My prediction is that the whole thing is now a farce due to the US regime using it as an excuse for sadistic racially-biased exclusion of refs, players, and support staff

Can I concentrate minds here. We are very close to being able to get something onto the Sixth Clark. We only seem to have a few, frankly mathematical, stumbling blocks to go, and I suggest we push through them. Let's give the CRL plenty of time to nitpick the final draft.

Tim Payne for golden boot

A few supplementary comments to this.

The "critical cooperation" approach taken by the Union of Free Reformists is nothign new. We began this Cosă term by offering a cooperation deal to the incoming Progressive Alliance minority government. Although this was rejected at the time - rather haughtily! - the political climate eventually shifted, to great success. It may be tactical rather than strategic to say so, but the Union is in the business of enacting reforms, not opposition for opposition's sake.

Assuming the current proposal to amend the electoral system - to enable voters to directly choose Members of the Cosă for the first time ever - comes through, that will be a huge win for the Union, that has come about through (critical) cooperation with the Progressive Alliance. Another is maintaining the cultural boycott of a sex pest universally condemned by the Ziu.

The address by the Party President above clearly sets out the differences between us and the Progressive Alliance leading up to the election. The Democracy Agenda goes far beyond the Cosă reform agreed to by the parties - for example, we call for Senäts reform as well, something the existing Government are strongly opposed to. We hope to offer a clear choice to voters as to whom they want to lead the next government. By the way, although "grand coalitions" are not bad things in themselves, this is not one. It is a cordon sanitaire. And it's not uncommon for fascists and other repulsive entities excluded by a cordon sanitaire to start going on about "uniparties", claiming to be the only real opposition etc. It does not change the fact that the repulsive entity is, indeed, repulsive.

Finally, lectures are unwelcome on the subject of immigration from the man personally responsible for four people withdrawing from Talossa - three renunciations (one of which reversed), and one withdrawal from activity. The last of those renunciations was of course in solidarity with the sex pest - although since the sex pest was apparently "in the ear" of this citizen leading up to the decision, he can be credited with that one too.

Brenéir Tzaracompradă, will you please go now.

This looks like good work. Only quibble here is:

Quote2. Each party shall receive a percentage of party seats as equal as possible to its percentage of the popular vote, but each party shall receive a whole number of seats, and in turn, the Secretary of State shall assign these seats to a numerically-ordered list of candidates nominated by that party. The Secretary of State shall assign seats by assigning a seat to the first person on a party's list. If the party won more than one seat, then the Secretary of State will assign a seat to the next person on their list, and so on until the end of the party's list. The Secretary of State will then return to the top of the list, and continue in the same manner until all of the party's seats have been assigned.

The party list being ranked is a pretty important detail. Consequent amendment to El Lexh 2.3 also:

Quote2.3 The ballot must also include, for each party contesting the election, a 50-word (or less) statement of the general aims and views of the party, and a list in numerical order of citizens to whom the party intends to award Cosa seats. If a party does not submit a candidate list to the Secretary of State before the election, the party leader is assigned all seats won, and seats which cannot be held by the Party Leader are forfeited.

I *think*, given this wording, it would be possible for a future Cosă to bring in an open-list system (although not a fully candidate-based system) by statute. The very simplest form would be to add an additional question to each ballot for each voter to choose one (or more) preferred candidates (either restricted to their preferred party, or otherwise), and for the Secretary of State to reorder each party's list to rank candidates in order of their personal vote. But, @Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP , do you think this would authorise SPAV to be brought in by statute as well?

Finally, is there any appetite for adding something to El Lexh 2.3.2 which states that a party's internal processes for naming their candidates must allow and reflect the democratic input of members, and members have standing to sue in default of this?

Okay, so if everyone's agreed that what we're looking for is a series of OrgLaw and Lexhatx amendments that:

a) will mandate that all Members of the Cosa will be candidates who stood at the election (given some relaxation of seat limits);
b) will allow either a closed-list or open-list system to be established by normal statutory law (by the 63rd Cosa onwards);

then I think we can press forward with this. But I just want to make sure we're all on the same page with this.

I haven't had a chance to look at the Baron's bill closely yet, but I'm not 100% convinced we need to push on to a Sixth Clark bill. I reiterate my preference for a minimal OrgLaw amendment which would (a) clarify that only candidates on the ballot get to sit in the Cosa - in exchange for the excellent compromise of a 33% increase in seat limits - and that includes filling vacancies; (b) verbiage that allows either a closed-list or open-list system, details to be worked out by statute law in the 63rd Cosa.

República Talossan XXII Års

La Þistoriă Noi Tent Zonat Drept

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

In my country - and I believe others with closed lists - there is a law saying that a party's internal processes for creating lists have to be democratic and that party members have standing to sue if their leadership is drawing up lists arbitrarily. I would support that in Talossa.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on May 31, 2026, 09:58:39 AMThe amount of copy-pasted invalid votes cast last election is genuinely concerning.

I'm less worried by the fact that there were a whole bunch of amount of copy-pasted invalid votes cast last election, than that most of those votes were for one particular party, the leader of which is doing his best to argue against reforms of that system. Those with very long memories might remember critics of a system where "I vote for whoever Ben says" was a valid vote, and King Robert I yelling at them as wanting to disenfranchise less-active or less-informed citizens. Or where the RUMP fought against the secret ballot for a very long time, and they were right (from a partisan viewpoint) to do so, because they lost their permanent absolute majority in the very first secret election.

I don't believe that AD is only raising quibbles about reforms to defend his partisan advantage out of a system where people vote for a "blank cheque" for a logo. But if the Point is: "The current system makes the Cosa unaccountable to voters" and the Counterpoint is: "yeah, but it benefits my party", I beg the Baron to realize how his opponents might react to that. It is a simple psephological fact that conservative parties benefit from low-cognitive-effort, leader-focused systems.

All that the OrgLaw needs to say about seat allocation is that a party's seats go (as far as possible) to candidates named by that party at the election, in order of preference either named by the party or chosen by the voters. The actual mechanics should be in statute law for ease of tweaking.

This requires seat limits to make sure there is a party list. Otherwise you just get cxhn. Onemanband winning 51% of the vote and personally becoming half the Cosa. There seems to be an argument here that that would be perfectly fine if the Onemanband voters knew that's what they were getting. Again, I find the inequality between MCs repugnant, and I can handle a senior party member perhaps having 2x the seats of a junior member, but not 22x as is the current case.

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.

There are several open list systems, but some only allow you to choose candidates from your preferred party list. I suppose you could have a system where you have a "party vote" and a "candidate vote", and your candidate vote could go to someone outside your preferred party; but that might have weird effects, like, URL voters making a concerted effort to push a Prog candidate whom they liked to the top of the Prog list, over the wishes of Prog voters. Would that be okay?

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 27, 2026, 07:59:16 AMThe Secretary of State would assign seats based on a consistent rule.  But many parties have a seniority system, with more seats going to established members.  That seems a pretty reasonable thing for a party to do -- could that work in this system, like by putting such a choice in statute?

The rule (in statute) would be: the party list. The party puts its senior members at the top, in the case of a closed list; in the case of an "open list", the list ranking is determined by votes for individual candidates. Everyone on the list that is eligible going down gets one seat; when you run out, you go back to the top. The idea that one MC can have *multiple* times as many votes as another is something I dislike.

Quote

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on May 23, 2026, 04:50:42 PMBut what I really want to know is - would the good Baron agree, if this amendment were passed, that party lists as established by law would be indisputably Organic and enforceable? If not, there's not much point.

If the Organic Law says it, then it's set.  But that's just a question of tweaking the language to ensure that it covers the bases.

With respect, that's not an answer to my question. If this amendment were to pass, would you agree that the party list system as I have describe it would be organic and binding?

Quote

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on May 26, 2026, 05:20:14 PMORGANIC LAW REFORM AMENDMENT THREE: EXPULSIONS

I think we need to fix the language here so that we're not implying that this was a trial, which might trigger other protections.  But I support the basic idea here.

It's a copy-paste of the equivalent provision for the Senäts.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on April 30, 2026, 07:15:35 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 30, 2026, 05:21:11 PMI'll note that there's not clear guidance on when MZs should vote to expel one of their members.

I heartily endorse this event or product

Hey, I forgot about this one.

ORGANIC LAW REFORM AMENDMENT THREE: EXPULSIONS

Add new OrgLaw IV.11:

QuoteThe Cosa may impeach any of its members from the Chamber with a two-thirds majority vote. Following impeachment, a replacement will be chosen as otherwise provided in this Organic Law. Following a failed expulsion, the accused Member of the Cosa may not again be tried for the same offence, pursuant to the Seventh Covenant of the Covenant of Rights and Freedoms. The former Member of the Cosa is not barred from running for office in future elections as long as the former Member of the Cosa maintains citizenship.

EDITED TO ADD: You will note that this will require reform to the existing OrgLaw IV.3. Because if a party leader really has total discretion over filling vacancies, there would be nothing to stop them simply reappointing the expelled MC.

BTW, I fear the Baron might have a wrong idea that I/the URL are "out to get" the Senäts. I do not have a principled opposition to bicameralism, though I come from a country which gets along fine without it. But I consider competitive elections much, much more important than the main feature of bicameralism (limiting the legislative power of a Cosa majority). Without competitive elections, democracy is replaced by "whoever puts their hands up", a self-selecting oligarchy. I would give up every Upper Chamber in the world to promote competitive elections. An Upper Chamber is for me a luxury that we are paying a very heavy price for.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on May 23, 2026, 05:52:23 AM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 23, 2026, 01:59:48 AM(b) will this disadvantage the interests of my voter base, which is usually fairly broad but not very intense with active support, when compared to a voter base that is very intense but not as broad?

I'm not sure what this means, or how a candidates-based voting system would do anything like that.

What the good Baron means is that his party is less able to recruit candidates before elections to put on the ballot, because his voter base is less politically active. So any electoral system where people vote for nominated candidates rather than just a party "brand"/leader would be disadvantageous to him, and a system where a party leader can assign seats at their own pleasure is the most advantageous.

But what I really want to know is - would the good Baron agree, if this amendment were passed, that party lists as established by law would be indisputably Organic and enforceable? If not, there's not much point.

And this has absolutely no relevance to the Senäts, even by the most paranoid reading.

Here is an alternative text of Amendment One, which would enable (but not mandate) an open-list system: that is, one where voters would have the option to choose specific candidates from one party list, or from more than one, depending on the details of the law. @Françal I. Lux and @Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP, is this something on which we can get cross-party consensus, and then perhaps figure out the details in the next Cosă?

The bit about the King being able to fill vacancies is there to avoid the "loophole" which is asserted to exist under the current provisions; i.e. a party can assert the right to give seats to whoever it wants if it can't fill the seats legally (making it quite easy to simply flout the law). Allowing the King to step in seems a middle ground between that and just keeping the seats vacant. It's a compromise which I'm happy to remove if it's not necessary.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT ONE: ENSURING THE ORGANICITY OF PARTY LISTS AND THE POSSIBILITY OF AN OPEN-LIST SYSTEM

OrgLaw IV.2 to be amended as follows:

QuoteBased on the final results of the General Election, the Secretary of State shall calculate the apportionment of seats among the parties, hereinafter referred to as "party seats".

    1. The 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.
    2. Each party shall receive a percentage of party seats as equal as possible to its percentage of the popular vote, but each party shall receive a whole number of seats, and in turn, the Secretary of State shall assign these seats to candidates nominated by that party, in accordance with law. Any seats which cannot be assigned in accordance with law may be filled by the King according to his own best judgment, or left vacant.
 3. The Secretary of State shall employ whatever mathematical formulae and calculations in the apportionment of seats as are set by law, or, in the absence of such law, as will best reflect the intentions of this Organic Law. The Uppermost Cort shall be the final judge in case of mathematical disputes.
    4. Only registered political parties may obtain party seats. Parties which win votes but are not registered may not assume their seats in the Cosa until they register. The process to register a party shall be defined by law. The Secretary of State may request from all parties a registration fee, to be set by law, to cover the cost of the election. This fee shall be uniform for all parties.

OrgLaw IV.3 to be amended as follows:

QuoteIn the case of vacant party seats occurring between elections, the Secretary of State shall inform the King and the leader of whatever party held the vacant seat. The Secretary of State shall assign the seat to another candidate of that party, in accordance with law. If this is not possible, the King may assign the seat according to his own best judgment in accordance with law, or otherwise leave the seats vacant.

Quote from: Iason Taiwos on May 16, 2026, 05:56:16 PMOne of Eiric's fake citizens was a character named Benedict (can't for the life of me recall the last name) who's CoA had a corncob on it.

Benedict Stamford! That sockpuppet abused me so convincingly that I would never have guessed it was a member of my own party. Drama professors, go figure.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TWO: REMOVING THE COPPER-FASTENING OF THE PROVINCIAL SENÄTS

Right now, amending the provincial basis of the Senäts would require a referendum win in every province, making it the least amendable of any OrgLaw provisions, including the Covenant of Rights and Freedoms. This amendment would retain a 2/3 Senäts majority needed to make such changes under the existing section XII.I.

Amend OrgLaw XII.4 as follows:

QuoteProposed changes to this Organic Law that affect the representation of a province in the Senäts, or of the territory or equal sovereignty of a province, shall not take effect unless approved by a majority of participating voters in that province.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT ONE: ENSURING THE ORGANICITY OF PARTY LISTS (edit: deprecated, see below)

OrgLaw IV.2 to be amended as follows:

QuoteBased on the final results of the General Election, the Secretary of State shall calculate the apportionment of seats among the parties, hereinafter referred to as "party seats".

    1. The 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.
    2. Each party shall receive a percentage of party seats as equal as possible to its percentage of the popular vote, but each party shall receive a whole number of seats, and in turn, each party shall assign these seats to individuals, in accordance with law. Any seats which cannot be filled by a party in accordance with law shall be filled by the King according to his own best judgment, or left vacant.
 3. The Secretary of State shall employ whatever mathematical formulae and calculations in the apportionment of seats as are set by law, or, in the absence of such law, as will best reflect the intentions of this Organic Law. The Uppermost Cort shall be the final judge in case of mathematical disputes.
    4. Only registered political parties may obtain party seats. Parties which win votes but are not registered may not assume their seats in the Cosa until they register. The process to register a party shall be defined by law. The Secretary of State may request from all parties a registration fee, to be set by law, to cover the cost of the election. This fee shall be uniform for all parties.

OrgLaw IV.3 to be amended as follows:

QuoteIn the case of vacant party seats occurring between elections, the Secretary of State shall inform the King and the leader of whatever party held the vacant seat. The King shall appoint a replacement to each vacancy. If the seat belonged to a party with a functioning party leader, the King must appoint as a replacement whichever person shall be so designated by that party's leader under the same law that governs assignment of seats after an election. If there is no functioning party leader, or if the party leader refuses to designate a replacement, or if the seats are still vacant for any other reason the King shall appoint the replacement according to his own best judgment or otherwise leave the seats vacant.

And in whatever form we push forward Ziu reform apart from this