Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 06:53:05 PMThere is already a bill in the CRL that would modify the same provision. In such a circumstance, I would not want to move forward with a bill that would modify the same provision, because it's confusing and poor form. While this bill is fine in form and function, and I vote to approve, I think it would be best to wait for a future Clark.

Thank you for approving in form and function. My bill removes the strongmen statement in the WHEREAS clause which was mentioned as a concern. If there is no movement before the call for bills for the sixth Clark I will move forward with this one.

There is already a bill in the CRL that would modify the same provision. In such a circumstance, I would not want to move forward with a bill that would modify the same provision, because it's confusing and poor form. While this bill is fine in form and function, and I vote to approve, I think it would be best to wait for a future Clark.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on Yesterday at 04:38:40 PM@Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP , could you maybe elaborate a bit on what happens in the event there are fewer than 20 candidates on the ballot?

If there are fewer candidates than seats to fill, then every candidate would get in and the rest is left empty. Needless to say, the system only works if we have enough people to actually run, and if we cant get at least 20 people to run, then maybe 20 seats is too much still...?

This, by the way, is why the Pseudo-Real Cosă is called pseudo: I was afraid that we might not have enough candidates to fill 20 seats, so the old assign post-hoc system would stay in place until a proper Real Cosă can be implemented faithfully.

Quote from: Françal I. Lux on May 06, 2026, 10:19:08 AMJust to be clear, I'm not arguing against party politics at all, I'm just not a fan of lists in principle because, in my view, it robs the voters choice. As I stated previously, it forces voters to elect their representatives as a block and prevents them from scrutinizing individual candidates. Let's say I ideologically align with Party A, but there's one or two individuals on their party list I disagree with for whatever reason, why should I be forced to elect them into office? What if I want to split my vote because there's someone in Party B who I actually know will be a good MC despite some political disagreements we might have?

Again, with a 20-seat Cosa, I would argue it's even more important that voters get to scrutinize individual candidates and ascertain whether they'd be good, responsible and serious public servants. Having to rely on a party list prevents that from happening because the party itself can pave over whatever flaws their candidates may have. If someone running for office can't stand on their own two feet and articulate why they should be in the Cosa, or if they lack the commitment or time to truly be present and active enough, I'd argue they have no business running for office.

I appreciate you going into further detail! In addition to the SPAV system Sir Marcel is a fan of, you may also be interested in panachage, at least based on that bit I've bolded.

@Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP , could you maybe elaborate a bit on what happens in the event there are fewer than 20 candidates on the ballot? Would everyone end up getting a seat and then we cycle around to the beginning and do the whole thing again until all 20 seats are allocated? My concern there is that in such a scenario, larger parties may unduly benefit by virtue of being able to field more candidates. It becomes less about your share of the vote and more about how many names you can put on the ballot, if that makes sense. Alternatively, could we rework the system to give someone a second seat if they've earned it before everyone else has been given one?

I'm also wondering if there's an easy way to work in a "disapproval vote" into an open-list method. That may technically also fall under the panachage umbrella, now that I think about it.
- Vote for party of preference
- Give a +1/0/-1 to every candidate on said list.
- Party gets seats proportional to list vote.
- Candidates with negative totals are not granted seats.
- Everyone else receives seats in order of total score, cycling back around to "top" of party list as necessary.

My team taking the first lead is just as it should be!

-Txec R

Stage 1 Nessebar (Bulgaria) -> Burgas

The Talossan Cycling Association Tour 2026 started with a short flat stage, creating the right circumstances for a bunch sprint. Unfortunately there was a big crash near the end, involving several TCAT riders. Hopefully they are all ok. The stage was won by Magnier, followed by Lund Andresen (REX/ITW). Milan (GHS/CHX) came in fourth place and Ackermann (MMM) in seventh. The royal team takes the first lead of the season as a result in a low scoring stage.

Standings after stage 1:

Pos	±		Team	Pts Ove	Pts Today
1st	(=)		Els Talossaes Rexhital (REX)	232	+232
2nd	(=)		Team In The Wind (ITW)	218	+218
3rd	(=)		Cyclohexane (CHX)	197	+197
4th	(=)		Gordon Hiatus Support Team (GHS)	191	+191
5th	(=)		Maritiimi-Maxhestic Mençeis (MMM)	108	+108
6th	(=)		Cézembre Caçeirs dals Mailintzarăs (BDC)	45	+45
7th	(=)		Cézembre Fieschā (CFA)	28	+28
8th	(=)		Velociposse Florencia (VFL)	12	+12

Tomorrow will be more of an intermediate stage. Most likely not challenging enough for GC contenders to make a big difference, but too much for a big bunch sprint. More likely the winner will be more of a punchy type rider.

Post for introduction and teams (TBD)

Well, there'll be plenty more racing to come this summer - registrations for Leg 2 will likely open around 29-30 June, less than a month after Leg 1 wraps up.

Meanwhile, welcome back to all returning managers and welcome Crement!

Ah man, I won't procrastinate next time.

oops yep I missed it too