Gonna try to keep my answer a bit shorter on the third question. Cézembre isn't really being used by Talossa for it's natural resources. What we contribute to the Kingdom are the contributions of our citizens and it is up to each individual Cézembrean to fill that in to the best of their ability and make the most of their citizenship.

And of course, you don't need to be in politics to do so. Electing the best senator who casts the best votes and provides the best thoughts on legislation is just one small way to contribute.

On fixed term elections:

I'm not fundamentally opposed to this idea. I understand the concerns about holding the government to account if we remove the option of new elections, but the reality is that the time it takes for elections to be organised. If a coalition breaks down it still takes at least more than 2 months, potentially more than 3 before the VoC is failed, new elections are held and a cabinet is seated. Meanwhile, cosa terms itself aren't that long. We have multiple elections per year on average already, so even if a government does fail we dont need to wait that long for voters to have a chance to speak out again. Actually, I really like that under the proposed system the Ziu can basically replace the government midterm. This makes it more likely that we always have a functioning government, without holding additional elections that Talossa doesn't really need.

Again, however, the devil is in the details. The matter of who takes over when the VoC fails is a difficult question and I do see the concerns about just letting the leader of the opposition take over. (Although I also prefer the new definition of opposition over the one that depends entirely on the VoC.) Also as a general rule I dont like when an amendment is passed that requires additional legislation but without that additional legislation being presented yet. In this particular case I don't *think* the changes to the lexhatx will raise new issues, but I'm still not happy about the practice. This is why I abstained on the proposal.

Of course, the proposal has already passed the senate, so I'm not sure this discussion is gonna come up again next term.


Edit, in this thread: https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=3898.msg32756#msg32756, Dien also makes a good point about the implications for the EC.

On bicameralism:

I think there are two closely related reasons for why bicameralism is a good thing. First of all MC's represent a political party while senators represent a province.

Now (perhaps somewhat controversially) I don't think it is representing a province per se that is important here. After all most provinces have citizens of diverse political orientation and different interests and how can one person really represent all those different interests.

The important thing is that the dynamic is different. Because senators don't represent a party that gives them a bit more independence to offer a different perspective. (Of course that effect might not be as strong if a senator also happens to be the leader of a party ;) ) Furthermore the senate has no influence on the composition of the government, which allows people to vote for senators who don't belong to the party they think is most capable of ruling. It is not a give that the party with the best ministers is also the party with the best ideas for legislation, but the cosa elections don;t allow voters to separate between the two.

Secondly, while the cosa is elected every eight months, senators have longer terms. This delay means that if a party suddenly gets a majority in the cosa it will still take a few elections to also get a majority in the senate. This is a good thing, because it could prevent major changes from being enacted in the hype of the moment. Of course, if the country wants to go in a certain direction eventually a majority in the senate will also be elected on that basis and that is great, because that is how democracy works, but it takes a bit longer which gives some more time to reflect if a certain political direction is really a good idea.

Combined this means the Cosa and the Senate provide different perspectives. That is important because if you look at legislation from just one perspective, you might miss something. Over the years we have seen plenty of bills being passed that were rushed and flawed and needed fixing as a result, but weve also seen cases were one house passed a bill but the other house stopped it. To be clear, I'm not opposed to changes, and if a consistent majority of Talossans want the country to move in a certain direction it should, but it is a good thing to have checks and balances first.


That said, I don't think the current system always works as intended. Many provinces are represented by senators who are barely active, elected without opposition or because of blind partisanship. Provincially conducted elections don't always live up to democractic standards. Filling the cosa with active MZs is clearly a problem for several parties as well. So I'm open to reform. MMP sounds very good in theory, but the devil is in the details and if we don't pay very close intention you might end up with a system that's easily exploitable. The idea of an at large senate is also interesting, but again it greatly matters how this senate would be elected.

Whatever the outcome, if there is to be a new system it needs to have these checks and balances that bicameralism provides. Anything else I would not consider voting for.

Ah ok. I suppose that works. I was re-reading the bill and I was confused

I may have missed something

According to the proposal

QuoteA newly elected Ziu shall convene on the first day of the month after its general
election, to coincide with the publication of the first Clark. Its term shall be equal to
six Clarks, subject to the provisions elsewhere in this Organic Law. During its last
month, the King shall issue a Writ of Dissolution ending its term. Whenever the Cosă
may be dissolved, all its members shall resign.

The next clark would be May, so then the next writ of dissolution will be in October. (Anything else would be inorganic)

Also according to the proposal

QuoteThe King shall issue a Writ of Dissolution to dissolve the Cosă in the month of August
in odd-numbered Gregorian years, and in the months of April and December in even-
numbered Gregorian years. A Writ, once issued, takes effect only at the end of the
month in which it was issued, and may not be rescinded before it has taken effect.

It's 2025, so the next writ of dissolution will be in August. (Anything else would be inorganic)

???

That's 24:00/midnight CEST unfortunately. Still considerably more doable than 2:30 am.

Traditionally on election night, we'd gather in the discord for the broadcast of the Talossan Music Top 20. Of course it depends on Ians planning/availability

Don't think you'll need it, but good luck with your campaign! Let me know if you want to do a debate.

For the record, I requested Breneir remove his endorsement due to his unacceptable recent behaviour, which I did not want to be associated with. Unfortunately this request was denied.

I do not accept the endorsement, for personal rather than political reasons.

(To be clear I have no political or ideological problems with the Green party and if re-elected will judge their proposals on their merit same as for any other party.)

I'm running for re-election, mostly because I think my votes in the senate tend to be reasonably correct. Admittedly that argument might not be that convincing to voters who aren't me.



Just to recap the previous two terms.

Last election I said:

"If elected I will read every bill and vote on every clark. I will be independent and not blindly follow the instructions of any party or caucus. Most likely I won't do much else. I suppose this would be a marginal improvement over our current senate representation, but is it good enough? "

I did read every bill, but unfortunately I failed to deliver on my second promise as I did not vote on the third clark of the 60th Cosa. I had read the bills, but somehow I forgot to actually vote. My votes wouldn't have made a difference, but honestly that is no excuse. I'm sorry

I did stick to my pledge of being independent. I think I jugded every bill on it's merit without taking partisan politics into consideration.

Perhaps to make up for my blunder of not voting I did do more than promised on other areas. I wrote a piece of legislation which passed. As a result of which the election will end 2,5 hours earlier (midnight CET instead of 2:30 am CEST), allowing Cézembreans living in Europe a better chance of being awake for election night. Something I hope will tangibly improve the enjoyment of our elections by Cézembreans.

Additionally during the 60th cosa I was elected Mençei and as such served on the CRL. I won't claim to have been a particularly active Mençei but as a CRL member I did provide comments on many pieces of legislation and I think on a number of occasions I may have pointed out issues regarding legislation that were overlooked by others.



If re-elected I promise to accept the role of Mençei again if again there are no other candidates/volunteers for the position. I also promise to keep reading bills and commenting on them whenever I think there is a problem. I will keep judging bills on their merit and not follow the instructions of any political party or caucus. (Although I'm always open to hearing the concerns and opinions of Cézembreans when deciding how to vote.)

I am also considering to sponsor a sense of the Ziu to request the government to get Talossa off twitter. Other than that I don't expect to submit much (if any) legislation.

And finally I promise to really vote on every clark this time (whether you choose to believe that after my previous failure is up to you).


I don't really intend to campaign much. Of course if there are any pointed questions from concerned citizens or opposing candidates I will gladly answer them. I'm also more than willing to explain my vote on any bill I voted on during the previous term.

It's up to you to decide whether all this is good enough to be re-elected. It depends on what other candidates show up I suppose.

So eeh yeah you could vote for me again, or not. Whatever you think is best really

-Glüc

I'm immensely grateful to his Majesty for granting me this honour. As I told His Majesty via pm, L'Urderi dal Naziun is filled with some of the most brilliant Talossans, who played a large role in shaping the Talossa that I know. I hope to never let the order or His Majesty down.

Congratulations to citizen Miestră on her elevation to Damă del Grült Crutz and to Bråneu on also being admitted to the order! Very well deserved!

Quote from: Sir Lüc on February 27, 2025, 08:26:28 AMSenate candidates can now register themselves in this thread by simply stating so

so

Many thanks for your trust Your Majesty!

Many thanks!

I'm deeply honoured to be appointed by His Majesty to represent the crown in the province of Belacostă, but perhaps even more so at being recommended to His Majesty by some of the citizens of this province. There is no province I would rather be Cunstaval to, especially after you took the step of leaving your past name behind and adopting a name that is more representative of people and province. Belacostă is one of the most active and vibrant province in the country. Congratulations on your excellent new constitution!

It is my understanding that the role of the Viceroy is mostly to take a backseat, letting the citizens of Belacostă shape their own destiny, signing legislation when required and only intervening in the extremely rare case of the organic rights of Belacostans being threatened. Of course, if there is anything else you need from me, whether it be participating in some cultural initiave or relaying any particular requests to His Majesty, I'm very willing to comply. Just let me know. I will keep an eye on this forum, but if there's anything you think I've missed please tag me or send me a pm and if I should be absent for whatever reason, Sir Lüc should know where to find me.

-Glüc, Viceroy

20 Per
21 Aus
22 reluctant Per
23 Aus
24 Per

Not this bs again. Thank you for calling it out Ian