Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Today at 09:18:41 AMNo one's saying that people aren't smart,

It may not seem like it to you, but whenever you dismiss a voting system that lets voters have more say than just selecting a logo as "complicated", it comes across as incredibly condescending, and as if you don't trust people to even have that much of a say to begin with.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Today at 09:18:41 AMThis is because the majority of Talossans aren't party activists or legislators or even very present on Wittenberg, and there's no forcible penetration of Talossa into their daily life. [...]

I don't know what your perception of the average German or the average Australian for that matter is, but we're not all party activists or legislators or even politically active either, and it still works somehow. Why might that be? Elections are voluntary in Germany, so the fact that being Talossan and participating in Talossan elections is also voluntary is not a satisfying answer, either.

Perhaps the problems run deeper than just Talossa being a voluntary association, when we have voters whose only contribution to the country is showing up every 9 months to submit a copy-pasted partially invalid public vote in the voting thread. Perhaps it would benefit the country if we made more of an effort to educate voters on the powers they have. But, I don't know.

No one's saying that people aren't smart, but you're not recognizing the facts on the ground.  Voters do have trouble with big changes to systems, and even years after we introduced RCV and despite explicit appeals from party leaders, a lot of people don't use it even when it would better represent their interests.

This is because the majority of Talossans aren't party activists or legislators or even very present on Wittenberg, and there's no forcible penetration of Talossa into their daily life.  We are a voluntary country, and nothing like inflation or postal service changes or road maintenance will force Talossa into the regular awareness of our electorate.  This isn't a criticism... it's praise, since this is a group of people who surpass most of the rest of the world in their civic duty.  Talossans have had to affirmatively choose to become Talossan in a way that few people do, and they must regularly maintain that choice through fulfilling their civic duties.  They have already reached a higher standard than most people in the world will ever meet.

I'm not saying your proposal is impossible, but I think you need to please be aware that it is complicated in an objective way, and if you want to persuade people to support it, we need to grapple with that.

Well @Crement Itravilatx I guess I better get ready to cook.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Today at 08:57:21 AMThis is really complicated and seems prone to gamesmanship

I must say, it is really frustrating that any voting system more involved than "choose one and only one" is immediately dismissed as too complicated for the 71% college-educated Talossan public, when rural Germans have no issues with it whatsoever. Likewise, if the system was prone to gamesmanship, I suppose it would've already been gamed, and to my knowledge it hasn't.

I reject the insinuation that Talossans are simply not smart enough to be given a say on who actually represents them, and instead have to make due with choosing which label, colour and logo they like best.

Oh, I see.  I misunderstood one aspect, here.  Okay, thank you.  This is actually really intriguing.

I guess a lot of my concerns come from:

(a) We need to figure out something that addresses replacement seats, too.
(b) This is really complicated and seems prone to gamesmanship, and I'm a little concerned that we're already having a problem with RCV even years after it was introduced.

I mean, I think my preference would be to stick with something like the current system (ie what @Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC  proposed)... just take party leaders out of the equation for the most part.  Everyone submits a party list of minimum length, seats are distributed to people on the party list, and if someone leaves, then their seats are redistributed according to the same rule.  It's very simple, it's something people are used to doing, and it makes sure that everyone knows where their vote would be going specifically.  This wouldn't allow for in-term replacements, but that's what new citizen seats are for (we would need to go back to 200 if we're going to still have new citizen seats).

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Today at 08:28:19 AMWow, this is a little bit confusing.

Let me first say that this proposal (not my favourite but one which still acknowledges parties) is based very heavily on the system of panachage used in German local elections. Which is to say, it works and has been shown to work for decades. It's not the simplest system in the world, but then again, simplicity is often the antithesis of fairness when it comes to voting (see FPTP).

QuoteAlso, I suspect we're going to have a problem with the practical implementation of this.  We should expect a majority of people to do what they've always done: cast party votes.

Sure, most would. That's why this is an explicit option.

QuoteThat means that we're giving wildly disproportionate power to people who cast individual votes.  They're steering all of those party votes' distribution.  (Also, what happens if a party gets no individual votes?)

I don't know what you mean by "wildly disproportionate" here. People who vote for a single list accept the list and the ordering of its candidates without change. People who vote for individuals care about ordering or cross-partisan support. If a party gets no individual votes, the party seats are distributed evenly among all candidates on the list, with preference given to candidates on the top of the list.

QuoteThis obviously disadvantages small parties, of course.

How?

QuoteIn our past, many times new or small parties have only had one or two candidates -- practically speaking, this system would force voters to spread out their vote if they choose candidates.

If people prefer a small party to the exclusion of all others, then they can just vote for that small party directly, no splitting required. If they choose to split their votes, they can. I don't see where or how voters would be forced to do anything.

QuoteThis seems like there'd be no seat maximum?  And it says nothing about replacement seats?

The way seat maximums and replacement seats are handled would be unaffected, which is why I didn't mention them.

QuoteHonestly, I'm not sure this proposal works for us just because we're so small.

What does size have to do with giving voters more of a say?

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on May 28, 2026, 10:03:52 AM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 28, 2026, 09:53:46 AMThe people's will is best and most directly expressed by their vote, and we should be careful about wise elders deciding when the people's will shouldn't count.

This is exactly why I oppose expanding off-list appointees or softening party list requirements any further, since it is essentially elder party leaders deciding that the directly expressed preference for a certain slate of candidates should not count as long as it's convenient for them.

Sure. And I'm saying that both things are true.  We need to find solutions that both allow for the most accurate representation of the will of the voters and which don't give party leaders absolute discretion to hand out seats.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on May 28, 2026, 10:03:52 AMBut setting all that aside, what do you think of the voting system I proposed a few posts ago?

QuoteElections to the Cosă shall be conducted following the principles of personalised proportional voting.

• Voters shall be given the choice to either vote for a single party list at-large, or to distribute exactly 20 individual votes among all candidates listed on all party lists. A single candidate may be awarded up to three individual votes.
• Seats shall be apportioned among party lists according to their at-large party list votes as well as the total individual votes for their candidates using the largest remainder method. Individual candidate votes shall count as one twentieth of an at-large party list vote for the purposes of party seat apportionment. In case of a tie, the party with the higher total vote count is prefered.
• Party seats shall be apportioned among their list candidates according to their individual votes using the largest remainder method. In case of a tie, the candidate listed higher on the list is prefered.

Wow, this is a little bit confusing.  Okay, so the way this works is that voters will be presented with two choices about how to have their vote counted... they can either just vote for a party with a block of 20 votes, or they can give out 20 votes to any individuals they want on any lists (up to 3 per person).

So, at a glance, I'll note that we probably want to have a maximum assignment that's a divisor of 20, since a lot of people will want to just evenly split up their vote.  I'd suggest just increasing it to 4.

Also, I suspect we're going to have a problem with the practical implementation of this.  We should expect a majority of people to do what they've always done: cast party votes.  That means that we're giving wildly disproportionate power to people who cast individual votes.  They're steering all of those party votes' distribution.  (Also, what happens if a party gets no individual votes?)

This obviously disadvantages small parties, of course.  In our past, many times new or small parties have only had one or two candidates -- practically speaking, this system would force voters to spread out their vote if they choose candidates.  I don't think that's the worse thing in the world, but it's not great.

This seems like there'd be no seat maximum?  And it says nothing about replacement seats?

Honestly, I'm not sure this proposal works for us just because we're so small.

Thank you. @Tong Mun Kit should have twenty seats total and @Moinul Moin should have seven total.

Moinul Moin presently holds two seats. He would only need to receive five additional seats, not seven.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 01, 2026, 02:56:53 PM[qu

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 01, 2026, 02:56:53 PM

Quote from: King Txec on May 01, 2026, 02:24:14 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 01, 2026, 01:06:08 PMArticle IV, Section 3 of the Organic Law of the Kingdom of Talossa says: "In 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 King shall appoint a replacement to each vacancy. If the seat belonged to a party with a functioning party leader, the King must appoint as a replacement whichever person shall be so designated by that party's leader."

Your Majesty, I am hereby designating Tong Mun Kit and Moinul Moin as replacements for these vacant party seats.


If you would do me a favor S:reu Seneschal @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu  and include the number of seats per MC I am appointing so we can do this as legally as possible.

Thank you.

-Txec R

Your Majesty,

Please appoint Tong Mun Kit thirteen seats, to a total of twenty, and assign the remaining seven to Moinul Moin.

It is my opinion that the Organic Law overrules the statute that purports to contradict it. I believe completely that Your Grace has only good intentions, and I commend your care. However, I do not believe that my party's voters should be disenfranchised by regulations that are inorganic and penalize success. I don't think there is any wiggle room in the phrasing of our supreme governing law.

Your Majesty, I am hereby designating Tong Mun Kit and Moinul Moin as replacements for these vacant party seats.

If you would do me a favor S:reu Seneschal @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu  and include the number of seats per MC I am appointing so we can do this as legally as possible.

Thank you.

-Txec R


Your Majesty,

Please appoint Tong Mun Kit thirteen seats, to a total of twenty, and assign the remaining seven to Moinul Moin.

It is my opinion that the Organic Law overrules the statute that purports to contradict it. I believe completely that Your Grace has only good intentions, and I commend your care. However, I do not believe that my party's voters should be disenfranchised by regulations that are inorganic and penalize success. I don't think there is any wiggle room in the phrasing of our supreme governing law.

Are these appointments still your intent @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu?
If so, I hereby appoint 13 seats to Tong Mun Kit and an additional seven seats to Moinul Moin.

-Txec R