May God be with you, S:reu Axhairsegol.

+++

Paisios put estar corect!

S:reu Matselot campagnha per el Senäts American, es o volt restorniar noastra bel caþedral à nhoi, els Crestienours (pravoslavnici, 'cest isch ;)). Éu uréu q'o isch electat, es noi povent urar in la Cità dal Þeotosch.

Βούλεται ὁ Θεός!

DEVS VVLT!

In C'hríost,

MM

Hello, I would like to delete this account and renounce my citizenship. I am barely on it for personal reasons and I feel that it is best I leave thank you everyone for all the nice posts you have made

Bye

Vit

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 24, 2026, 02:42:05 PMIf possible, I'd like to open up some discussion on Ziu reform.  This has been a topic of perennial interest to many, and I think it might be smart to have a good-faith discussion about some possibilities that might be useful for us.  We just recently switched to a 20-seat Cosa instead of a 200-seat Cosa, but that doesn't fundamentally change that much.

A few things from my perspective, to begin:

• We should probably err on the side of preserving things like the Senats, as an important institution that has often been important to slowing down the pace of very significant legislation (without ever actually becoming an undemocratic block on it forever) and as a provincial representative.  So at least for me, I wouldn't want to make changes that would just be an obvious set-up to eliminating the Senats. 
• There are numerous good things we should try to achieve: proportionality, direct accountability, low barriers to entry, simplicity, intuitiveness, and ease of implementation.  Not all of these are equally important, but we should be honest about trade-offs.
• While we're a highly educated people, with 71% of our citizens holding some form of college degree, we have a majority of American-Talossans, and so most of our electorate is going to be familiar with our current system and then their own American one.  In recent elections, many people failed to use RCV even when directly and repeatedly instructed to do so.  Simplicity is going to be key!

Some people have been talking about Mixed-Member Proportional systems.  As best I understand it, this entails people voting for a candidate for their area and also for a party.  Each candidate wins based on the local vote, and then a big chunk of seats are divided up according to the national party vote.  Sometimes it's always the same number of seats, and sometimes it's a fluid number that varies depending on how many additional seats are needed to make the results very proportional.  There's also a version where the plurality party gets a "majority bonus" of extra seats.

So what are some ideas people might have about this system, or a different system that might work better?

When did we start doing this?

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 Yesterday at 02:59:06 PM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 23, 2026, 11:31:46 AMS:r Secretary,

I am Clarking the following: The Sentient Rights Act

Just FYI: this bill should not be accepted under the terms of Lexh.H.2.1.7.1, since it is too deficient in function to work.  In the time since it was proposed and placed in the CRL, that section of the law was amended by an intervening bill, and so it's proposing to amend a provision that does not exist.

Thanks so much! I have updated the El Lex amending references to account for The Blanking Blank Act.
@Sir Lüc S:r Secretary, please let me know if these changes prevent it from being Clarked and I will hold off until the fifth Clark.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 07:50:12 AMLexh.F.5.3.13 does not exist, so it cannot be modified.  This bill needs to take into account the changes from the Blanking Blank act, where we cleaned up F.5 among many other changes.

Hey thanks! Just updated the El Lex mentions.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 23, 2026, 11:31:46 AMS:r Secretary,

I am Clarking the following: The Sentient Rights Act

Just FYI: this bill should not be accepted under the terms of Lexh.H.2.1.7.1, since it is too deficient in function to work.  In the time since it was proposed and placed in the CRL, that section of the law was amended by an intervening bill, and so it's proposing to amend a provision that does not exist.

S:r Secretary,

I would like to reClark the following:

BHAID: Humanitarian Assistance to Sudan Resolution: https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=4993.msg41750#new

The text of the bill is mostly fine, but one of the whereas clauses has the clear implication that His Majesty is a strongman.  Since the bill's sponsor says that isn't what he means to say, I'd recommend removing that clause.