Quote from: þerxh Sant-Enogat on Today at 07:20:57 AMI would rather keep the provincial system, and set up a number of votes per senator, or a number of senators, according to the population of each province

Which overlooks the specific point I made:

Quotethe terrible problem we have at the moment where the majority of Senäts elections are uncontested because both the parties, and active citizens, are very unevenly distributed between provinces

Thank you -- I presume that the Pursuivant would have caught my mistake, but the reminder from a member of the public is welcome.  Indeed, the use of purpure is discouraged, and the Pursuivant should thus discourage it.

-SVA

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on March 15, 2025, 02:41:09 PMThank you for your request, which is in good order.  Purpure is a lovely tincture, and I am sure can be accommodated.  The Oblivious Auditing Fellow, @Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat , is assigned to handle this request.

-SVA

Ahem...I hate to interrupt but my request for purple when I began the process was denied due to it being considered a royal color so I had to settle for blue. Just my two cents worth. I admit I know nothing about proper design etiquette

Azul, I thought I would summarise and comment on the Atatürk/Florencia provincial vote issue outside of the polling thread, as I have now investigated the issue more in depth.

Two voters (Antaglha and Mximo) reported issues with casting their provincial vote:

- In Antaglha's case, the issue was that the PRESENT box was impossible to deselect in the specific combination of settings (strictly write-in vote with a text field) that is used by Atatürk and Florencia's provincial ballot spaces. This was indeed a bug; it was immediately corrected and her vote was amended to reflect her original choice. I have no reason to believe any other vote was lost or miscast because of the original bug.

- In Mximo's case, the claim was that the database would ignore the write-in vote and mark it down as PRESENT. While I thought it could be a plausible bug, I later found no issues with the code, except that the PRESENT box was checked by default, which if not manually unchecked would lead to the vote being ignored. So this was no bug, but it definitely was poor UX implementation, which I apologise for; this was fixed yesterday at around 2 PM TST, and the PRESENT box is now UNchecked by default for this type of race.


However, I am still worried that the initial UX implementation led some people to fill in their provincial vote without unchecking the PRESENT box. Therefore, I will be contacting four voters of Atatürk and Florencia who cast provincial ballots via the database between the Antaglha bugfix and approx. 2 PM TST yesterday, when the UX change was made, in order to confirm their vote.

Quote from: Sir Ian Plätschisch on Yesterday at 03:48:29 PMJoin us on Discord to help us count down the 2025 Talossan Music Top 20.

Tuesday, April 1
15:00 Talossan Time (two hours before election results)

I plan on joining in!

-Txec R

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on Yesterday at 06:52:02 PMJust butting in here, but since this is the only Senäts debate going on: what would your attitudes be to the proposal which I think the current SoS has previously championed, i.e. a "deprovincialised Senäts" with 4 (or 3?) Senators elected every Cosa term on a Kingdom-wide basis? That would surely deal with the terrible problem we have at the moment where the majority of Senäts elections are uncontested because both the parties, and active citizens, are very unevenly distributed between provinces

I would rather keep the provincial system, and set up a number of votes per senator, or a number of senators, according to the population of each province

Quote from: Béneditsch Ardpresteir on Yesterday at 08:57:15 PMMY VOTES

1.  61st Cosă : PROG
2.  N.A.
3A. 60RZ06    : ÜC
3B. 60RZ21    : Non
4.  Maricopa  : ÜC. I would like to have a seat.

You vote has been entered; here's the receipt.

MY VOTES

1.  61st Cosă : PROG
2.  N.A.
3A. 60RZ06    : ÜC
3B. 60RZ21    : Non
4.  Maricopa  : ÜC. I would like to have a seat.

Just butting in here, but since this is the only Senäts debate going on: what would your attitudes be to the proposal which I think the current SoS has previously championed, i.e. a "deprovincialised Senäts" with 4 (or 3?) Senators elected every Cosa term on a Kingdom-wide basis? That would surely deal with the terrible problem we have at the moment where the majority of Senäts elections are uncontested because both the parties, and active citizens, are very unevenly distributed between provinces

One issue with the senate in its current form I forgot to mention earlier (although it has been mentioned many times before) and which is a big reason I'm open to reform is that provinces all have the same (1) number of senators, but different number of citizens. That means that citizens in smaller province are relatively better represented in the senate.

That is unfair in itself but it also has unfortunate side effects for the provinces, because we now are forced to design these so that they all have roughly similar immigration, or risk representation becoming even more skewed. In particular, there are good arguments to be made that certain provinces could become more vibrant if they merged, but this always causes an immediate problem because then the citizens of those provinces would give up half of their representation in the senate. Regardless of what direction we want to go with provinces, this debate is always gonna be overshadowed by 'what does this mean for national politics' and that's really not great.


But again, while I'm open to reform, any new system needs to find a way to include these checks and balances that having two house of parliament provides, so straight abolishing the senate with no replacement wouldn't be something I'd support.