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.

Lexh.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.

Just a quick reminder that the Seneschal is standing in for the vacant A-X seat on the Committee, pursuant to Lexh.D.2.1.

I'm of the opinion that the former of the two methods (the one Miestra describes) is better. As much as Germany's newer method fixes the size of the legislature, and while I did mention that I like that sort of thing on principle, I don't like the idea of a constituency being represented by someone who didn't really win it.

An easier way to describe that method might be to say that the size of the Cosa is increased by a number of seats equal to the total number of overhang seats won. In this example, Party B wins one overhang seat, and is the only party to do so; the Cosa is therefore 21 seats for the term.

I should note that using ranked-choice voting for the provincial seats instead of first-past-the-post would also reduce the odds of overhang seats occurring. A candidate that secures a majority of the vote in a province is more likely to come from a party that has a broader base of support nationwide.

I do notice that in his most recent post, the Baron appears to have glossed over the issue of double-representing provinces in the Ziu. While I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume this was an oversight on his part, in the event it was intentional, may I reiterate for the benefit of him and his caucus that the method proposed by Sir Luc does not eliminate the Senats' existence or even alter its powers, simply the method by which it is elected.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 04:28:40 PMHe was quoting Mic'haglh, I believe, who called the current oath an "Orwellian practice."

Yes, I knew that.

-Txec R

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on Yesterday at 05:55:36 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 04:44:12 PMlet's say that Party A won 50%, Party B won 25%, and Party C won 25%.  In a 20-seat Cosa, that's 10 seats for A, 5 seats for B, and 5 seats for C.  But if B won six of the provincial seats, then they'd have 30% (more than their share of the national vote) and so A and B would need extra until things were proportional.

You could do it that way, but that's the harder way. The simpler option would be to just live with the overhang. Let's say A and C both won 1 province. Then, Party A gets 9 party list seats (to sum up to 10) and Party C gets 4 seats (to sum up to 5). So that's a total Cosa of 21 seats. Party B gets a small bonus.

Yeah, that's the original MMP system that is still in use in New Zealand. What AD mentioned are called compensatory seats and Germany moved to a system with compensatory seats because the Constitutional Court ruled that the old system was unconstitutionally disproportional (mainly Bavaria's fault), which in turn lead to ever bigger parliament sizes... the system we use now caps parliament size at 630, and abolishes overhang seats entirely: now, if a party wins more constituencies than their party vote would justify, the candidates that won by the narrowest margin simply don't get in, meaning some constitutuencies (IIRC again mainly Bavarian ones) not having a local representative.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 04:44:12 PMlet's say that Party A won 50%, Party B won 25%, and Party C won 25%.  In a 20-seat Cosa, that's 10 seats for A, 5 seats for B, and 5 seats for C.  But if B won six of the provincial seats, then they'd have 30% (more than their share of the national vote) and so A and B would need extra until things were proportional.

You could do it that way, but that's the harder way. The simpler option would be to just live with the overhang. Let's say A and C both won 1 province. Then, Party A gets 9 party list seats (to sum up to 10) and Party C gets 4 seats (to sum up to 5). So that's a total Cosa of 21 seats. Party B gets a small bonus.

Okay, so it seems like there's a lot of offers of help with figuring this out.  I think I have a sense of my caucus, and I think I can say that there would be flat-out no real support for anything that gets rid of the Senats unless it was demonstrably better in very specific and practical ways.  My strong suggestion is that we focus on versions of this that would work with the Senats, not eliminate it, if we want to come up with something that has broad support.

So looking at the nuts and bolts here, we could:

• Elect a senator from each province at the current interval.
• Elect an MC from each province every election.
• Choose a party as well.

It doesn't seem like this would interfere with RCV for the Senats at all, and it seems like we'd have enough people for this, right?

Miestra has proposed that we'd add however many seats necessary to ensure that the results would be proportional to the vote.  But that's a question of degree, right?  Like... let's say that Party A won 50%, Party B won 25%, and Party C won 25%.  In a 20-seat Cosa, that's 10 seats for A, 5 seats for B, and 5 seats for C.  But if B won six of the provincial seats, then they'd have 30% (more than their share of the national vote) and so A and B would need extra until things were proportional.  How does that look?  How close would things need to be?

He was quoting Mic'haglh, I believe, who called the current oath an "Orwellian practice."

This prospective has not made a post on Wittenberg within a month of their introduction.  In accordance with Lexh.E.4, their application process is hereby terminated. @Minister of Immigration, please take notice.