Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on Yesterday at 02:34:54 PM

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Yesterday at 02:25:30 PMA greater focus on individuals would require moving away from party-based elections as they currently exist.

There's a way to get the best of both worlds, of which I'm a big fan.

Single transferable vote, or ranked-choice voting for multiple vacancies.

Oh, I'm aware. I'm personally a fan of approval voting since I think it's easier to explain and tally, and I linked a proportional approval voting calculator that I wrote myself earlier in this thread.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Yesterday at 02:25:30 PMA greater focus on individuals would require moving away from party-based elections as they currently exist.

There's a way to get the best of both worlds, of which I'm a big fan.

Single transferable vote, or ranked-choice voting for multiple vacancies.

You could get a pretty good Real Cosa with 2 constituencies (four provinces each), each electing 6-8 MCs. Any more constituencies would be too high a threshold for small parties - and a single, nation-wide constituency would be a real bitch to count.

Fiova's use of that system keeps our politics (such as they are) non-partisan.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on Yesterday at 01:51:29 PMUnless the idea is simply "everyone agree to run as 'individual parties' and you get the seats you get", in which case my big concern is: what happens if anyone gets more seats than they can legally hold?

Thats why I was saying that we would need to rewrite the OrgLaw if we wanted to vote for people independent of any party affiliation; in the Cosă as it exists right now, MCs function merely as custodians for party power, and not as individuals acting on their own behalf. A greater focus on individuals would require moving away from party-based elections as they currently exist.

I think this is an intriguing idea in principle, but I also think Sir Marcel brings up some valid concerns.

Unless the idea is simply "everyone agree to run as 'individual parties' and you get the seats you get", in which case my big concern is: what happens if anyone gets more seats than they can legally hold?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Since this "vote" is a foregone conclusion whose conclusion you've just advertised, it all seems a tad dishonest. (If it was, indeed, an attempt to negotiate in public, then it would never have worked without concrete signals of what the URL was supposed to do in response.) But we'll take it as a warning to make our preparations for outright Opposition.

The door is not open because the PA are slamming it shut. If they open it, the URL will walk through with no preconditions, no demands for apologies; just questions about a deal to make a pro-Talossan government. The PA own this decision.

An invitation to discover the nicest province of Talossa on X/Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Threads, Bluesky, Instagram, r/Bretagne and r/Micronations

Below is the list of the 7 Citizens from Cézembre who have claimed a seat through the Database during the latest elections.
Here is therefore the composition of l'Etats de Cézembre for this 62nd Cosa :

152    Sir X. Pol Briga  @xpb
174    Ián da Bitoûr  @Ian da Bitour
218    Owen Edwards  @owenedwards
277    Baroness Litz Cjantscheir  @Litz
370    Ryan Hammond   
562    Þerxh Sant-Enogat  @þerxh Sant-Enogat
573    Barclamïu da Miéletz    @Barclamïu da Miéletz

The Wiki page has been updated.

Thank you.  Are there any volunteers to work with S:reu Malt on his request?

--SVA

Dear citizens of our Sovereign Province of Cézembre, we have no other candidates for the position, so I have the pleasure to announce that I  will still be your Sénéchal for this new term.
I will try to fulfill all the duties of my position with the desire you serve you all. Thanks for your trust.

I was trying to summarize where we stand right now, as a party. Because we didn't make speeches about our feelings about the URL, and because we tried really hard to steer any such conversations back towards positive policy promises, I thought it might be helpful to describe where we're at. This was especially true after the recent chaos.

I also thought it would be fair to give you guys a chance to react to the situation. While I didn't think there would be an apology in the offing, I thought there was the potential to move forward with a different approach. Like, maybe you thought that all of us who spoke up at different times were just pretending to be upset for political advantage or something? Maybe you didn't understand our hesitance to enter into an agreement where we'd have to watch every word we said in private, for example. I thought there was value in explaining our perspective while the vote was still open.

From the first, we have said that we're we're ready to work with everybody, as much as we can. That is true yesterday, it's true today, and it'll be true tomorrow. We want to serve our country, in addition to our own political goals of reform and good governance. The door will remain open.