Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on Today at 12:02:08 AMThe citizen in question is free to submit an updated photo if they would like, yes. :P

Alright, whenever I'll get myself to take a decent photo, I'll send it over.

FWIW, this is still on my radar so that a bill can be Clarked in the Sixth Clark.

I'm currently beginning to draft something that incorporates both Litz's draft and what I assume is the general agreement that there should be a couple mailers during election time only - I'm thinking one mailer allowed immediately after registering, and one or two mailers allowed in the actual balloting fortnight, with perhaps an additional provision to have the Chancery keep a (read only, replies allowed on separate threads) running Wittenberg thread of mailers as they get sent out.

I thought about leaving more of it to statute, but the problem with a difficult compromise bill like this one is that we're each going to have parts that aren't our ideal, and it's important to put them out of reach of statute for it to be credible.

We also do big bills like this very regularly -- the OrgLaw just isn't that hard to modify if there's a real consensus behind the change.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on Today at 01:41:03 AMBut, @Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP , do you think this would authorise SPAV to be brought in by statute as well?

It would not. The phrasings used throughout make it clear that the system has to feature voting for and assigning seats to party lists in some capacity, which SPAV (as well as STV and other candidate-based systems) lacks. I'm generally pretty skeptical of enshrining the minutia of the voting system into the Organic Law directly, rather than deferring these details to statute.

The PA is likely to facilitate the passage of the original version of this bill with absententions while registering symbolic disapproval. If that does not happen then I will move forward with throwing this bill into the next Clark and prepare for "disreputable" comments when folks vote No or Aus and add another exhibit for the next election.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Today at 07:15:27 AMI'm not sure we'd want to block someone from doing that, though, especially considering the exact circumstances you're referencing: people conflicted out of their secretarial positions who are being returned to those positions.

Yes. A good point. I reiterate we also need to stop this paranoia-based style of legislating.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on Yesterday at 07:57:19 AMGreens will be educating voters on the Uniparty that has governed Talossa over the last few months. This will be an effort to counter the inevitable branding exercise by Talossa's grand coalition.

I don't usually look forward to elections these days as I think in Talossa they tend to bring forth negative personal qualities. This time is different. I am genuinely excited to  help review one of the odder Cosa terms in recent memory so a fast one is not pulled on less active Talossans.

I'm not sure we'd want to block someone from doing that, though, especially considering the exact circumstances you're referencing: people conflicted out of their secretarial positions who are being returned to those positions.

As to 62RZ25, the Freedom of Conscience Act, I vote a sad contra, since it's basically a good bill.  Throughout the drafting process, I objected to the fact that it seems to be unintentionally insulting His Majesty the King. I hope to see a new version that doesn't have this flaw.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on Today at 01:41:03 AMThis looks like good work. Only quibble here is:

Quote2. Each party shall receive a percentage of party seats as equal as possible to its percentage of the popular vote, but each party shall receive a whole number of seats, and in turn, the Secretary of State shall assign these seats to a numerically-ordered list of candidates nominated by that party. The Secretary of State shall assign seats by assigning a seat to the first person on a party's list. If the party won more than one seat, then the Secretary of State will assign a seat to the next person on their list, and so on until the end of the party's list. The Secretary of State will then return to the top of the list, and continue in the same manner until all of the party's seats have been assigned.

The party list being ranked is a pretty important detail. Consequent amendment to El Lexh 2.3 also:

Quote2.3 The ballot must also include, for each party contesting the election, a 50-word (or less) statement of the general aims and views of the party, and a list in numerical order of citizens to whom the party intends to award Cosa seats. If a party does not submit a candidate list to the Secretary of State before the election, the party leader is assigned all seats won, and seats which cannot be held by the Party Leader are forfeited.

Thank you!  It was a lot of work, since this change touches on a lot of things.

I have made the suggested changes, as well as adding the notations for any bit of statute being changed to make it easier to read.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on Today at 01:41:03 AMFinally, is there any appetite for adding something to El Lexh 2.3.2 which states that a party's internal processes for naming their candidates must allow and reflect the democratic input of members, and members have standing to sue in default of this?

I think that makes sense, but I just haven't had a chance to even begin to think about that.  I think it might surprisingly be one of the trickier things to do.  It's probably going to need to be an Organic change, since if we give free leave for laws that govern how parties work, then we'll need it to not be subject to easy change (since that would effectively make it a lot easier for a majority party to mess with their competition).  Maybe a specific list of standards that are necessary in party processes?