Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Today at 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.

But 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.

I certainly work on recruitment, but aside from that, the only thing I could think would be to aim lower and not contest Senats seats, lol.  Again, aiming lower is not a solution and not democratic.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Today at 09:45:21 AMIt should be in the people's interest to improve Talossan democracy, not worsen it.

Absolutely.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Today at 09:45:21 AMThe power to concentrate power in a few unelected appointees loyal only to the party leadership is absolutely only a convenience, and enabling this conduct any further is the exact opposite of democracy. It may be *your* will, but it's not the people's will.

The 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.

But again, I don't want parties to be able to invest their power in just one or two people.  That's also not a good outcome.  I'm asking for us to work to find a solution that addresses both concerns.

I've heavily edited my previous post to fix several syntax and phrasing errors, for the record.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Today at 09:40:00 AMRight, but circumstance we're discussing is a new party whose share of the vote expands faster than their personal recruitment.  It's already tight, and we're proposing making it much worse.

Your party is not exactly "new", is my point. You should've foreseen that the same people that were highly popular before under a different label would still be popular now, and accounted for it. If the demand exceeds the supply, it is your responsibility as a party leader to keep up with the demand.

QuoteI'm not really presupposing that... it's been a fact in the past -- Dien is the only one who has ever run for office with no party list, I think, and he got only a few votes (presumably from people who did indeed want that!)

Not even remotely the same as what you've been suggesting here. Plus, I don't think "we've always done it like this" is a good enough argument to continue flaunting the basic principles of democratic conduct. Talossa, in the past, has not been a good democracy. It should be in the people's interest to improve Talossan democracy, not worsen it.

QuoteBut this flexibility doesn't exist for convenience, it exists because power should be distributed according to the will of the people, as much as we can manage.  This is the most basic of basic democratic principles.

The power to concentrate power in a few unelected appointees loyal only to the party leadership is absolutely only a convenience, and enabling this conduct any further is the exact opposite of democracy. It may be *your* will, but it's not the people's will.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Today at 09:15:14 AMSimply by having more people on the list than the absolute bare minimum. These people don't even have to be a member of your party, mind you.

Right, but circumstance we're discussing is a new party whose share of the vote expands faster than their personal recruitment.  It's already tight, and we're proposing making it much worse.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Today at 09:15:14 AMYou're presupposing that voters want to be represented by unelected, unaccountable off-list appointees, or alternatively that they want to concentrate all power into a single person. The fact that Talossa currenty even allows off-list MCs or more than one seat per MC is a grave violation of basic democratic principles, and it exists solely to make the lives of Talossan party leaders easier. I find it concerning that these generosities are not only taken for granted but considered not generous enough.

I'm not really presupposing that... it's been a fact in the past -- Dien is the only one who has ever run for office with no party list, I think, and he got only a few votes (presumably from people who did indeed want that!)  But this flexibility doesn't exist for convenience, it exists because power should be distributed according to the will of the people, as much as we can manage.  This is the most basic of basic democratic principles.

Quote from: Françal I. Lux on Yesterday at 04:26:48 PMAs long as the voters can choose who they want as their representatives regardless of party affiliation, I would be ok with an open list voting system as a compromise.

What do you think of something like this?

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.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Today at 09:07:54 AMYes, fast-growing because our appeal at the ballot box has dramatically increased in a short period of time, faster than active Talossans have been initiated into the party and established that they are good representatives of party interests.  I have no idea what planning could have prevented this

Simply by having more people on the list than the absolute bare minimum. These people don't even have to be a member of your party, mind you.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Today at 09:07:54 AMWe shouldn't soften basic democratic standards, and a pretty darn important one is that the outcome should match the vote.  When we argue that voters shouldn't get what they want, it's concerning.

You're presupposing that voters want to be represented by unelected, unaccountable off-list appointees, or alternatively that they want to concentrate all power into a single person. The fact that Talossa currenty even allows off-list MCs or more than one seat per MC is a grave violation of basic democratic principles, and it exists solely to make the lives of Talossan party leaders easier. I find it concerning that these generosities are not only taken for granted but considered not generous enough.

I just hope to hold onto the podium by my fingernails at this point.

Yes, fast-growing because our appeal at the ballot box has dramatically increased in a short period of time, faster than active Talossans have been initiated into the party and established that they are good representatives of party interests.  I have no idea what planning could have prevented this -- I suppose we could have declined to contest the Senate races that we won, since if the voters weren't able to vote for Progressive candidates then that would leave more people viable on our party list?

It seems obvious to me that we'd be making the existing problem much worse with this reform, and I don't think we should do that.  If a new party breaks onto the scene and voters endorse it in large numbers faster than it can induct new members, then they shouldn't be penalized for that.  This particular problem might not worry you, but it is a problem and any new legislation should at least avoid making it more severe.

We shouldn't soften basic democratic standards, and a pretty darn important one is that the outcome should match the vote.  When we argue that voters shouldn't get what they want, it's concerning.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 06:40:46 PMfast-growing party

"Fast-growing" would mean your party is quickly gaining new members. The problem you have is the opposite: your party growth seemingly couldn't and can't keep up with its popularity at the ballot box, which I think you could've easily foreseen. Everyone on the PROG party list last election bar one is a former member of the previous highly popular conservative party, the TNC, and thus already easily recognisable to these voters.

I can't help but think that this was moreso an instance of overly shortsighted planning coupled with bad luck rather than a problem with the law that needs to be fixed, and I don't think it's prudent to soften basic democratic standards (even more than they already are in Talossa) to enable more shortsighted planning in the future.