Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Today at 04:03:57 PMI thought if we presented our viewpoint, as well as discussed some of the damage you'd done, that would present you an opportunity to change your approach instead of just "hitting back." 

Change approach how, please?

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on Today at 01:15:56 PM(If it was, indeed, an attempt to negotiate in public, then it would never have worked without concrete signals of what the URL was supposed to do in response.)

There seems to be an issue here that the PA thinks that working with the URL would be doing us a favour (or even, rewarding us?) rather than something which would benefit Talossa with stable government. There seems to be no recognition that perhaps it is the URL that needs to be persuaded that a confidence/supply deal (rather than outright opposition) would be better for us.

I use risk online On Steam
I can set up a game
We need 6 players.

Mximo

The outcome of the vote was not a foregone conclusion, except inasmuch as character dictates destiny.  I thought if we presented our viewpoint, as well as discussed some of the damage you'd done, that would present you an opportunity to change your approach instead of just "hitting back."  It seems virtually certain that's not going to happen, since you don't seem to understand the situation, so I guess we're stuck with the status quo.

Thank you anyway.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on Today at 03:10:16 PMThe big problem would be the one revealed in the recent Maricopa Senäts election - most voters don't understand that you need to rank more than one choice to get best value out of your vote.

As an aside:

I intend to write a post mortem on this election just as I did for the most recent Census, but I can already tell you I was surprised at the voting patterns in Maricopa and wanted to include a few lines about it. It's not that people don't know how to use the Database for ranked voting either; Belacostă and Fiovă both run provincial races with ranked voting and they turned out just fine, for two elections in a row even.

But at the Senatorial level, nada. Increased partisanship, difference in instructions provided, number and affiliation of listed candidates - I don't know why, but out of four multi-candidate Senate races in the two most recent GEs, only two voters ranked both declared candidates, one in CZ and one in MA.

(Aside over, and sorry for momentarily going off-topic.)

Another way is to just have everyone who would be running individually be on the same pseudo-party slate, with a maximum number of seats per person, totaling to a contextually-appropriate number, and the rest going unfilled. I'll even pay that pseudo-party's fee.

For those really confused, here are possible ways of dividing Talossa into STV constituencies, given total population numbers.

Two constituencies:

North Talossa: KA+BE+FL+VD = 9 seats
South Talossa + Cézembre: CZ+FI+MA+MM = 11 seats

Four constituencies:

Northwest Talossa: BE+FL = 5 seats
Northeast Talossa: KA+VD = 4 seats
Southwest Talossa: FI+MA = 7 seats
Maritime Talossa: MM+CZ = 4 seats

I just ran the numbers, and I won't bore you, but given a 20-seat STV Cosa: whether you divide Talossa into 1, 2 or 4 constituencies, on the numbers of the previous election, in every case the quota to be elected on the first count would be something like 4-5 first preferences. So of course the single nationwide constituency would give small parties (without a narrow geographic base) the best representation, at the cost of making it near-impossible to count by hand rather than using a website. But, of course, candidates who don't get that would have an excellent chance of making it in if they get lower rankings from successful candidates.

The big problem would be the one revealed in the recent Maricopa Senäts election - most voters don't understand that you need to rank more than one choice to get best value out of your vote. (Eg., if you were a URL party line voter in this system, you'd have to vote every URL candidate 1-6.) One way around this would be an Australian-style system where you'd have to rank a minimum number of candidates for your vote to count, but that would probably just make people grumpier and more confused.

Fee payment status updated. The only missing fee is @Béneditsch Ardpresteir 's $5 Senate winner's fee.

I would also like to update on the status of certification. As of today, two commissioners have voted to certify with no notes. We will officially wrap up tomorrow.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on Today at 02:34:54 PM

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Today at 02:25:30 PMA greater focus on individuals would require moving away from party-based elections as they currently exist.

There's a way to get the best of both worlds, of which I'm a big fan.

Single transferable vote, or ranked-choice voting for multiple vacancies.

Oh, I'm aware. I'm personally a fan of approval voting since I think it's easier to explain and tally, and I linked a proportional approval voting calculator that I wrote myself earlier in this thread.