He was quoting Mic'haglh, I believe, who called the current oath an "Orwellian practice."

This prospective has not made a post on Wittenberg within a month of their introduction.  In accordance with Lexh.E.4, their application process is hereby terminated. @Minister of Immigration, please take notice.

This prospective has received a petition within sixty days of their eligibility.  In accordance with Lexh.E.4, their application process is hereby terminated. @Minister of Immigration, please take notice.

This prospective has received a petition within sixty days of their eligibility.  In accordance with Lexh.E.4, their application process is hereby terminated. @Minister of Immigration, please take notice.

Orwellian implies "draconian control by propaganda, surveillance, disinformation, and denial of truth." I fail to see how the current Oath is any of those things. You think OUR oath is "Orwellian" you should check out the United Kingdom's oath.

-Txec R

I don't think anybody objects to the change of the content of the oath, but I see that Mic'haglh insists on keeping unrelated Whereas clauses which aim at delivering some political messages.. Any opponent to these messages has already been qualified as Orwellian. Smart, isn't it ?

So done.

As someone who has advocated for MMP before, I'm certainly glad to see folks starting to soften to the idea. Even just discussing it is a good start.

I do agree that maintaining some sort of provincial representation is worth doing, but that having provincial representation in both houses goes too far. If we wanted to move the Cosa to an MMP setup, then I would agree that implementing something like Sir Luc's idea would be a good change for the Senats.

Overhang seats can of course be a concern, but as Miestra and Sir Marcel have both already pointed out, there are methods to reduce these. Though I would prefer a fixed size to the Cosa, I don't mind the method where seats are added to negate overhang seats. Especially if we take the German method of excluding party list votes for successful independent voters, that likely minimizes the number of overhang seats anyway, so one every few elections isn't objectionable.

One thing I don't really support is the majority bonus or majority jackpot system; yes, not using them makes government formation and stability a bit harder, but that just means you might have to actually negotiate things on occasion. C'e la vidă.

One of the nice things about MMP, in my opinion, is that it seems to be fairly flexible in the details of how you choose to implement it. As an example, there is nothing preventing us from still electing the party seats via an open-list method, or from using ranked-choice voting for provincial seats.

@Sir Lüc , please move this bill to the CRL.

I know that we keep citizenship eligibility at 14 for historical reasons but we should consider a minimum age limit for being an MZ. I would suggest 18 or 21 (if this does not run afoul of the OrgLaw). If we are serious about making  structural improvements to the Ziu then it might be worth considering whether 14 or 16 is generally just too young to effectively participate in national decision-making.

ADDED: I mean no offense to our youngest citizens but wanted to broach the topic.