-rendering my own arms years ago to a style that suited me a bit more. Thank you to El Coletxüt del Fotz Mesquaic for the generous offer!

-REH

I wonder if we should modify our displayed rules to emphasize that enblazonments can be done any time and by anyone and in any style?  We definitely have a house style (clear-cut shapes, full color, etc.) but I sometimes think that people are still confused that the actual official thing is the blazon.

-SVA

Side note: no one is obligated to take up this request, since enblazonments may be done by anyone and they are not strictly part of the remit of the Coletx.  If someone wishes to do so (including a member of the public), then it might also be helpful to know that S:reu Tzaracomprada's request in 2007 was for "a star similar to the one found on the Ethiopian coat of arms (to represent my family's ancestral heritage) and a palme d'or similar to the one used as a symbol for the Cannes Film Festival (to represent my love of peace)."  The star request was rejected since it was very specific to an Ethiopian achievement that S:reu Tzaracomprada had no legitimate claim to; I don't remember why an octagram star was ultimately chosen instead.

-SVA

Your Majesty poses us a challenge: how can we honour the font of honour for his contributions?

-SVA

Thank you.  I believe this resolves any difficulties when it comes to the legislative process.

I have no other concerns and I vote to advance the bill.

Excellent, Your Majesty!  Congratulations to the new armiger, the new pursuivant, the new baroness, and to the nation!

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on May 27, 2025, 11:25:09 PMI do, however, believe that fewer Senators is a preferable change to make Talossa work better for Talossans, and regardless of whether we reduce them now or at some point in the future, decoupling them from provincial representation would be necessary to do that.

Could we speak to that, then?  It seems to me that this would only be true in the future if we continue to decline and shrink.  Problems like uneven levels of representation are real, and they can be addressed by catchment reform and other solutions.

While I'm open to the idea -- and have suggested as much in past discussions, touching on specific details -- right now I am fundamentally unconvinced of the specific merits of this reform or the long-term vision that would make it a necessity.

I'm trying very hard to keep open this dialogue, because I'm not a firm no.  But right now, it feels like we're planning on bulldozing the dining room because we don't have enough friends to keep hosting dinner parties.  Like, I get the logic, but there's better and healthier solutions to that problem, like making more friends (join a Zumba class or one of those painting-and-wine courses).

This bill may not be sponsored by Sir Ian, since he is not eligible to submit bills to the Ziu.  The question then becomes whether or not the Seneschal can volunteer themselves as co-sponsor to the bill.  However, there is no precedent for this move -- MZs have universally always had to request to co-sponsor a bill.  This is borne out by the implications of the current law.  However, there's nothing that requires -- as far as I can see that the person who submits a legislative proposal and the person who's considered the "author" for the Clark's purposes have to be the same.

In other words, I suggest the following:

1. Sir Ian submitted the proposal to the Hopper, and the ten-day timer starts.
2. He now edits the proposal so that Dama Miestra is the "the legislator whose name is listed first after the words 'Uréu q'estadra så,'" which makes her the "author of the legislative proposal" and thus eligible to submit it to the Clark.
3. Dama Miestra submits it to the Clark.

I think this retains the Hopper timer while allowing the bill to be legally Clarked.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on May 27, 2025, 04:22:50 PMI apologise to the Baron for a sharp reaction, but the questions that he posed - that, outwith "the first step on a slippery slope to abolition", what is the point of at-large rather than provincialised Senäts elections - have been raised many time previously, firstly by @Sir Lüc .

I accept your apology, and I understand your annoyance.  For my own part, I am sorry if we do have to retread the same ground a bit.  My party has pledged to work to preserve the Senats, though, so we have a vested interest in knowing if this plan would just be step #1 in that process.  I'm really not trying to be difficult.  I'm just a little slow and trying to understand why we would possibly want to do this.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on May 27, 2025, 01:07:43 AMI'm having flashbacks to the last days of the Lupul monarchy. Back then too, there could never be any compromise; any monarchy reform was possible because reform could only ever be "the first step to abolition".

Well, that kind of flies in the face of the many, many compromises that happened (many of which I helped to write!)

But returning to the topic: one of the key elements in a compromise is that both sides have to be able to credibly commit to the compromise.  Since the Free Democrats seem committed to eliminating the Senats and/or provinces, I think it's fairly reasonable to be a little cautious of starting a march in that direction.  If those things aren't on the table, then the situation is different.  So then... what's the plan?

Quote from: King Txec on May 27, 2025, 06:28:09 AMI don't believe we can blame the immigration problem we currently have on the government.

Your Majesty, I agree that this problem wasn't caused by the Government.  But when the hurricane blows, it is the government's responsibility to deal with it.  They didn't cause the hurricane, and we all need to pitch in with the sandbags, but it's a threat to the country that the Government must prioritize.

Well, I certainly agree that our activity level and immigration level is at a crisis point.  It should be the overwhelming, central, and dominant focus of our Government.  But I think rising back to the level where have more regularly competitive elections in the Senats doesn't take a very high threshold.  We have like 160 citizens, and maybe 20 active ones.  Increasing our activity level from 12.5% to 18.75% would probably do it, either by increasing interest from current citizens or increasing immigration levels.

Making systemic changes to simply embrace a lower active population is not a good idea.  And I do still think this is just the first step to eliminating the Senats and/or provinces.