Quote from: Sir Ian Plätschisch on Today at 03:01:45 PMAre we sure that abolishing the Senäts wouldn't count as "affect[ing] the representation of a province in the Senäts"?

"differently to other provinces" I thought was the key phrase, but if you can think of a better way to word it...

WHEREAS King Txec I was democratically chosen as Talossa's Head of State under our Organic Law, and he enjoys the confidence and affection of a great majority of our nation;

AND WHEREAS, not withstanding this, the principle of the Union of Free Reformists remains in favour of the regularly elected representatives of the people in Ziu assembled;

AND WHEREAS the King's response to bills passed by the Ziu should properly take the form of friendly advice, rather than a veto;

AND WHEREAS the King may be more likely to give the nation the benefit of such advice if it would not mean thwarting the will of the majority of the people's representatives;

AND WHEREAS it would be good at this point to introduce the ability of the King to ask for legal advice about the consequences of such a bill;

BE IT ENACTED THAT Organic Law VII.11, which currently reads:

QuoteEvery bill which passes the Ziu shall be presented to the King before it comes into effect. The King may sign such a Bill, in which case it shall immediately enter into effect and become law; or he may veto the Bill, in which case it shall be returned, with his objections, to the Ziu, which shall reconsider it in the next Clark. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of the Cosa agree to pass the bill, or the part of the bill objected to, with the approval of the Senäts, it shall become a law over the objection of the King. If a bill vetoed by the King in a certain term of the Cosa is passed by a simple majority of the Cosa and the Senäts in the subsequent term of the Cosa, the bill shall become law over the King's objections, and cannot be vetoed. If the King neither signs nor vetoes a Bill before the last day of the month in which it was passed by the Ziu, he shall be deemed to have signed it.

shall be amended to read:

QuoteEvery bill which passes the Ziu shall be presented to the King before it comes into effect. The King may sign such a Bill, in which case it shall immediately enter into effect and become law; or he may veto the Bill, in which case it shall be returned, with his objections, to the Ziu, which shall reconsider it in the next Clark. If, after such reconsideration, a majority of the Cosa agree to pass the bill, or the part of the bill objected to, with the approval of the Senäts, it shall become a law over the objection of the King. If the King neither signs nor vetoes a Bill before the last day of the month in which it was passed by the Ziu, he shall be deemed to have signed it.

The King may, before either signing or vetoing any bill to which this Article referss, refer that bill to the Supreme Court for a decision on the question as to whether such bill or any specified provision thereof is or are repugnant to this Organic Law or to any provision thereof.

And Organic Law XII.2, which currently reads:

QuoteThe King shall assent to amendments proposed by the Cosa and Senäts unless he returns them with his objections within thirty days of their proposal, or within fifteen days in the case of amendments passed on the last Clark of a Cosa term. The King shall not refuse assent if the identical amendment is approved by three-quarters of the same Cosa with an absolute majority of the Senäts, or by two-thirds of the following Cosa with a simple majority of the Senäts.

shall be amended to read:

QuoteThe King shall assent to amendments proposed by the Cosa and Senäts unless he returns them with his objections within thirty days of their proposal, or within fifteen days in the case of amendments passed on the last Clark of a Cosa term. The King shall not refuse assent if the identical amendment is approved by two-thirds of the Cosa with an absolute majority of the Senäts.

The King may, before either assenting to or returning any amendment, refer that Amendment to the Supreme Court for a decision on the question as to whether such Amendment or any specified provision thereof would introduce a contradiction to the Organic Law which could not be resolved without a further Amendment.

WHEREAS the threshold for amendments to the Organic Law is given in OrgLaw XII.1:

Quote"Amendments to this Organic Law may be proposed by two-thirds of the Cosa with approval of the Senäts. Approval of the Senäts shall be by simple majority, except that amendments to this article, amendments to the articles regarding election to and composition of the Senäts, and amendments to the article regarding territorial subdivisions require approval of two-thirds of the Senäts"

AND WHEREAS Organic Law XII.3 provides that these amendments must be approved by the people in referendum;

AND WHEREAS Organic Law XII.5 provides the special circumstance that amendments to the Covenants of Rights and Freedoms need a two-thirds majority in referendum;

AND WHEREAS Organic Law XII.4 states:

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.

BUT WHEREAS there is credible legal argument to the effect that for the basis of election of the Senäts to be changed`away from provinces (for example, to an at-large system), OrgLaw XII.4 would require a positive referendum result in every single province;

AND WHEREAS this would be a greatly higher hurdle than abolishing the Senäts altogether;

AND WHEREAS anyone who wants to protect the Senäts should support removing a loophole where it is easier to abolish the Senäts than to reform it;

BE IT ENACTED that Organic Law XII.4 is amended to read:

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

WHEREAS Organic Law V.4 guarantees Talossans the right to vote publicly rather than in a secret ballot;

AND WHEREAS public voting which is announced during the election has various negative effects, such as encouraging "copy-paste" voting and a "bandwagon" effect, both of which put parties whose voters prefer the secret ballot at a disadvantage, thus discriminating against them under Organic Law V.4;

AND WHEREAS the existing database already enables votes to be made public after the election, which removes these negative effects;

BE IT ENACTED that El Lexhatx B.13.4 which currently reads:

QuoteThe Secretary of State shall accept votes submitted publicly or privately pursuant to the rules governing the election. Votes submitted privately shall only be available to the Electoral Commission.

shall be amended to read:
 

QuoteThe Secretary of State shall accept votes submitted publicly or privately pursuant to the rules governing the election, with the provision that votes submitted publicly shall only be viewable by the Secretary of State until the Election Deadline. Votes submitted privately shall only be available to the Electoral Commission.

During the National Schism, the Republican government of Cézembre came up with this flag

You should have been getting email reminders from the Chancery as well? Sorry, I didn't want to pester you via email as well

Can we recruit Chris?

Three items checked off. More to follow, given the good will of the voters and of other parties.

@GV and @Bråneu Excelsio, UrN elected on the second count.

The Praisidieu for the 63rd Cosa is @Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC, @GV, and @Bråneu Excelsio, UrN

FIRST COUNT FOR FIOVA PRAISIDIEU ELECTIONS

12 votes in total. Quota for election is 3.01 votes.



@Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC: 10 votes
@GV : 1 vote
@Bråneu Excelsio, UrN : 1 vote.

@Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC elected on the first count.

Distribution of preferences to follow.

Quote from: C. M. Siervicül on September 01, 2026, 03:33:24 PMI was definitely conscious of the impact of the Icelandic language on Ben Madison way back in the day, and even more so on Penginijtung.

I was just taking Old Norse at postgraduate level in 1997 :D

Quote from: Istefan Perþonest on August 30, 2026, 04:59:41 PMEven macronational politics have a tendency to get personalized around forceful or charismatic figures

I'll pass the feedback on to @Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be that he has to be more forceful and charismatic :D

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on August 30, 2026, 04:25:38 PMI highlighted one of them: getting rid of the Senäts as we know it, in order to make it an advisory body

The thing is anyone can go look at the Democracy Agenda (point 5, in particular) and realise that you've headlined an exaggerated scare story. Even if it were a mathematical possibility for us to get the necessary numbers for such major OrgLaw surgery in this election. Which it isn't.

I remember someone telling me that we lost the last election because voters were turned off by what they saw as overheated exaggerations about our opponents' programme :D

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on August 30, 2026, 09:24:06 AMOur party is overwhelmingly focused on building things and offering new programs, and the URL is focused on changing laws.

And that would be why you headlined your last mailer with a constitutional scare story?* No doubt because "building things and offering new programs" doesn't excite your core vote (whom I think Glüc characterized accurately).

Honestly, I'm disappointed that the tone got dragged down so close to the finish line.

Quote from: Glüc on August 29, 2026, 04:30:39 AMThere hasn't been much election debate going on so far. Although admittedly I probably missed some of it due to not paying attention. I've read the mailers, but I think party leaders questioning each other about what and how they intend to do things (or for example how they would approach the next government formation) might be more informative.

This is one of those "can't win for losing" situations. In previous elections people have complained that Talossans are too mean and personal and combative. We were told explicitly that in the last election, the URL's sharp critiques of Progressive politics lost us the election. So this election we've made a special effort to pivot to constructive "this is what WE'LL do" stuff rather than bashing the Progs. And that's the wrong rock too, apparently :D

An actual leader's debate was scheduled, but didn't happen for whatever reason. But the constructive answer to Glüc's question is that the URL have emphasized government formation, in the sense that we keep going on and on about team government, and criticized the incumbent's tendency to "one man band" forms of organization.

Can I also notice that there is a real problem implicit in Glüc's comment about "Miestră and AD" cooperating. The leader and Seneschal candidate of the URL is Mic'haglh Autófil. The extent to which Mic'haglh is not seen as a separate entity to myself is regrettable, and something we've been trying to counteract, but it seems that that can't happen until I leave Talossa altogether :D

Quote from: Iac Marscheir on August 26, 2026, 01:27:34 PMI must say, I'm heavily intrigued as to what elements of the past Breneir is encouraging us to forget in his latest mailer.

Breneir's "Let's stop talking about the past, and in particular why I was unanimously condemned by the Ziu" mailer is raising a lot of questions already answered by his mailer!

We should note that this event takes the place of a planned debate with the Seneschal, which has fallen through for various reasons

Eh, it's probably more like this

Are we going to have one?

I really want to see the Seneschal and the top competitor for his job go head-to-head in a live format.