Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on May 28, 2026, 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 May 28, 2026, 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 May 27, 2026, 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 May 28, 2026, 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 May 28, 2026, 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 May 27, 2026, 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.

Stage 17 Cassano all'Adda -> Andalo

TCAT Italy 2026's finale is fast approaching, with the peloton making its way towards the Dolomites in a hilly stage that turned out to be quite tiring and demanding due to constant elevation changes, even without major climbs. Perfect day for a breakaway, and indeed 20ish riders survived to the finish in front of the peloton, of which 6 were in the frontmost group contending for the win. No luck for the TCAT riders involved in that effort, as CFA's Einer Rubio and CHX's Igor Arrieta finished 5th and 6th respectively. A fair bit behind, GHS's Garofoli finished 7th and eternal breakaway stage favourite Jhonatan Narvaez (MMM/REX/VFL) only managed 8th today. Minor points for Ciccone (13th, BDC/CHX/ITW), Bais (17th, CHX) and Gualdi (19th, GHS).

Cyclohexane gets the daily win, albeit a low scoring one - the whole pack fits in just 109 points today. This is still enough for the TCAT Italy 2023 champions to jump up to 4th for the time being.

Pos	±		Team	Pts Ove	Pts Today
1st	(=)		Gordon Hiatus Support Team (GHS)	6015	+253
2nd	(=)		Els Talossaes Rexhital (REX)	5062	+162
3rd	(=)		Maritiimi-Maxhestic Mençeis (MMM)	5030	+193
4th	(+2)		Cyclohexane (CHX)	4908	+271
5th	(-1)		Cézembre Caçeirs dals Mailintzarăs (BDC)	4901	+163
6th	(-1)		Velociposse Florencia (VFL)	4838	+172
7th	(=)		Team In The Wind (ITW)	4732	+165
8th	(=)		Cézembre Fieschā (CFA)	3058	+213

Today, another breakaway-friendly stage but with less elevation change, still moving eastwards through Valsugana from Trentino to Veneto. This one might even see punchy sprinters survive to the end. In general, this might be the last chance for stagehunter unclassified picks to get any meaningful points, as only two big mountain GC days and the final Rome sprint remain.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on May 27, 2026, 05:43:09 PMSeat limits are currently determined by turnout, so an election with fewer active citizens will already result in a higher seat limit, which sounds like exactly what we would want here.

Right, except that my party has a significant issue with this, and so will any other fast-growing party, and this proposal would make it much worse.

Under this proposal, a ton of Progressive seats would be deemed abandoned.  We had eight individuals on our list, and three had been elected to the Senats, leaving five.  Since two are incommunicado (one for reasons of health), that means that we'd hit our maximum seats immediately with sixty assigned seats, and then twenty-seven (!) would be abandoned.  Now, as we have continued to gain new people as we've gotten our feet under us, we may not have this problem in the future.  But any other fast-growing party might still be penalized -- and heck, if we achieved a majority in the next election, we'd still be in a situation where we couldn't afford anyone getting sick.

So any solution here needs to avoid making the problem worse.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 27, 2026, 05:34:35 PMBut I think we might need to figure out some other solution here, because I feel like my concerns are valid too!

Seat limits are currently determined by turnout, so an election with fewer active citizens will already result in a higher seat limit, which sounds like exactly what we would want here.

I'll be honest, I think the current system of seat limits (made slightly more generous thanks to reducing the Cosă to 20 seats) and off-listers (made slightly less generous thanks to the same Cosă reduction) already gives way too much leeway to party leaders... in fact, this might be the first time in a long while, if not ever, that a party ran into problems satisfactorily filling their seats. Can someone fact-check me on that?

I agree that it would be undesirable to have someone assigning themselves all the seats. On the one hand, at least voters would know about that going into the election, but it's still a problem and not a situation we want.

But I think we might need to figure out some other solution here, because I feel like my concerns are valid too!

Maybe there's a way we could require a certain number of people stand for election for a party in order for it to be on the ballot?