The Organic Law already imposes a special condition on statutory changes to the Cosă size and that seems to work well enough (i.e., resizing the Cosă via statute takes at least a year, resizing the Cosă via amendment takes one term like normal). What I was suggesting wouldn't be too different from that in my opinion.

You can't really make a statutory provision that's especially difficult to change.  Any future Ziu will have equal power to this Ziu, and we can't "tie their hands."  I think the principle is called legislative sovereignty.

It occurred to me that we could make a provision of the OrgLaw saying "any change to statute that affects so-and-so must be agreed upon by a supermajority of the Cosa" or something like that.  But we've never done that before, and the immediate problem that presents is that it might make it really easy to impose new laws about that topic by just looping in something about that provision and then really hard to change them once they exist.  Plus it creates a new category of law, which makes me nervous after we spent so much trouble on going to a single legal code.

That said, I bet a lot of this can be put into statute or made so that statute can guide it or something.  I'll take a look.

I would prefer that, yeah.

Also, if majorities needed to make changes are what's worrying you, maybe you could still defer it to statute with an added proviso for a higher bar for change or something, assuming that's allowed.

Okay, whew!  You're better at math than me, I think, so you made me really nervous there that I'd just forgotten my order of operations or something!

Okay, the change sounds good to me.  I'll make it: "3. No person shall hold more seats in the Cosă than thirty times the total number of seats in the Cosă divided by two times the number of ballots cast for the Cosa in the most recent General Election, rounded up to the next integer."

One note is that this sort of thing could be really pivotal in how the entire election or legislature works, which is why we don't want it in statute.  We don't want a simple majority to be able to alter the system in their favor in the future, especially since this is a compromise approach that's not anyone's ideal.  This isn't specific to anyone -- I don't think you or Miestra are engaged in nefarious plotting to double-cross a good-faith compromise, since neither of you are that kind of person -- but it's just a generally good principle of legislating.

Maybe there is more of this that could go in statute, though... is that generally something you'd prefer that I should try to figure out?

Right, I meant 30 * Cosă size / (2 * turnout). Basically, scaling up the current cap by 3/2 instead of 4/3 as previously proposed.

As mentioned before, scaling it by 3/2 is better for a 200-seat Cosă, while 4/3 is better for a 20-seat Cosă, all else being equal.

It seems like this formula would just lead to a super-low cap?  3*20/2*100 is 3*20/200 is 60/200 is 0.3, right?  I feel like I must be missing something about the math here.

Speaking of bug fixes...!

It has come to my attention that the formula that I suggested for an increased seat limit was incorrect. To fully compensate the abolition of off-seat appointments, the increase has to be 50% instead of 33%, so the formula should be 30 * Cosă size / (2 * turnout), and I recommend that you change it in the draft amendment accordingly.

EDIT: This corrected formula works best with the 200-seat Cosă, but with a 20-seat Cosă, the previous uncorrected formula would be better because of some rounding shenanigans. Alternatively, we could change the way the seat limit is rounded from always rounding up to rounding normally with a lower bound.

...now, imagine if we had only found this mistake in a few months, then it would've taken us a whole Cosă term and referendum to correct this error simply because it was enshrined in the Organic Law. I really think it should be part of the statute instead.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on June 01, 2026, 11:59:41 AM

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on May 29, 2026, 04:45:10 PMVice-Chair @mximo , do you have any input on Vice-Chair Tzaracomprada's proposal?

All of the Governor's questions are well taken. Before officially responding I want to give a bit more of an opportunity for the province's senator to show up...

@mximo Let me give it one more try. Senator?

Quote from: Françal I. Lux on June 02, 2026, 11:03:06 PM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on June 02, 2026, 08:57:19 PM

Quote from: Françal I. Lux on June 02, 2026, 08:45:18 PMWhere can I get the latest numbers on these?

Should be able to find this information in the new database here: https://database.talossa.com/citizenship

Appreciate it!

De rien, Francal.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 12, 2026, 06:09:26 PMOkay, at this point I have printed out 40, which is probably plenty enough for years to come. I'm going to have an announcement sent out to everyone to let them know about the availability, with pictures, and then we'll aim to get them sent out by the end of next month.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 03, 2026, 03:59:32 PMLater this week, we'll make one last appeal for people who might be interested in the award -- probably in an announcement that also loops in the TalossAssistant appeal -- and then we'll get these out to the people who have earned them.

Glad to see some progress on this and I do look forward to the TalossAssistant announcement as the last participant to successfully shepherd an applicant through naturalization.

Edit: Just saw the announcement! Hopefully we get some folks of good repute to apply.