Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Today at 07:24:07 PMSo if the limit is 4.5% rounded down, then that means that there would be no new citizen seats if we switch to 20, right?  Since that would make them worth 5%?

The reasoning is slightly different (20 * 4.5% = 0.9, rounds down to 0) but yes. That would fix the swings you mentioned before.

QuoteI meant we can label the benefit I'm calling aesthetic as whatever you want to call it.  I'm not trying to be flip about it --  I was trying to move past that one point to get some more idea of the benefits we might expect from this bill.

It's a very simple bill. It sets the Cosă seats to 20 since I believe it would help empower MCs to act more independently, stops the practice of someone buying their way into power with literally no one else wanting them there, and yes, clears the way to a proper Real Cosă in the future. I'm not sure what further effects one would expect from a law of this caliber, but there you go.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Today at 07:14:01 PMThis bill is very simple, and makes use of the express provision in the OrgLaw to modify the number of Cosă seats without amendment. But on that topic, I have decided to post an amendment that fixes this problem as a separate bill in the Hopper, let me know what you think about it.

So if the limit is 4.5% rounded down, then that means that there would be no new citizen seats if we switch to 20, right?  Since that would make them worth 5%?

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Today at 07:14:01 PMI think we misunderstood each other. This bill is supposed to move the Cosă towards a proper parliamentary system. If this proves impossible for whatever reason and we are stuck with a pseudo-parliamentary pseudo-direct arrangement, a separate bill would be in order to get rid of the misnomers.

I meant we can label the benefit I'm calling aesthetic as whatever you want to call it.  I'm not trying to be flip about it --  I was trying to move past that one point to get some more idea of the benefits we might expect from this bill.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Today at 06:58:47 PMI know we've been "over it," but why not just pass a bill that fixes both problems at the same time?  You seem to be rejecting that out of hand, and I'm not sure why.

This bill is very simple, and makes use of the express provision in the OrgLaw to modify the number of Cosă seats without amendment. But on that topic, I have decided to post an amendment that fixes this problem as a separate bill in the Hopper, let me know what you think about it.

Quote

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Today at 06:33:15 PMEmpowerment of individual MCs and moving the Cosă away from a glorified block vote institution to a genuine parliamentary system is not simply "aesthetically pleasing in some ways". I am a supporter of parliamentarianism, I was under the impression that this country had a parliament. Unfortunately it doesn't, so I would like to get us there if possible. And if it's not possible, at the very least we could stop calling it a parliament if it isn't one.

Sure, we can label this however you want.  Are there other positive effects we might expect from this bill?

I think we misunderstood each other. This bill is supposed to move the Cosă towards a proper parliamentary system. If this proves impossible for whatever reason and we are stuck with a pseudo-parliamentary pseudo-direct arrangement, a separate bill would be in order to get rid of the misnomers.

Quote

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Today at 06:33:15 PMDo you think this is because of how complicated the concept of choosing a proxy is, or rather because provinces are geenerally devoid of life? I don't really understand your argument here.

The same point I made at the beginning: I think this liquid democracy sounds a little complicated for people to do, at least as it was described.  But I'd be interested to hear more.

I don't see how your assessment that being given a choice between claiming a seat directly and choosing a representative is complicated for voters has to do with the general sorry state of provincial activity in this country.

The system is genuinely really basic. Voters would have a choice of 1) claiming a seat, 2) choosing someone to represent them, or 3) neither. That's about it.

WHEREAS New Citizen Seats are currently limited to a maximum of 7.5% of party seats in the Cosă, and
WHEREAS this value makes it all but impossible to reduce the number of seats in the Cosă, calling to question this express possibility set out in OrgLaw.IV.2.1, and
WHEREAS the current limit of 15 seats for new citizens has never even remotely been reached,

THEREFORE be it resolved that OrgLaw.IV.4.2 is amended to read as follows:

QuoteThe maximum number of seats that may be assigned to new citizens between general elections shall be 4.5% of the seats apportioned between parties, rounded down to a whole number of seats.

Uréu q'estadra så:
Marcel Tafial

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Today at 06:33:15 PMOverrepresentativeness for its own sake is not a boon. We've already been over this, I fail to see how this is a significant con.

I disagree.  I think it's generally a good thing in a democracy for the legislature to resemble the voter's will as much as possible.  I don't think this is an insuperable flaw in the plan, but it is a con.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Today at 06:33:15 PMThat is independent of this bill. We have also been over this. You would need to pass an amendment to the OrgLaw to fix this, and if you were to post a bill to this effect to the Hopper, if in return this bill passes, I would support you.

Instead what I suspect will happen is that you would reject this bill because of your aforementioned swings, and then also reject an OrgLaw amendment to abolish New Citizen seats for some other reason. I would be happy to be proven wrong.

I know we've been "over it," but why not just pass a bill that fixes both problems at the same time?  You seem to be rejecting that out of hand, and I'm not sure why.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Today at 06:33:15 PMEmpowerment of individual MCs and moving the Cosă away from a glorified block vote institution to a genuine parliamentary system is not simply "aesthetically pleasing in some ways". I am a supporter of parliamentarianism, I was under the impression that this country had a parliament. Unfortunately it doesn't, so I would like to get us there if possible. And if it's not possible, at the very least we could stop calling it a parliament if it isn't one.

Sure, we can label this however you want.  Are there other positive effects we might expect from this bill?

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Today at 06:33:15 PMDo you think this is because of how complicated the concept of choosing a proxy is, or rather because provinces are generally devoid of life? I don't really understand your argument here.

The same point I made at the beginning: I think this liquid democracy sounds a little complicated for people to do, at least as it was described.  But I'd be interested to hear more.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Today at 06:18:20 PMThe cons of this change are significant, since it would make the legislature somewhat less representative of the vote

Overrepresentativeness for its own sake is not a boon. We've already been over this, I fail to see how this is a significant con.

Quoteand it would increase the risk of broosking and destabilize government somewhat more with surprise 5% swings.

That is independent of this bill. We have also been over this. You would need to pass an amendment to the OrgLaw to fix this, and if you were to post a bill to this effect to the Hopper, if in return this bill passes, I would support you.

Instead what I suspect will happen is that you would reject this bill because of your aforementioned swings, and then also reject an OrgLaw amendment to abolish New Citizen seats for some other reason. I would be happy to be proven wrong.

QuoteThe pros are that it would be more aesthetically pleasing in some ways.  Could we list some other positives from this potential change?

Empowerment of individual MCs and moving the Cosă away from a glorified block vote institution to a genuine parliamentary system is not simply "aesthetically pleasing in some ways". I am a supporter of parliamentarianism, I was under the impression that this country had a parliament. Unfortunately it doesn't, so I would like to get us there if possible. And if it's not possible, at the very least we could stop calling it a parliament if it isn't one.

Quote

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Today at 06:10:10 PMHow is "either claim a seat or choose a proxy" incredibly complicated when this is effectively already the system that M-M uses for its General Assembly? As great as our province might be, it would be careless to try and argue that the average Talossan is that much dumber than the average M-Mer...

Well, I think I can count the current citizens who have been members of the Assembly on one hand, and they're some of the most politically active people in the country.

Do you think this is because of how complicated the concept of choosing a proxy is, or rather because provinces are generally devoid of life? I don't really understand your argument here.

The cons of this change are significant, since it would make the legislature somewhat less representative of the vote and it would increase the risk of broosking and destabilize government somewhat more with surprise 5% swings.  These are real concerns that I have.  Less significant is that it would bar the smallest of parties like Garth's, although I'm still not happy about that.

I think it's generally neutral to me that it would increase the threshold to form a government by 4% of the vote, among other things.

The pros are that it would be more aesthetically pleasing in some ways.  Could we list some other positives from this potential change?

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Today at 06:10:10 PMHow is "either claim a seat or choose a proxy" incredibly complicated when this is effectively already the system that M-M uses for its General Assembly? As great as our province might be, it would be careless to try and argue that the average Talossan is that much dumber than the average M-Mer...

Well, I think I can count the current citizens who have been members of the Assembly on one hand, and they're some of the most politically active people in the country.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Today at 06:06:45 PMNo one's making you drink both... you can engage in a form of direct democracy and claim a tiny fraction of the Cosa, or you can engage in party politics and campaign.  You're complaining that the sheer availability of Pepsi is annoying to you.

I think we've probably strained that metaphor to the breaking point, but the essential point I'm making is that there's not much real harm done.

I'm not surprised you'd say that, you like the mixed drink after all. I meanwhile feel falsely advertised to.

QuoteThat sounds incredibly complicated for the average citizen, when we're already having trouble getting RCV to catch on, but it is neat.  Is there a way this might be feasible?

How is "either claim a seat or choose a proxy" incredibly complicated when this is effectively already the system that M-M uses for its General Assembly? As great as our province might be, it would be careless to try and argue that the average Talossan is that much dumber than the average M-Mer...

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Today at 05:55:52 PMTo sorta continue this metaphor, we don't currently get both. Or rather, we do, but not in the sense that everyone gets to choose either Pepsi or Coke for themselves, instead everyone currently gets a mix of both Pepsi and Coke at fixed ratios, so people who only like one of the two are left unsatisfied. And for me as a fan of Coke, it's especially strange to be served a mixed beverage like this when the bottles and dispensers, as well as the invitational flyers, are all labelled "Coke". It almost verges on false advertising.

No one's making you drink both... you can engage in a form of direct democracy and claim a tiny fraction of the Cosa, or you can engage in party politics and campaign.  You're complaining that the sheer availability of Pepsi is annoying to you.

I think we've probably strained that metaphor to the breaking point, but the essential point I'm making is that there's not much real harm done.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Today at 05:55:52 PMIt's similar to seat claiming in M-M, where people either claim a seat, or elect someone as their proxy. I'm not sure if this is the case in M-M, but proxies can also elect metaproxies for themselves, etc. In the end, you would have a Ecclesia of both seat claimants and representatives, which sounds like it would be right up your alley.

That sounds incredibly complicated for the average citizen, when we're already having trouble getting RCV to catch on, but it is neat.  Is there a way this might be feasible?

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Today at 03:49:30 PMI don't!  Saying I think it's good that we offer both Pepsi and Coke doesn't mean that I want to abolish Coke, it means that I think it's good we currently get to have both.

To sorta continue this metaphor, we don't currently get both. Or rather, we do, but not in the sense that everyone gets to choose either Pepsi or Coke for themselves, instead everyone currently gets a mix of both Pepsi and Coke at fixed ratios, so people who only like one of the two are left unsatisfied. And for me as a fan of Coke, it's especially strange to be served a mixed beverage like this when the bottles and dispensers, as well as the invitational flyers, are all labelled "Coke". It almost verges on false advertising.

QuoteIt's interesting there's other ways of having both direct and representative democracy.  Is liquid democracy simple?

It's similar to seat claiming in M-M, where people either claim a seat, or elect someone as their proxy. I'm not sure if this is the case in M-M, but proxies can also elect metaproxies for themselves, etc. In the end, you would have a Ecclesia of both seat claimants and representatives, which sounds like it would be right up your alley.