I think we're both in perfect agreement that His Majesty is not a strongman.  And you already have made it clear that you didn't mean to suggest otherwise.  But several people, including His Majesty, reached a different conclusion when they first read the bill.  This is probably because of the nature of the phrase "His Majesty's Government."

My preference would be for you to fix the wording of the whereas clause in question, so that it more clearly expresses your meaning.  It's a problem with the form of the bill that the wording doesn't match your intent.  That's the only concern I have, since otherwise the bill is fine in form and function.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on Yesterday at 11:21:40 PM@Sir Lüc , please forgive the early tag; as I will be travelling tomorrow for a funeral I may not be on Witt much. However, in the event the CRL does not inappropriately delay the Freedom of Conscience Act outside their limited scope of responsibility, I would ask that you add it to the Clark once it receives the requisite approval.

Rest eternal to your loved one.

Quote from: Alexandreu Soleiglhfred on April 21, 2026, 01:06:26 PMI will try to send a mail your way.

Sure. Do you have my correct email (hotmail not gmail)?

@Sir Lüc , please forgive the early tag; as I will be travelling tomorrow for a funeral I may not be on Witt much. However, in the event the CRL does not inappropriately delay the Freedom of Conscience Act outside their limited scope of responsibility, I would ask that you add it to the Clark once it receives the requisite approval.

I'm going to give the Government the benefit of the doubt here for a second and discuss this under the assumption that their issue with this bill is based on an appallingly-severe lack of reading comprehension, as opposed to the sort of blatant misrepresentation that has become common on their part. So let me start at the beginning.

His Majesty is a constitutional monarch. He is by leaps and bounds the most scrupulous monarch this country has ever had when it comes to respecting his constitutional boundaries and duties. I do not believe he is a strongman.

Constitutional monarchs "reign, but do not rule", as the saying goes. Consequently, since I believe he respects his role, I do not believe HM "rules" over Talossa at all, in a strongman fashion or otherwise. (Though in the colloquial complimentary sense, I would absolutely agree that he "rules".)

It is baffling to me that someone could read this bill, see that it removes the reference to His Majesty's government from the oath of citizenship, and honestly conclude that the bill says His Majesty is the one guilty of strongman tactics.

Frankly, the fact that the current Government is hellbent on keeping new citizens bending the knee to them is all the more argument in favor of the bill's value. Instead of saying "yes, condemning autocracy and removing parts of Talossan law that smell of it, however small they may be, is something we are on board with", they decry this bill's pro-liberty values as inappropriate for legislation; "some political message". Where, exactly, is political messaging more appropriate than the nation's legislature?

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 07:26:43 PMWe use RCV for the Senats, but I don't know how you have parliamentary democracy without party politics.  Also that might be a bridge too far for right now.  I don't know, though?

Parties will always exist, but I guess it's a matter of how institutionalised they are.

With the current closed party list voting system, parties are strongly institutionalised, and ultimate power ultimately rests with party leadership.

With a more open and direct voting system, hopefully power would be transfered to the voters and the MZs they elect, regardless of party affiliation (if any). I've spent several years researching proportional voting systems that do not require strongly institutionalised parties to function, and I feel like they might bring a positive change to the current culture.

We use RCV for the Senats, but I don't know how you have parliamentary democracy without party politics.  Also that might be a bridge too far for right now.  I don't know, though?

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on Yesterday at 04:06:49 PM

Quote from: Mximo Malt on Yesterday at 03:07:31 PM

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Yesterday at 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

Then I just won't seek a second term, and I'd bet you'd loooooooooooove that! How bout them apples!?

Quote from: Sir Ian Plätschisch on Yesterday at 04:37:23 PM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 26, 2026, 05:49:25 PMI know that we keep citizenship eligibility at 14 for historical reasons but we should consider a minimum age limit for being an MZ. I would suggest 18 or 21 (if this does not run afoul of the OrgLaw). If we are serious about making  structural improvements to the Ziu then it might be worth considering whether 14 or 16 is generally just too young to effectively participate in national decision-making.

ADDED: I mean no offense to our youngest citizens but wanted to broach the topic.

In my humble opinion, this would be terrible.

I totally get why we might not want to have minors here at all (even though it would be unfortunate given our founding), but assuming they are here, why would we not want them to participate in the thing most people find the most interesting? The stakes of "national decision making" are, all things considered, much to low to allow for that.

First, thanks for responding Ian.

I actually do support a higher minimum age for citizenship, I do suspect though, for some, it is a non-starter. But there are other ways for our youngest citizens to be involved...political parties could still accept them as members, etc. Honestly, the proposal comes from observing recent events as I think the actions of a few of our younger members of national politics have been motivated by immaturity. A period for participation as an observer for those between the ages of 14 and 16 or 18 would allow for some learning and maturation before entry into the nation's parliament. I do not think it is a good idea to throw 14 years (especially) into a nation's political fray as soon as they are citizens.

This might be a nonstarter but does the system have to be party-focused? Have we considered transitioning to a candidate-centric voting system for the Cosa?

I would argue it would eliminate many of the issues we're having as far as accountability and party transparency. If we use a system like Single Transferable Vote for example, we can elect individual candidates based on their merits instead of voting for a party who then decides which candidates to give seats to. I imagine this would reduce the propensity of MCs to vote solely based on party interests as they would be directly accountable to the electorate and it would allow citizens to split their votes if they choose instead of being forced to side with one party and tacitly endorse everyone on the list regardless of preference.