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?
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 02:59:06 PMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 23, 2026, 11:31:46 AMS:r Secretary,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.
I am Clarking the following: The Sentient Rights Act
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.
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 23, 2026, 11:31:46 AMS:r Secretary,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.
I am Clarking the following: The Sentient Rights Act