I am *not* going to support any Ziu reform where we end up with uncontested elections for Cosa seats, the problem which has plagued the Senäts. Which makes me think twice about the "provincialisation" aspect of MMP.

On a tangent, the argument that we have a legislature which requires many more active and politically-keen citizens than we have has continually been batted back by the Seneschal with the response that we should just recruit more citizens. Well. The experience of the current Cosa is that there is not, in fact, a stream of people just itching to become Talossans that were being kept out by previous Governments' incompetence or malevolence. We can't immigrate our way out of inappropriate infrastructure.

Any reform which doesn't mean meaningful political competition to sit in the Cosa, combined with meaningful voter say over who precisely gets to sit in the Cosa, is IMHO not worth the effort.

Quote from: Françal I. Lux on May 05, 2026, 10:58:21 AMIsn't this, in practice, the current system we have now?

At the moment, at least 2/3 of the MCs have to be on a list of candidates that the voters saw at election time and approved of. I think it should be 100%. Because party leaders have just brought people into the Cosa who have no democratic mandate at all.

It's even less democratic when the party leader just picks the MCs, unrestricted by any list.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 30, 2026, 05:21:11 PMI'll note that there's not clear guidance on when MZs should vote to expel one of their members. 

I heartily endorse this event or product

So if the Government members think that the non-operative preamble to a bill "insults" them in a particular way, the Ziu should not be allowed to consider the bill?

Quote from: King Txec on April 30, 2026, 03:41:25 PMWe should be encouraging people, not limiting based on an arbitrary number like age.

Of course you'd say that, Methuselah

(for legal reasons, this is a joke, Txec is pretty much my age)

I do not think the CRL has the mandate to hold up a bill over a preamble which does not impact the bill's function.

BTW, I am actively offended by the idea of depriving younger citizens of political rights. Talossa started as a child's fantasy endeavour, and it is repugnant for adults to try to eliminate kids from something they started because adults can't be trusted.

But I'm in favour of age limits for being an MC, though. An upper age limit. We can't be like the "Boomers who won't let go", I think that once you hit 40 or something you should only be able to run for a Senäts seat

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 29, 2026, 04:56:50 PMFrom my (limited) research, though, it seems like the overhang can get pretty bad.

Not in the NZ system. I think this parliament we've had the biggest overhang ever (3 seats out of 120), because Te Pāti Māori won 6 of the Māori districts with 3% of the national list vote.

Quote from: Mximo Malt on April 29, 2026, 07:03:18 PMThen I just won't seek a second term, and I'd bet you'd loooooooooooove that! How bout them apples!?

Tell you what, Max, why don't you join the URL. We can mentor you.

We have seen in recent elections that many Talossans are confused or offended by ranked-choice voting for single seats (in the Senäts). Ranked-choice voting for multiple seats - while a great system in many ways - is far harder to explain to a hostile nation, especially its counting system.

The other problem with STV at a Talossan level is that either you'd have to divide the country into 3 or 4 voting districts (making gerrymandering possible), or elect 20 MCs at large, which would mean a "tablecloth ballot".

A possible simpler candidate-focused system would be that used in Kosovo, where you vote for a party and also for one person on that party list. So the seats are proportionate between parties but if a party gets X seats, they go to the top X individual vote winners

Quote from: Mximo Malt on April 29, 2026, 03:07:31 PM

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on April 29, 2026, 01:31:13 PM

Quote from: Mximo Malt on April 28, 2026, 06:03:09 PMWhen did we start doing this?

When did we start doing what, exactly?

Reduced Cosă seats

It is not a good look for potential voters that you apparently didn't have a good look at 62RZ11 before you voted on it

Another thing which has been glossed over so far is the other side of the coin re: "giving voters effective control over who sits in the Ziu", and that is making sure party seats (as far as practicable) go to candidates whose names were on the ballot and who the voters were aware of. Considering the Seneschal has previously talked about taking a Cort case to declare party lists unconstitutional, that's something we have to sort out right now.

The current standard of "maximum 33% off-list" is a bare minimum, perhaps with an OrgLaw amendment to render it constitutional to the Seneschal's standards. I'd prefer 25% or even 20%; I understand that some wiggle-room is acceptable.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 27, 2026, 04:44:12 PMlet's say that Party A won 50%, Party B won 25%, and Party C won 25%.  In a 20-seat Cosa, that's 10 seats for A, 5 seats for B, and 5 seats for C.  But if B won six of the provincial seats, then they'd have 30% (more than their share of the national vote) and so A and B would need extra until things were proportional.

You could do it that way, but that's the harder way. The simpler option would be to just live with the overhang. Let's say A and C both won 1 province. Then, Party A gets 9 party list seats (to sum up to 10) and Party C gets 4 seats (to sum up to 5). So that's a total Cosa of 21 seats. Party B gets a small bonus.

Yeah; while I like the MMP system there are simpler forms of personalised proportional representation. But, any Ziu reform which means actual control by voters over who sits in the Cosa would be great.

My country has used Mixed Member Proportional for more than 30 years and I think it works pretty well, ask me anything.

The simplest way to work it in Talossa would be to have one Cosa seat elected by each Province (8 seats) then the other 12 seats "topping up" to proportionality. So: say a party wins 2 provinces, but 40% of the vote. 40% of the vote entitles you to 8 seats. So: they also get 6 seats from the top of their party list.

There is a quirk called "overhang" which happens if a party gets *more* local seats than their party vote would justify - for example, if an Independent who didn't have a party won a province. Then that local seat is ignored when the party seats are handed out; which means there end up being "extra" party seats, in our case, more than 20. Not a big problem IMHO.

The only real issue I see here is that if you want to keep the Senäts as is, then you have each province electing an MC *and* a Senator, which seems otiose and redundant. The clear compromise here is: elect the Senäts differently. The best alternative I've hard so far is Lüc's suggestion of electing 4 Senators from the whole Kingdom at large every term.

Quote from: Alexandreu Soleiglhfred on April 20, 2026, 12:55:33 PMIs the ModRad spirit alive and kicking? :)

AFAIK, the Moderate Radical Party achieved all its political aims

No-one is suggesting that Breneir has committed any crime under Talossan or other law. If he had, we would have taken him to Cort. I think Glüc explained it perfectly in grown-up terms. But if you want it explained in ten-year-old terms: he said something creepy that upset our friend. Our friend's still upset about that. We don't see why we have to play nice with him if he doesn't make it right with our friend.

One of the problems with dealing with vesneir behaviour (and I should explain here, "vesneir" is the Talossan word for asshole) is that it can be very upsetting and annoying and deserve sanction, but not be a crime. The threshold for criminalizing behaviour should be very high. The proper response to criminal behaviour is the Law. The proper response to non-criminal vesneir behaviour is informal social responses such as social pressure, shunning, etc.

These are necessary and healthy ways of keeping a community safe. You've got to confront bad behaviour even if it's not a crime. And can I just give @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu deserved credit, here because I think it was his idea to put up a non-binding resolution to the Ziu that we could simply point at to indicate why Breneir is a nuisance and should be excluded from polite company until he changes his ways.

I believe Breneir can change his ways. All he has to do is to apologize to Lüc in a way that Lüc accepts, and this ends.

Quote from: Mximo Malt on April 16, 2026, 07:23:40 PMY'know, Mr. Montagnhă, I almost axed my citizenship because everyone was calling me a Nazi, but oh well. You do your own research.

Nobody called you a Nazi

With the greatest respect to Tric'hard, Talossa includes 14 year old kids, and Geek Social Fallacy #1 - "ostracizers are evil" - is cancerous to any community it takes hold in. There has always been an issue in Talossa with impunity for acting the verpa; indeed, that's an issue in most walks of life. So for me, this is something of an existential struggle for the "soul" of Talossa.

Tric'hard decided that imposing social consequences on an unrepentant sex pest condemned unanimously by the Ziu, and not backing down from it, was much worse than being an unrepentant sex pest condemned unanimously by the Ziu, and was ruining his fun. That's his prerogative. It's suggested that the URL might be in political trouble if a lot of people think like that. But if a lot of people think like that, then Talossa is perhaps not worth defending. I have spent near three decades in Talossa and "sticking to a principle no matter how unpopular it makes you" has generally served me well.

Nevertheless: apologise to Lüc in a way that Lüc accepts and this is all over as a public political campaign.