Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on March 08, 2026, 07:34:53 PMParty List Reform #1: The URL supports legislation to prioritize party lists, ensuring that "off-list" candidates can only receive seats if no "on-list" candidates are eligible, in order to improve transparency and allow voters to better judge the intentions of the parties on the ballot.

I'd add "... or willing" here. If someone doesn't want to take seats you can't make them. I'm aware that this might mean packing a list with people who agree in advance not to take seats, but if people want to game the system to such an extent there's not much you can do about it.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on March 08, 2026, 07:34:53 PMParliamentary Reform: The URL supports codifying and strengthening the powers of the Tuischac'h and Mençei to allow them to better maintain order and enforce parliamentary procedure within their respective chambers.

Agree; but we need more detail on what this might mean before we put it in a platform. Does the incumbent Túischac'h @Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP have any ideas?

With these caveats, this is an excellent program, and what's even better, a program that could, realistically, be enacted in one Cosa with a 2/3 majority and an agreeable Senäts. It is realistic.

A representative democracy requires a base of citizens who are keen to take on that responsibility. Contrast this to a populist/presidentialist system, where you just need "one guy" with fire in his belly and a bunch of mostly passive voters.

This is why the URL supports both (a) a smaller Ziu which can be filled competitively by those who are keen, rather than stuffed full of the barely active; (b) an immigration process which promotes civic responsibility rather than raw numbers.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on March 04, 2026, 10:29:08 PMGiven that there has been some internal discussion over the past few months regarding possible amendments to the Party Constituziun, I hereby open the floor to any such proposals.

For example, I believe @Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC has stated a desire to reform the endorsement process for Senäts candidates found in Article III, Section H?

Yes, hello. The current text reads as follows:

QuoteH. Party-affiliated candidates in Senäts elections shall be endorsed by the Party on the condition that they agree to endorse all other party-affiliated candidates in that same election. Any candidates who agree to this condition and fulfill it shall receive endorsement from the Party en masse, with the recommendation that they be ranked above any other candidates in an internal order of the voter's choosing.

This was written in the assumption that, in a Ranked Choice Voting system, URL candidates and supporters would be able to grasp the concept of a preference exchange - i.e. you vote [1] for your own guy and [2] for the other guy from your party, so no votes were spoiled.

This led to a complete catastrophe in the last Maricopa Senäts election, where voters for @Pol dal Nordselva and @Txotéu Davinescu completely failed to do this. So it may be that we need to return to one endorsement per vacancy, if our own members don't get how Ranked Choice voting works.

No. I don't get the point. If you're not voting NON on the VoC, how can you be "the opposition"?

If the URL are not actively attempting to bring the Government down - which we are not, by the terms of the current agreement - I'm not fussed if we no longer count as "the Opposition". Criticism and feedback from the crossbenches is not a problem.

Our Constitution II.A.6 provides that, in addition to the three members elected by this convention at large to our leadership, every provincial caucus with three or more members is also entitled to elect a representative.

Current membership numbers are:

Atatürk: 5 members
Belacosta: 3 members
Cézembre: 2 members
Florencia: 2 members
Fiova: 5 members
Maricopa: 2 members
Maritiimi-Maxhestic: 3 members
Vuode: 4 members.

Therefore, I invite URL members living in Atatürk, Belacosta, Fiova, Maritiimi-Maxhestic and Vuode to consider whether any of them want to represent their province in our Leadership.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on March 01, 2026, 03:18:50 PMthe US strike actually killed former President Ahmedinejad

Ha ha, apparently he's all like "Teu vivat, garça"

As someone who has worked in solidarity with the Syrian people for a decade in their civil war against the butchering dictator Bashar al-Assad, who was propped up all along the way by the "Islamic" "Republic" of Iran, I'm certainly shedding no tears for the 86 year old head of the theocracy going to meet his Maker.

But this isn't even "regime change". This is vandalism. A regime change strike would attempt to maximise the possibility for an opposition to the regime to change over. But the US strike actually killed former President Ahmedinejad, and is *rumoured* to have eliminated current president Pezeshkian and former president Rouhani - all "dissidents" who could have led a challenge to the theocracy. This is killing for the sake of killing and can't be defended even if you hate the "I""R"I with a passion, as many have a right to.

The wildest people around the Israeli government are now saying they're going to do the same to the president of Turkey next (who, while a creep, has at least as much democratic legitimacy as either Trump or Netanyahu do). This cannot stand.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on February 27, 2026, 12:10:31 PMI'm trying to find someone reliable who feels comfortable in the legislature, and unfortunately have not found anyone.  We've grown so fast as a party that we're outstripping our legislative bench.

Surely more accurate to say "our vote has grown faster than our active membership"?

Which is precisely why the party list system is so important - to ensure parties are teams of active citizens rather than a "brand" behind a "leader".

This guy does this for other classic prog bands too. He recently put up an entire version of "Supper's Ready" with his daughter (who looks about 9) on vocals. Cute, but actually dressing her up like Peter Gabriel in 1972 may have been over the top.

(Warning: if you're going into this looking for "Jesus He Knows Me" or similar, you'll be disappointed, this is good Genesis)

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on February 01, 2026, 10:01:32 PMUpper House Reform: The "Upper House of Review Amendment", which despite some disinformation to the contrary, does not establish unicameralism, actually removes the ability of the Senate to perpetually block standard legislation.

Push forward with this.

QuoteVoting Method Reform: Sir Marcel has suggested Proportional Approval Voting before. For my part, I prefer panachage, but I'm interested in further discussion at any rate.

I suggest we just have a plank for personalised proportional representation - any system that combines proportional representation for parties with effective control by voters over who, actually, gets Cosa seats. So that might be any of the above plus that old favourite, STV.

QuotePublic Ballot Reform: Do we want to address the possibility of removing the public ballot? I think a more moderate position could be found where votes using the thread are only publicized after polling closes, but that's just my two bence, and depends on Witt's technical abilities.

Very much in favour of the second. Still, I can imagine a "protest vote" situation where reactionaries insist on voting on a public Witt thread and challenge the SoS not to count it.

QuoteParty List Reform: I have an act drafted (coming soon to a Hopper near you) that would make it so off-list citizens can only receive seats if no listed candidates are eligible to receive them. Are we in favor of something like that?

Yes.

QuoteParty List Reform 2: Should we propose legislation requiring citizens to consent to appearing on a party list?

Hell yes.

QuoteRoyal Veto Reform: Miestra has proposed some changes to the royal veto, including possibly eliminating it for Organic amendments in favor of the referendum as the "people's veto". It would also include an analogous procedure to the "Irish advisory opinion" she has described elsewhere. Thoughts?

Thinking about it more, perhaps I would still be in favour of a "suspensory veto"; the King can still veto a bill, to give the Ziu a "are you REALLY sure about this" speech, but the veto can be overridden by a simple majority. Combined with the "take this to the CpI to see if it's Organic" option which can be used after or instead of the first one.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on February 23, 2026, 12:21:46 PMDue to recent events, here is what the 62nd Cosă could've looked like had the Pseudo-Real Cosă Act already been in effect last election:

The main difference is that the PA would have had to, from the outset, co-operate with the URL to form a government, which would have saved us a lot of drama

The most recent agreement with the Progressive Alliance government has won us one major part of our Agenda; the reduction in Cosa seats to a non-fictional amount. Of course, this could possibly be repealed by the 63rd Cosa before it comes into effect; so the agenda will have to be to defend this.

Quote from: Mximo Malt on February 22, 2026, 08:17:24 AM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on February 22, 2026, 01:41:37 AMPlease add my son Rôibeard Ben Schivă Sală

Hmm...that's an interesting name! ;)

It is! He's named after his great-great-grandfather and his grandfather! My wife chose the name and I didn't realise the Talossan implications until someone here pointed it out!

Please add my son Rôibeard Ben Schivă Sală

Quote from: King Txec on February 17, 2026, 02:26:58 PMAh, thanks. I think the word "party" threw me off.

That was written to exclude the 1 seat which we've been giving to new immigrants.

Quote from: xpb on February 08, 2026, 05:34:15 PMYes, as in many instances in life there are logical adjustments made.

This is not so much an adjustment as an admission that the PA Government does not take the concept of the cultural boycott of sex pests with as much seriousness as we would hope.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on February 08, 2026, 05:55:30 PM

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on February 08, 2026, 05:23:08 PMThe scheduling has hit a bit of a snag since there is no time window in which everyone is available, so something needs to give.

If I were to arbitrarily schedule it for, say, Saturday, 21 February 2026, 11 AM Central, would that be okay?

@Sir Lüc @Béneditsch Ardpresteir @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu @Françal I. Lux @Mximo Malt @Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be @Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC @Breneir Tzaracomprada

That's 6 in the morning my time. Sadly unlikely.

Excuse me, your Majesty, but can the Government explain how the appointment of the Information Liaison for Asgardia conforms to this policy statement?

Also, given the absolute shambles and fiasco in Florencia, I think we need to get back to the idea of provincial reform. Like, the shambles in that province is not just due to constitutional loopholes - it could have been avoided if there were not just two (2) politically active citizens in that province, and if those two men didn't hate each other. (The URL's stand of Literally Anyone Else in the last Senäts race is proven right, again.)

This gets solved by having bigger and therefore fewer provinces. The Seneschal's fantasy that we fix this by doubling the population isn't going to happen.