News:

Welcome to Wittenberg!

Main Menu
Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Messages - Baron Alexandreu Davinescu

#31
As someone who recently had to review the law around this committee in detail, I think this is a great change to make. The existing stuff is fine and certainly well written, but simpler is usually better.

I'd love to co-sponsor this.
#32
I'll vote for Luc.
#33
I agree 100%.
#34
Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on October 20, 2023, 04:47:33 PM
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 20, 2023, 04:44:30 PM
Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on October 20, 2023, 04:33:50 PM
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 20, 2023, 04:25:40 PMI thought the rules meant that led to a flip of a coin, right?

There is no provision in the proposed rules for a flip of the coin in the event of a tie. I'm no expert in RCV, so I'm not even sure a coin-toss is an option.
Sorry, maybe I should have been reading more carefully... In a scenario where there's a tie and no tiebreaker, an equal division of a Cosa seat, Lexh.B.15 directs a coin flip. Maybe that should be included in the rules?

If all parties agreed I'd be agreeable to adding in something like this: In the event of a tie, the King shall conduct a live coin toss, witnessed by chosen representatives of the two candidates.

I actually kind of like the scenario that's been spelled out here, where a failure to form a coalition leads to another election. I know what happens in a lot of other parliamentary countries and I think it's very interesting and kind of cool. The fact that there's a month of legislating that can happen means that nothing would be paralyzed, and the fact that there's an incumbent government to continue in the meantime for another two months means that any disaster could be dealt with.

Fortunately, wiser heads than mine will be deciding this one for my party. I will put it out for them.
#35
Wittenberg / Re: Senäts SNAFU
October 20, 2023, 04:48:44 PM
For those unfamiliar, the spoons analogy is a common way for the disability community to describe their capacity to deal with events and decisions on a day-to-day basis. The basic idea is that you have a certain number of spoons each day, and everything you do costs you a spoon. And so sometimes you have to choose what can happen in a day, because you only have so many spoons. It's a very useful analogy so a lot of people have adopted it.

I definitely agree that we need to lower partisan tensions. I regret that my poor phrasing led to this. I tried to apologize as quickly as I could, to hopefully give him time to reconsider, but, yes, things are too tense in this situation. I know coalition negotiations are ongoing, but we should make efforts along these lines even if that doesn't work out.
#36
Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on October 20, 2023, 04:33:50 PM
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 20, 2023, 04:25:40 PMI thought the rules meant that led to a flip of a coin, right?

There is no provision in the proposed rules for a flip of the coin in the event of a tie. I'm no expert in RCV, so I'm not even sure a coin-toss is an option.
Sorry, maybe I should have been reading more carefully... In a scenario where there's a tie and no tiebreaker, an equal division of a Cosa seat, Lexh.B.15 directs a coin flip. Maybe that should be included in the rules?
#37
Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on October 20, 2023, 04:17:53 PM
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 20, 2023, 04:14:40 PMI mean, it's a vote of confidence in a government that doesn't exist yet. Calling a new election in the manner in which you suggest seems like it should either happen as a result of an immediate failure of a VOC on the second Clark, or because there is a new election called by dissolution as people affirmatively decide that no government can come together.

Organic Law is quite clear: "The Clark must contain, in every edition, a Vote of Confidence. Each MC may answer this question in his Clark ballot every month, either with a "yes" or a "no." If at the end of any Clark the "no" vote outnumbers the "yes" vote, the King shall dissolve the Cosa and call new elections."

It does not say if the Seneschal vote fails. It says if the no votes outweigh the yes votes, the King SHALL dissolve the Cosa. Show me where the wiggle room is in the law.
Yeah, that is pretty clear, I guess. I was reading this to assume that the vote of confidence was a vote of confidence in the Government, and so implicitly a new election has already been held about the legislature's confidence in the executive. But probably your interpretation is more direct, even if the results doesn't make much sense.

Okay.
#38
I thought the rules meant that led to a flip of a coin, right?
#39
I see your point, but how could a RCV vote fail? Won't there be some sort of winner, no matter how votes are arranged?

I mean, it's a vote of confidence in a government that doesn't exist yet. Calling a new election in the manner in which you suggest seems like it should either happen as a result of an immediate failure of a VOC on the second Clark, or because there is a new election called by dissolution as people affirmatively decide that no government can come together.

I mean, otherwise it doesn't seem like there's any point to having this RCV vote anyway, right? We should probably just get rid of it and go right to the former process, where we have new elections if no one can put together 101 seats before the first Clark is over. I guess that would allow for some legislating to get done if it was really pressing, so there wouldn't be total paralysis no matter how things turned out.
#40
Sure, that would be fine with me. Makes sense to do it all at once. We have collaborated on Justice stuff before, and I don't think we have any serious philosophical disagreements about anything in that regard. Your bill was posted before mine, so shall we just add my stuff to yours? I will work out legislative language probably tonight or later this weekend.
#41
Wittenberg / Re: Senäts SNAFU
October 20, 2023, 11:24:23 AM
Quote from: Sir Lüc on October 20, 2023, 11:07:40 AM
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 20, 2023, 09:09:05 AMAlso, common sense says that electing a leader from a group of eight people probably should try to wait for everyone.  There's no reason to rush and try to get it done when there are empty seats unless you're trying to exclude someone from the vote.

Eiric followed the Standing Rules of the Senate to the letter and performed admirably under messy circumstances. He wasn't trying to do anything you insinuated just now. If you have an issue with the rules, 1) get someone to propose a rule change; 2) blame it on me who wrote them in the first place.

The standing rules of the Senats certainly cannot overrule the Organic Law.  But also, while I'm not a senator, I don't see where they do oblige the election commence immediately.  "At the beginning" doesn't seem like it has to happen right after the election is over.  I mean, here the process started on 10/6, which is a day before the election was even certified -- I think, anyway.

But even if a strict reading obliged it to start after the election was certified, any rule can be ignored or waived by majority vote: wouldn't that be the move here, under these unusual circumstances?  I mean, as far as I can tell, that's what just happened, and it was the right move.

My basic point is not even that ESB did anything wrong, anyway -- I was making the more narrow point that waiting for the election was not establishing the precedent he was suggesting.
#42
Okay, so this is what I was thinking for civil law:

Add a 36 mo statute of limitations to civil claims.
Add provision to allow for motions for recovery of damages for nuisance or frivolous suits after a verdict has been rendered.
Add procedures akin to the criminal procedures:
-Lawsuit lodged
-Clerk assigns
-Notice served
-Prelim hearing and opportunity for arbitration; make sure to account for judge's discretion.
-90 days for amended petition or broader brief; make sure to account for judge's discretion.
-90 days to respond or else finding of summary judgment; make sure to account for judge's discretion.
#43
Wittenberg / Re: Senäts SNAFU
October 20, 2023, 09:48:33 AM
I think that's hasty, and you should hold off.  I apologize -- you're right, that did look I was implying that you personally were trying to exclude someone.  I'm not sure why you want to have an election so fast, but I have no reason to think that's the reason.  I shouldn't have phrased things in such a way that implied that was your motive.  I'm sorry.
#44
First of all, I want to change the nomenclature of the Clerk's office to be Clarqeu da Corts, which is I think the appropriate translation.  So I want to make that change throughout.

Secondly, since service is usually possible by the Clerk directly through private message, and I just realized I've been cutting out a step accidentally and we should formalize that:

10.1. The Secretary of State shall accept service of any complaints or claims to the Cort pü Inalt or General Cort of Talossa on behalf of all citizens. The Secretary of State shall email notice of said complaints or claims to the concerned citizen and affirm to the Cort that they did so on that date (the "date of service").

shall be amended to

10.1. The Secretary of State shall accept service of any complaints or claims to the Cort pü Inalt or General Cort of Talossa on behalf of all citizens, on request of the Clarqeu da Corts. The Secretary of State shall email notice of said complaints or claims to the concerned citizen and affirm to the Cort that they did so on that date (the "date of service").

Thirdly, I think I have implicit authority to specify the rough form for petitions, but just to make it clear:

4.11.  The Clarqeu da Corts may publish guidelines as to the appropriate forms for filing petitions before the Corts, and may reject petitions which fail to abide by these guidelines.  Such guidelines will be entirely subordinate and subject to the oversight and amendment of the Cort pü Inalt.

Fourthly, we need some civil suit protections.  The law has a lot of stuff about criminal suits, but we need a similar section for civil suits.  I'll get to that ASAP.
#45
Wittenberg / Re: Senäts SNAFU
October 20, 2023, 09:09:05 AM
Quote from: Eiric S. Bornatfiglheu on October 20, 2023, 08:50:52 AMThe idea that a Lord President cannot be elected unless all Senators are seated is a nonsense precedent

That's not the precedent.  The law says, "The Senäts shall, after every general election of a senator, choose one of its members to be the President of the Senäts" (Org.III.10).  I believe this very clearly states that the election for that office happens after any senator is elected in a general election.  It makes the most sense to interpret this as meaning that the election should wait if one of the election results is unsettled, because the general election of a senator would be pending.

Also, common sense says that electing a leader from a group of eight people probably should try to wait for everyone.  There's no reason to rush and try to get it done when there are empty seats unless you're trying to exclude someone from the vote.

Quote from: Eiric S. Bornatfiglheu on October 20, 2023, 08:50:52 AMIt would then be immensely easy to derail the Senats through a process of "strategic resignation."  Working under the assumption, as you and those who voted with you are stating, that the body should just... not conduct business if there is an absence.

A mid-session special appointment is not a general election.