Well Premieir, I've moved we seat those who staked claims via the Chancery. Can we pass it without objection?

I think the finer details of whether we should continue allowing it (and I'm in favor of it/fine with it) should be debated on proposed Cabana legislation that I'll introduce later. But I don't think anyone who responded UC without knowing otherwise should be disenfranchised either.

Quote from: C. M. Siervicül on Yesterday at 05:31:39 AMI was surprised to see that item on the ballot. Was it the result of recent legislation? I stake my claim regardless.

I don't think it was the result of recent legislation, but more of a helpful inclusion by the Chancery. I think only Maricopa can determine its own membership of the Cabana though anyways.

Not only do I stake my claim, I move* that all those who answered in the affirmative on the ballot sent by the Chancery also be considered as having staked their claim. (And I plan to offer legislation to make this automatic going forward.)

*assuming it is necessary

There were maybe 6-7 people participating in these, and this post suggests a wide range of views on each of the topics presented. On the single page Witt thread of your supposed third round, there are even less votes, still with differing views. Hardly a consensus.

I look forward to vociferous debate in the Ziu when we actually see the substance of these plans. I do not want to be, nor to your credit—based on keeping the VoC—expect to be, met with a brick wall of "it was already agreed to, we don't need to debate it again."

Cosa: DIEN
RZ06: Per
RZ21: NON

I too found another issue. The amendment would render the Electoral Commission virtually powerless, as the primary power it has is, when faced with widespread fraud, it could request the King dissolve the incoming Cosa and call new elections. But this amendment forbids the King from dissolving Cosa outside of specific months, meaning that we would be locked into election results regardless of anything that would cast doubt on them. I realize this is an incredibly unlikely, maybe never will happen event. But isn't that why we should minimally trust the King to exercise a power like dissolution, and why our laws should be flexible enough to allow for some set of unique circumstances?

Moreover, if the EC needed time to investigate a specific issue, let's say the qualifications of even a couple of voters, the provision allowing it to petition the UC for additional time prior to certification is also potentially nullified: Though as pointed out above, the King can't dissolve the Cosa prior to six Clarks elapsing after a GE, but also is required to dissolve Cosa during specific months. So what happens in the unlikely event that more time is needed before a GE can be certified?

As one of the primary authors of the EC language, it was written in response to a specific problem that occurred and was designed to be flexible enough to foresee any problem that might happen in the future. This is so we don't have a revolving door of new laws passed in response to problems with other new laws every Cosa.

DIEN has paid the registration fee by Zelle, let me know if there are any issues. @xpb

Party name: The Independent Conservative
Party abbreviation: DIEN
50 Word Statement: "Don't worry, I'll run for Senäts next time. Assuming it still exists of course."

Statement on 60RZ21:
"Are fixed election terms really necessary? Nah. Vote how you wish—personally, I'm voting against it. But let's not call this implementing some consensus plan. The majority of a few people who had the time to scroll through a long, single Witt thread does not represent a "consensus" of the Kingdom."

Oh yeah, Cosa list:
REFUSED.

Regardless of the option (and I like some form of Option 1 myself) let's applaud MPF for the database. It is and was an incredible undertaking and has been invaluable.

I agree with all the above. I'd also note that I personally see an Aus vote as recording your presence for the purpose of establishing a quorum, so yes, one Per would pass a bill in the presence of such quorum.

I believe that we should keep to a standard of having non-locals be Cunstaval, even if we are the only ones to do so. With that in mind, and without soliciting her opinion first, I nominate Miestra Schiva.

I know I was not expressly mentioned here, but as Royal Governor of our Antarctic territory, I wish to remain in my position. (And express, on behalf of our penguin residents, that we again wish to be made a province one day in the future.)

RZ20-Aus
RZ21-CON. There is no problem this bill solves. We don't need fixed terms to continue functioning; if anything, fixed terms will mean that citizens who only show up to vote on Election Day have less of a reason to check Witt to see when it's time to vote, since they can schedule it on the calendar. There is also no reason to remove the early dissolution power. Just because the power hasn't been used doesn't mean it isn't needed—it shows that it has been respected, and will only be used if completely unusual and unique circumstances warrant. There is no reason to get rid of the power even in the context of "fixed terms"; the schedule could either be "permanently" shifted based on the early dissolution or an election could be undertaken to fill out a remaining term. But, I will admit that I am happy that the VoC remains in the bill. I have little problems with the change to allow the opposition leader (or designee) to become Seneschal upon failure of a VoC, though I would generally prefer the people to decide (in a new election) on who takes over rather than the Leader of the Opposition, and would in either case have preferred some period of delay to allow the power transfer to take place. (A delay that is probably difficult when you are inflexible with election dates.)
RZ22-Per
RZ23-Per
RZ24-Per

VoC-After much deliberation and considering the very welcome change to RZ21 to keep the VoC, which I said at the time was appreciated though I still couldn't support the bill, I vote UC.

Maricopa and our Cabana constitute a unique provincial culture. We do not need a top down commission to push us towards actions that are not in our best interest. And how is 4-5 provinces any better than our current number?

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on January 07, 2025, 04:59:17 PM

Quote from: Munditenens Tresplet on January 07, 2025, 04:34:08 PMI'm opposed to abolishing the Senats. My computer isn't working currently and I'm on my phone, but there are plenty of reasons to be against abolishment, not least of which is that it's a solution in search of a problem.

This amendment does not do that.

This amendment is the first step towards doing that.