On a purely speculative note, I wonder if relatively-disengaged voters pick among available parties at near-random, thus implicitly favoring small parties over broad coalitions.

In which case, the optimum tactic for a political alliance might be to register as several parties, but with the same electoral list. There is, at a first glance, no rule I see against people appearing on the electoral lists of more than one party. (Or, actually, even against for multiple parties having the same party leader.)

The natural checks on artificial use of this tactic are 1) having to pay a registration fee for each party; and 2) parties that look obviously "spammed" (particularly in having the same party leader) will probably turn off voters.

I'm waiting for the follow-up, where the badge of the new position has four fingers raised.

For the obvious reason, the holder of the new position would have to post in four-line rhymed stanzas.

As a Talossan cabinet position, of course the obligatory rhyme scheme for the stanzas would be ABBA, for a slightly more obscure reason.

Yeah, so, regarding the most recent case I saw?

It would be nice if, instead of relying on my interpretation (which isn't binding precedent since it's a General Cort-level decision, and couldn't become biding precedent under the Organic Law even if appealed to the Uppermost Cort because it couldn't get a three-judge panel after recusals), you guys could either revise the statute law to explicitly say the inactivity-retirement system is a Notice of Reprimand procedure requiring concurrence of 2/3rds the Cosa, or, alternatively, revise the OrgLaw to make the existing procedure unquestionably Organic.

What exactly you should do is, I think, too much a policy (and thus political) matter for it to be proper for me to make a specific recommendation.

But I do think the absolute worst place for there to be any obvious room for differing interpretations in Talossan law is over the question of who has the power and responsibility to definitively interpret Talossan law.

I realize that "the 49th parallel" is a common-enough metonymy for the US-Canada border, that parallel marking the longest section of that border.

But, in prosaic literal geographical fact, an absolute majority of the Canadian population lives in the parts of Canada south of the 46th parallel, never mind the 49th.

Non.

I am willing to continue to serve as as Cunstaval of Fiôvâ, but if King John's policy of appointing non-locals of provinces as their Cunstavals is being replaced by one of allowing locals as Cunstavals, I believe it quite likely that Fiôvâ's government would express a preference to have a local to replace me. So, in case of such a change in royal policy, I would recommend that you ask them to nominate a replacement for me.

Sure, I vote for the motion for Lüc da Schir to take the chair.

I note that there have been two Windows keyboards designed for Talossan, one by Ma la Mha (linked on the wiki here, using standard precomposed characters), one by me (among the many keyboards here, using Unicode's combining diacritics). The many other keyboards at the second link include some others also usable for, though not designed for, Talossan.

Present.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on June 13, 2024, 09:07:37 PM@xpb Considering the need for continuity on financial matters do you think there could be merit to transitioning financial matters toward a more Civil Service-like position? Legally combine the Finance Ministry and Burgermeister into a something like a "Treasurer of Talossa" with a long term of office but still overseen by the government of the day?

The Burgermeister is already a position in Talossa's civil service; there is no way to "transition" it to being any more "like" such a position.

As both a former Minister of Finance and as the longest-serving Burgermeister in Talossan history (nine of the nineteen years the position has actually existed), it is my considered opinion that adding some or all of the duties of the Minister of Finance to the position of Burgermeister (whether or not attached to a renaming of the position to "Treasurer") will not, in any way, actually make the job of Burgermeister easier to perform, make it easier to recruit people to be Burgermeister, improve the continuity of the position, or otherwise improve Talossa in any way.

Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on April 25, 2024, 03:30:40 PMThe members of the EC can expect to hear from me via email soon.

If this email has been sent, I have not received it.

Mmh. I have no good reason for disliking the proposed new name, but on reflection, for some reason, I just do.

So, a contra from me.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on April 13, 2024, 02:26:08 PMHearing no objection to this motion since its introduction over two weeks ago, should we regard it as having been given unanimous consent?

Sounds reasonable to me.

The first complication that crosses my mind is that on the early part of the list of current citizens, you have people from the era when citizenship was granted by legislative act, which you have a bunch of people who have identical first dates of citizenship because they were all on the same Clark. After Gjermund Higraff you have a two-way tie, immediately after that you have a three-way tie, and then there's another two-way tie.

Second, if it's by first date of citizenship, there's still a version of the "become citizen to become king" and "experienced, knows Talossan culture and has a track record of sticking around" issues -- someone whose citizenship lapsed long ago and re-citizenships.

These issues can even combine -- there were five other people who became citizens on the same Clark as Gjermund Higraff. If one (or more!) of them show up next week, theoretically you've got a tie for head of the line.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on April 11, 2024, 03:44:23 PMThat's a fair concern. Would a set time limit to veto be considered Organically-compliant? Otherwise the indefinite refusal of the King (and in our local case, the Cunstaval) to acknowledge the nation's existence would prevent anything from getting done.

To avoid prejudging the matter (since a time limit adopted by the province might be challenged before the Uppermost Court), I will simply point out that the last sentence of Article VII, Section 11 is "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."