Everyone knows that the URL leads a cultural boycott of the sex-pest leader of the Green Party, but the following is a political question which I am quite curious about. So, this is addressed to the Green Party as a whole.

Why are you* voting against 62RZ17, the Party List Priority Act?

* With the honorable exception of cxhn @Crement Itravilatx

I don't really expect a thought out answer; but it's good to get the Green Party on record about their attitude to the Democracy Agenda and representative democracy in general. Especially given the Progressive Alliance's commendable willingness to negotiate.

¡Estimadas es estimats Uniunistaes!

As mandated by Constitution II.E, this Convention is entitled to nominate a candidate for Seneschal in the upcoming elections, who will be placed first on our party list.

It seems that it falls to me to do so; as I did at the inaugural Convention. And reading my speech from that Convention, I'm struck with a feeling of detxa vischtă.

We still have a party run by an unrepentant sexual harasser. I give that leader credit, though, to have figured out a way around being shunned by everyone else in Talossa: procuring the immigration of a new member who is not going to complain about being sexually harassed by their party leader. I wonder if this person is actually aware of their party leader and beloved companion's recent behaviour in Talossa, though.

Happily, the cordon sanitaire is mostly holding; although not entirely. The Foreign Minister seems to see fit to allow sex pests to act as "information liaisons" to other countries. When I questioned the Seneschal about this at the Informal Session, he seemed somewhat less than full-throated in defending this; I wonder whether it was a "solo run" by the Foreign Minister which the Seneschal backed for the sake of Cabinet unity. Nonetheless, this kind of thing will not survive the election of a URL-led government. For us, no sex pests means no sex pests in any role in the gift of the Government; short of sincere repentance.

And we still have a major political party - one now leading the Government! - which dislikes the basic principle of representative democracy. The Seneschal holds firm to his belief that a Cosa vote is a vote for a "brand", a party leader; that the Cosa is simply a mathematical construct demonstrating how popular each brand/leader was on Election Day, that "seats" should be in the free gift of such a leader to hand out post facto.

In contrast, the URL believes that a Cosa election should be just that - an election of members of the Cosa. Voters should be, as far as practicable, choosing their preferred representative or team of representatives. If a party benefits big from getting the approval of less-active voters, but does not have the will or capacity to find people who wish to actively represent voters, that should count as a penalty against such a party. This is our Democracy Agenda. We think Talossa should be a representative democracy (under a constitutional monarchy, if you insist), as that would be understood in any other country. We bluntly think that anyone who disagrees - even using the figleaf of "Talossan peculiarity" - is someone who benefits from a lack of democracy.

To this extent, our victory in pushing through the Pseudo-Real Cosa - and our agreement with the Government to let the Broosking Swing amendment through - is a huge, positive step. If this survives through to the 64th Cosa, then at least there will no longer be a situation where one MC's vote will count more than 20 times than another. Although - if the Seneschal's argument were to prevail - of course a party leader who wins a majority could say "I assign 11 seats to me!", and therefore be the Cosa, in the same way that King Robert I could in the late 80s. So let's not let that happen.

In any case, that brings up the biggest victory for Talossa of this governmental term; the belated conclusion of a "non-aggression pact" between the Government and the URL. This should have happened before the First Clark. The URL were out there offering not only an abstention, but even a YES on the VoC, in return for policy/legislative concessions. The Progressive Alliance were not interested - as the Seneschal-to-be said openly, because they were personally angry at the URL's campaign. I'm not sure why I would have expected any thing else. Part of the PA leader's political approach is to collect a "broad tent", held together less by positive policy planks but by resentment of the outgoing government. The more we critiqued this negative politics, the more resentful they got.

But we saw where this "government by spite" ended up. It ended up with the Government cutting a deal with an absolute monarchist party led by a relatively new citizen - one for whom I have quite a lot of personal affection! - who ended up both politically and personally unreliable. Which led the Government back to us, to make a deal that could have been done better and earlier if we weren't voting out of hurt feelings. The Democracy Agenda is, in part, a hope for a Talossan politics which is based on political principle rather than personal beef. It requires a Cosa consisting of teams of representatives, not by Big Bosses trading "seats" as if they were poker chips.

Nonetheless, I have actually enjoyed relations with the Seneschal over the last month or so. When you take the partisan heat out of the equation, patriotic Talossans of goodwill can come to agreements. And the Seneschal is patriotic, in the sense that KR1 defined: "Talossan patriotism is the determination that Talossa should continue to exist". The URL are, in our own way, also patriots.

***

Leaving all that aside, though; the Democracy Agenda/constitutional issue, and recriminations about how PA/URL relations have gone during this Cosa, is all well and good. But it doesn't make an argument for a change of Government.

How, for example, should the URL respond to the Government's recent Immigration statement? The statement makes a lot of assertions about immigration statistics and immigration policy. I confess that my personal attitude to all this is that it's somewhat irrelevant. I'm not a "natalist". I think the raw number of Talossan citizens is of far less interest than the number of active participants in Talossan culture and institutions. Although, to go back to points mentioned above, it shouldn't surprise me that the party leader who's insistent that his party shouldn't have to find active legislators is more interested in raw numbers. ("If you can't quantify it, it doesn't exist" is one of the regular traps of economic theory, parenthetically.)

I mention this as an example, because a lot of people out there don't vote on the constitutional issue, more or less democracy. They don't vote based on personal beef, alhamdulillah. They vote based on perceptions of general "competence" and "activity". This is the role of any party who wants to make a positive case that we should replace the incumbent government.

This is the challenge for the Union of Free Reformists. The argument for the Democracy Agenda is our raziun d'estar. But that won't win us an election. An alternative Seneschal who can promise to administer and to promote an active and healthy Talossa, and to build a team of not only legislators but shadow Ministers to do so, is what is required.

And there is none more qualified to do that in this party than @Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be , whom I nominate to be the URL candidate for Seneschal of Talossa at the 63rd Cosa election.

¡Så vivadra Talossa! ¡Så vivadra Talossa democrätic!

¡Estimadas es estimats Uniunistaes!

Under Constitution II.A.1, I rise to nominate as the three members of the Comità to be elected by this Convention, the outgoing Comità: namely, myself, @Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be , and @Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir .

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on March 10, 2026, 05:20:36 PM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on March 09, 2026, 04:14:44 PM

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.

Wouldn't that be addressed by Party List Reform #2? People who are unwilling to take seats can simply say "no thanks, please don't put me on the list".

No. Consent to go on the list <> consent to take up seats

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.