So where are we at on this, anyway?

Quote from: Istefan Perþonest on April 01, 2025, 07:42:05 PMOn a purely speculative note, I wonder if relatively-disengaged voters pick among available parties at near-random, thus implicitly favoring small parties over broad coalitions.

This is my belief too. AVANT would undoubtedly had got a higher vote running as 3 parties. However, we couldn't put together an adequate list of active Free Democrat candidates. As I was yelling at people in the Shoutbox, I am a firm belief in party lists as a means to prevent a "Potemkin village" party with no real membership harvesting huge votes for the personal benefit of its leader.

Please see the raw ballots here.

RAW VOTES:
@Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC 7
@Bråneu Excelsio, UrN 1

Total votes: 8
Quota for election: 2.67 votes







@Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC , @Bråneu Excelsio, UrN and @Gjermund Higraff are therefore the Praisidieu for the next Cosa term.

Congratulations to all parties in the election on a clean, well-fought campaign. It's a pleasant surprise that turnout went up, both in absolute and relative terms.

While I'm disappointed not to have preserved the AVANT majority, the referendum on the Fixed Terms amendment gives excellent feedback on where to go from here (and is a shining example for grassroots democracy). I have opened discussions with the Progressive Alliance and that independent, conservative gentleman on forming the next government.

Hey, quick question: the balloting thread sets the end of the election at 5 pm Talossan Standard Time. But the database sets it at 5 pm Talossan Daylight Time, an hour earlier?

Not wanting to spoil the fun, but he should have sent that sash to his successor.

Placeholder to integrate Justice Perþonets' comments below into a new revision of El Lex G.11.1

Quote from: Istefan Perþonest on March 13, 2025, 03:24:35 PMYeah, so, regarding the most recent case I saw?

It would be nice if, instead of relying on my interpretation (which isn't binding precedent since it's a General Cort-level decision, and couldn't become biding precedent under the Organic Law even if appealed to the Uppermost Cort because it couldn't get a three-judge panel after recusals), you guys could either revise the statute law to explicitly say the inactivity-retirement system is a Notice of Reprimand procedure requiring concurrence of 2/3rds the Cosa, or, alternatively, revise the OrgLaw to make the existing procedure unquestionably Organic.

What exactly you should do is, I think, too much a policy (and thus political) matter for it to be proper for me to make a specific recommendation.

But I do think the absolute worst place for there to be any obvious room for differing interpretations in Talossan law is over the question of who has the power and responsibility to definitively interpret Talossan law.

Since it hasn't been scribed yet, let's specify that G.11.1 now reads in its entirety:

Quote11.1. Uppermost Cort Judges may be compelled to retire through organic removal
from office through an act of the Ziu in accordance with Article VIII of the Organic Law.
In accordance with the appropriate section, the inactivity of a Justice is defined as the
failure of that Justice to act, rule, or appear in an open case the Justice is assigned to
or participating in for more than 60 days, as certified by the Ziu in a majority vote.

I will also point out that the following provision was deleted by 60RZ20:

Quote11.1.1 A Justice of the Cort pü Inalt shall be declared inactive, and to have vacated
their seat, within the meaning of Organic Law VIII, if the Clerk of the Corts, contacting
the members of the CpI to assign a case as described in this title, is unable to contact
that Justice or does not receive any response to their enquiries, within 30 days

In the Hopper debate on this, @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu expressed discomfort with that paragraph and said that reappointment should be a sufficient check on completely checked-out Judges; but I'm not that happy with the reappointments clause, i.e. OrgLaw VIII:4:

QuoteUnless otherwise set by law, re-appointment shall be deemed automatic if no member of the Ziu has requested a re-appointment vote in the Cosa immediately preceding the expiration of the Judge's term; and re-appointment shall only require a simple majority of each house in the Ziu. The Ziu may modify the foregoing provided the requirements of re-appointment never exceed that for appointment.

I don't know how long "immediately preceding is", but what it boils down that there's a rather short window of opportunity for tossing a Justice overboard and if you miss that it's another 5 years.

So these are all things to think about.

Just a note to confirm that the Cabinet has brought this to @Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir 's attention.

Danihél Laurier always used to say that Talossa is best defended by its wits, but I heartily approve of safe recreational firearms training. You know, just in case.

We've got to be clever about this. I suggest reading up on the strategies of our micronational predecessors in Grand Fenwick.

Hmmmm. I've been itching to go to war for a while, but before I sign onto this I'd like a report from @Bråneu Excelsio, UrN as Minister of Defence re: the state of readiness of the Zouaves. Also I'd like @Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir as Foreign Minister to contact our most likely allies, Prime Minster Carney and President Sheinbaum, as to their state of readiness.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on March 18, 2025, 06:04:31 PMIf we want to discuss senators-at-large, something like that might make sense.

Oh, good to hear, because your Senäts candidate in CZ seems to disagree; and there's no point putting up anything that can't get 6 Senators saying yes in the 61st Cosa. But I may hopper something just to give a sense of my thoughts.

The purpose of a system is what it does. What the Senäts does, and what it has done for at least 4 or 5 Cosa terms - longer than the current moment - is to act as a Free Dems party-line block on legislation. Of course Senators have minds of their own, but consider: the overwhelming majority of recent Senäts elections have been uncontested. In such a situation, less active citizens, who happen to live in a particular province, can put their name up, get elected, and pay minimal attention thereafter except to vote party-line every month.

As you can see, I am a principled patriot because I understand the current system is too easy to game and needs reforms. Especially since the other mob might get control of the machinery at some stage. Of course there are alternatives to abolition, such as Lüc's proposal to elect Senators at-large, which would largely do away with the uncontested-elections problem.

I don't think it behooves us to act like Soviet Communists in the 1980s, arguing that a system which manifestly does not work should work in the abstract and might work under other circumstances and therefore must be defended. ¡Avant! says: the institutions are there to support the Talossan people, not the other way around.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on March 18, 2025, 03:09:05 PMthere's the glaring problem: we need checks in our system on a powerful Government, and it's not a good sign when the Government is proposing eliminating one of the few remaining checks on their power.

How many more elections do the Free Democrats need to get a bulldozer majority in the Senäts to make you question this :D

Quote from: þerxh Sant-Enogat on March 17, 2025, 07:20:57 AMI would rather keep the provincial system, and set up a number of votes per senator, or a number of senators, according to the population of each province

Which overlooks the specific point I made:

Quotethe terrible problem we have at the moment where the majority of Senäts elections are uncontested because both the parties, and active citizens, are very unevenly distributed between provinces