I vote as follows:

RZ1: Per
RZ2: Per
RZ3: Per
RZ4: Contra, for the reasons stated in the Hopper thread.
RZ5: Per
RZ6: Per
RZ7: Per, though I dislike the CJ title.
RZ8: Schmidt
RZ9: Per
RZ10: Per
RZ11: Contra
RZ12: Austanéu
VoC: Üc

Unless I'm missing something, the first option looks substantively the same as current law, except it eliminates the requirement that provinces certify their election results to the Chancery.

The first paragraph of the second option looks good to me, but I don't see the need for the second paragraph. The Chancery doesn't have responsibility for providing standards for and oversight of provincial elections under current law, so why add that (and only in the second option)?

A suggestion: it might be helpful to put together some content and methodology guidelines for the history project. For example:

* GV has gone to great lengths to use Talossan names even for people who never used Talossan names in Talossa, and whose non-Talossan names are widely used elsewhere (e.g. the official citizen list). Should this be an expectation for all participants in the project?

* I've done a fair amount of editing of history articles on Wikipedia, which has a "neutral point of view" rule. To what extent should we expect participants in this project to adopt a neutral or objective perspective on past events?

* To what extent should it be required to cite or attribute statements?

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on August 07, 2020, 08:29:38 PMProblem is that if the weed is good enough it'll be Mickey Mouse.

Now that's what I call a Magic Kingdom.

A modest suggestion:

Select the 59 Talossans who have been citizens for longest. Reduce that number to 26 (1+9+7+9) by lot. Allow each of the 26 to nominate three other individuals. Any Talossan who receives at least two nominations goes into a pool, but if the number of those is less than 30 then the 26 selected by lot get to make another nomination until the number is at least 30. The 30 are reduced by lot to 16 (7+9) who become the members of the college, then any members of the council of regency (UC) who are not already members by nomination get added as ex officio members. The senior judge of the UC presides over the college with the title of moderator.

Then you make the college assemble in person and lock them in Merrill Hall in Abbavilla until a new king is selected. After each unsuccessful ballot they send up red smoke from the chimney (does Merrill Hall have a chimney?). A successful ballot is marked by green smoke, and the appearance of the moderator of the college on the balcony of Merrill Hall (does Merrill Hall have a balcony?) to announce habemus regem!

Seriously, though, I do like the suggestion Eiric made.

I'm interested in participating as well.

This is why we can't have nice things.

Quote from: Eðo Grischun on August 05, 2020, 10:41:01 AMI might be remembering wrong, but wasn't that exactly how it used to work? I think one of the ModRad governments changed it from what you suggest to what we have now.

That's what I thought too, but I'm fuzzy on the details. I checked past versions of the OrgLaw on Wiki and at least as far as the Wiki versions go there was a change from exclusively Chancery-conducted elections to requiring the provinces to explicitly notify the Chancery if they want the election conducted by the Chancery in 2013. It may be that there were prior unsuccessful proposals that were different.

Quote from: Açafat del Val on July 20, 2020, 11:04:45 AM
However, even having suggested that change, I might recommend that Senate elections be re-federalized altogether.

Or as a compromise, allow the provinces to opt out of having the Chancery conduct their election, rather than requiring them to opt in. That way, the Chancery conducts the election by default. If a province has its act together and wants to conduct its own election, it can so notify the SoS. If there's been a "breakdown of provincial government" then no such notification will be provided and the SoS will proceed to conduct the election without needing to inquire into the status of the political institutions of each province.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on August 05, 2020, 09:19:11 AMAll of these caveats apply to the 6¤40 Cosă fee as well (if not doubly), don't they?

Yes, except for the fact that parties are typically groups and therefore the burden of a registration fee is split across multiple people, whereas the burden of a Senate fee is more likely to fall on an individual. I've long been skeptical of the registration fee for parties, too (back when it was $20 I proposed a bill to reduce it to $5, which was followed by Sir Alexandreu's successful proposal to cut it to $10). But the bigger point is that even if we think some kind of registration fee is unavoidable and that equity requires that senators or senate candidates share the burden somehow, let's not unthinkingly impugn the patriotism of those who might be impacted by the fee.

Quote from: Glüc da Dhi S.H. on August 02, 2020, 01:59:19 PMThis should probably be rewritten as we may have an elected Head of State already.

Perhaps:
* The King of Talossa shall be replaced by a regularly elected president.

Additionally, can the following options be added:

* The Hereditary Monarchy shall be restored.
* An Electoral College, which shall be independent of the Ziu, shall be established to nominate future monarchs.

One challenge in creating a list of options is that mode of selection, tenure, and powers (and number of holders, for the NPW) are different dimensions of the office and the interplay between them can dramatically influence one's order of preference. For example, a particular citizen might rank lifetime hereditary monarchy at the top of the list if the monarch is a "symbol of the nation" figurehead with no real powers, but far down the list otherwise. You could create a comprehensive list of options with different permutations of these dimensions but that could result in a very long list.

Quote from: Açafat del Val on August 02, 2020, 10:49:43 AM
If I were to stand for reelection, and if I were reelected as Senator, I would be happy to pay this fee.

I am evidently not so cheap and unpatriotic as my colleague from Maricopa; one would think that a Senator of Talossa should be honored and grateful to support his country financially.

Lack of patriotism is not the only reason one might have a problem with paying a fee to serve in the Senäts. A candidate who is, say, 15 or 16 years old might not have a means of paying online. For a candidate in a developing country, coming up with US$5 in cash as well as postage to mail it internationally may be a challenge.

About the bill itself (not a reply to you), I think the jab at the Senator from Maricopa is a bit petty to include in a statute proposed for enactment by the Ziu.

I don't understand the objection to the title "justice." As a title for a judicial officer, it's been around for as long as "judge" has if not longer (according to the Online Etymology Dictionary "justice" has been used in that sense since c. 1200, while "judge" dates back to only the mid-14th century). "Jurist" is a comparative newcomer (15th century) and is less specific: it can refer to any practitioner of law, such as a lawyer or legal scholar, not just a judicial officer. So I would prefer reinstating the JP title over creating a new CJ one. But I wouldn't vote against the bill just for that reason.

I stake my claim too.

Congratulations, D:r Nordselva. I'm sure the Chancery will be in good hands.