I will be out of pocket for a bit prepping for a couple of events:

6 June https://www.worldquizzing.com/
I encourage all Talossans to take part!

13 June https://www.redbull.com/us-en/events/red-bull-soapbox-denver/
I'm on team Cyclepathz with the GONE-DOLA
TBD what the live stream link may be

BTW, I fear the Baron might have a wrong idea that I/the URL are "out to get" the Senäts. I do not have a principled opposition to bicameralism, though I come from a country which gets along fine without it. But I consider competitive elections much, much more important than the main feature of bicameralism (limiting the legislative power of a Cosa majority). Without competitive elections, democracy is replaced by "whoever puts their hands up", a self-selecting oligarchy. I would give up every Upper Chamber in the world to promote competitive elections. An Upper Chamber is for me a luxury that we are paying a very heavy price for.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Yesterday at 05:52:23 AM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 01:59:48 AM(b) will this disadvantage the interests of my voter base, which is usually fairly broad but not very intense with active support, when compared to a voter base that is very intense but not as broad?

I'm not sure what this means, or how a candidates-based voting system would do anything like that.

What the good Baron means is that his party is less able to recruit candidates before elections to put on the ballot, because his voter base is less politically active. So any electoral system where people vote for nominated candidates rather than just a party "brand"/leader would be disadvantageous to him, and a system where a party leader can assign seats at their own pleasure is the most advantageous.

But what I really want to know is - would the good Baron agree, if this amendment were passed, that party lists as established by law would be indisputably Organic and enforceable? If not, there's not much point.

And this has absolutely no relevance to the Senäts, even by the most paranoid reading.

Stage 14 Aosta -> Pila

Today was the most challenging mountain stage so far this giro, taking place in the autonomous region of the Aosta Valley, near the border with France and Switzerland. The stage had the potential to shake up the general classification quite a bit. A break including Rubio (CFA), Arrieta (CHX), Ciccone (ITW/BDC/CHX), Garofoli (GHS), Narvaez (REX/VFL/MMM) and Christen (REX/BDC/VFL) scored points along the way but never got enough space to make it to the finishline once the GC favourites started going on the final climb. Narvaez did get enough sprint points in the intsprint to take over the lead in the points classification and the Maglia Ciclamino.

 Along the way we got bad news for Els Talossaes Rexhital and the Menceis as Scaroni woke up with a fever and had to drop out.

In the end it was Vingegaard who showed why he was the favourite as he won the stage with a 50 second margin and becomes the new leader in GC with a 2,5 minute lead over the current number 2. By winning the stage he also scored enough KOM points to take a near unassailable lead in the KOM classification. Gall (REX/VFL) came in second and also did well in GC. Hindley (BDC/GHS), Piganzoli (GHS/MMM), Pellizzari (CFA/VFL/MMM/CHX), Arensman (ITW/BDC/GHS/VFL) and Storer (REX/GHS/VFL) took places 3-7 and are all placed somewhere in the top 10 now.

Another big stage win for GHST, who now take the lead in the standing for the first time. They most likely have a big lead in virtual end of tour points as well and more riders seriously competing in the GC stages. It would now require a massive upset for them to be overtaken by any of the other teams, although we still have a full week to go where of course a lot can happen. Els Talossaes Rexhital had a pretty bad day and drop from first place and may well drop even further. BDC were the best of the rest and gain two places in the standing. Unfortunately Cézembre Fiescha keep falling even further behind.


Standings after stage 14:

Pos	±		Team	Pts Ove	Pts Today
1st	(+1)		Gordon Hiatus Support Team (GHS)	4610	+913
2nd	(-1)		Els Talossaes Rexhital (REX)	4237	+422
3rd	(=)		Maritiimi-Maxhestic Mençeis (MMM)	4221	+634
4th	(=)		Velociposse Florencia (VFL)	4044	+635
5th	(+2)		Cézembre Caçeirs dals Mailintzarăs (BDC)	3856	+705
6th	(-1)		Team In The Wind (ITW)	3786	+517
7th	(-1)		Cyclohexane (CHX)	3768	+519
8th	(=)		Cézembre Fieschā (CFA)	2368	+495

Tomorrow a flat stage and almost certainly a sprint. The finish is in Milan. Will Milan be first at the finish?

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 01:59:48 AM(b) will this disadvantage the interests of my voter base, which is usually fairly broad but not very intense with active support, when compared to a voter base that is very intense but not as broad?

I'm not sure what this means, or how a candidates-based voting system would do anything like that.

Stage 13 Alessandria -> Verbania

A day for the breakaway, but unfortunately once the initial attacks settled Mirco Maestri (CHX) was the only TCAT rider among the 15 leaders. He finished a distant 12th and +1'48 behind the winner. The peloton essentially chose to pace and conserve energies for today's upcoming mountain stage, ultimately finishing a whopping 13 minutes down.

Despite Maestri getting a few points, Cyclohexane gets beaten by Gordon Hiatus Support Team by just one point for today's stage win. Since only Maestri, Arensman and Bernal got (very few) stage points, we got an extremely low scoring result mostly made up of assist and daily classification points - which is usually good news for the virtual leader because that's one less stage to make up the difference.

Standings after stage 13:

Pos	±		Team	Pts Ove	Pts Today
1st	(=)		Els Talossaes Rexhital (REX)	3817	+77
2nd	(=)		Gordon Hiatus Support Team (GHS)	3697	+136
3rd	(=)		Maritiimi-Maxhestic Mençeis (MMM)	3587	+96
4th	(=)		Velociposse Florencia (VFL)	3409	+92
5th	(=)		Team In The Wind (ITW)	3267	+81
6th	(=)		Cyclohexane (CHX)	3249	+135
7th	(=)		Cézembre Caçeirs dals Mailintzarăs (BDC)	3149	+100
8th	(=)		Cézembre Fieschā (CFA)	1873	+64

Today's stage should be much more consequential. It's just 133km (80ish mi) but chock full of climbs, perfect to see some action among general classification riders. Good chance of big scores and big swings in TCAT and GC; the kind of stage that can make or break an edition. Be sure to tune in for the results.

So I'm sympathetic to the overall aim, for sure.  My main questions are (a) will this just smooth the way to getting rid of the Senats, and (b) will this disadvantage the interests of my voter base, which is usually fairly broad but not very intense with active support, when compared to a voter base that is very intense but not as broad?

Here is an alternative text of Amendment One, which would enable (but not mandate) an open-list system: that is, one where voters would have the option to choose specific candidates from one party list, or from more than one, depending on the details of the law. @Françal I. Lux and @Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP, is this something on which we can get cross-party consensus, and then perhaps figure out the details in the next Cosă?

The bit about the King being able to fill vacancies is there to avoid the "loophole" which is asserted to exist under the current provisions; i.e. a party can assert the right to give seats to whoever it wants if it can't fill the seats legally (making it quite easy to simply flout the law). Allowing the King to step in seems a middle ground between that and just keeping the seats vacant. It's a compromise which I'm happy to remove if it's not necessary.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT ONE: ENSURING THE ORGANICITY OF PARTY LISTS AND THE POSSIBILITY OF AN OPEN-LIST SYSTEM

OrgLaw IV.2 to be amended as follows:

QuoteBased on the final results of the General Election, the Secretary of State shall calculate the apportionment of seats among the parties, hereinafter referred to as "party seats".

    1. The party seats shall total 200, or another number which may be set by law, with the provisos that any such change will not take effect until the next election following the passage of a calendar year; and that this number may never be less than twice the number of Senators minus one.
    2. 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 candidates nominated by that party, in accordance with law. Any seats which cannot be assigned in accordance with law may be filled by the King according to his own best judgment, or left vacant.
 3. The Secretary of State shall employ whatever mathematical formulae and calculations in the apportionment of seats as are set by law, or, in the absence of such law, as will best reflect the intentions of this Organic Law. The Uppermost Cort shall be the final judge in case of mathematical disputes.
    4. Only registered political parties may obtain party seats. Parties which win votes but are not registered may not assume their seats in the Cosa until they register. The process to register a party shall be defined by law. The Secretary of State may request from all parties a registration fee, to be set by law, to cover the cost of the election. This fee shall be uniform for all parties.

OrgLaw IV.3 to be amended as follows:

QuoteIn the case of vacant party seats occurring between elections, the Secretary of State shall inform the King and the leader of whatever party held the vacant seat. The Secretary of State shall assign the seat to another candidate of that party, in accordance with law. If this is not possible, the King may assign the seat according to his own best judgment in accordance with law, or otherwise leave the seats vacant.

Unfortunately the Sentient Rights Act has failed again. I know some may think it an odd hobbyhorse but it is regrettably the frontier of rights-formation and recognition. Because it is connected to a fundamental belief I will continue to promote and resubmit it. And with patience, trust that with time and wisdom my fellow Talossans will get there eventually.

May speciesism suffer the same fate as racism, homophobia, classism, and all the other -isms that continue to afflict the world.

Quote from: Sir Lüc on May 21, 2026, 02:33:10 AMI think at the very least there should be one for the Sixth Clark, which could include a live Royal Assent and Dissolution ceremony. (EDIT: but this requires an official Living Cosa, since otherwise business would not actually be over at the end of the session, so planning ahead is necessary!)

However, recent turnout has been discouraging, with the official opposition completely unrepresented in recent sessions and the Government only ever represented by the Seneschal. I really hope we can get to a better turnout, especially since the First Clark live debates were such a success, but I understand timezones are a challenge.

Good to see you around @Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be There is a draft Florencia constitution awaiting your comment in another thread. :)
@Sir Lüc There will be at least one member of the Opposition in attendance should we manage to convene a live session for the fifth or sixth Clark.