Zoom, unless His Majesty is interested in a drive.  (I have a spare room and it's beautiful where I live!)

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Today at 03:36:01 PMThe main difference is that a party leader can either assign 1 or 2 seats to somebody, instead of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,... or 20. I admit this is partially psychological, but assigning an MC either 1 or 2 seats is less arbitrary feeling than assigning them, say, 17.

Okay, so you see a benefit in the psychological difference, and because it would smooth the way for a Real Cosa in the future.  I'm not sure I'm on board, but I think I understand.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Today at 03:36:01 PMThis was intended to rebutt your "Other countries aren't as lucky" statement.

Sure, and I was pointing out that some of these have a fairly low threshold, although I got my math wrong.  I do think we get to enjoy unique benefits because of how small we are, though, and I'm not sure why that's bad.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Today at 03:36:01 PMI'm not sure what this means, really. Of course representing the people is a job and an honour. Why wouldn't it be?

Well, you were making an argument from principle that it's wrong that people can wield power by demanding it, but I was pointing out that they're wielding their own share of power.  You made the comparison to something earned, but they don't need to earn their own political power.  Sorry, we have a lot of things going at the same time here!

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Today at 03:36:01 PMAnd if you want to abolish representative democracy outright then just say so.

I don't!  Saying I think it's good that we offer both Pepsi and Coke doesn't mean that I want to abolish Coke, it means that I think it's good we currently get to have both.

It's interesting there's other ways of having both direct and representative democracy.  Is liquid democracy simple?

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Today at 03:36:01 PMI focussed on the ratio because that seems to be the real issue. If you're serious about wanting to reach more than 200 voting citizens within this term, would it not be at least in the realm of possibility that the same 7.5% ratio of New Citizen seats that is problematic in a 20 seat Cosă would be filled out in a 200 seat Cosă -- which would mean 15 new citizens claiming a seat?

We should be so lucky!

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Today at 03:36:01 PMBut it's a valid concern no matter what. New Citizen seats can only be abolished via an OrgLaw amendment, which is outside the purview of this bill. If you want, we can get together and work on that right away. And even if we don't do this right away, this bill does not take effect immediately. We would have an entire calendar year and then some to abolish New Citizen seats.

If there's no rush, then my preference would be to take the time to fix it all now, not hope we can pass a related amendment later.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Today at 03:36:01 PMI've already mentioned this in the message you responded to, I'm not sure that was not part of the block quote...

I apologize, I missed that.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 03:37:10 PMI...hope to help arrange a live ceremony in conjunction with a Living Cosa.

Will this be on Zoom or in-person?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Today at 02:24:33 PMSo I get that you think 200 is too big and you don't like it, but I'm not sure how switching to 20 would change the role of MCs.  Could you unpack that for me a little?  What's the difference between your party leader assigning you 2 seats instead of assigning you 20?

The main difference is that a party leader can either assign 1 or 2 seats to somebody, instead of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,... or 20. I admit this is partially psychological, but assigning an MC either 1 or 2 seats is less arbitrary feeling than assigning them, say, 17. I intend this to be a small step towards making individual MCs more responsible for the power they wield. Ultimately, I would like a full return to a proper Real Cosă. This could then be done by repealing or revising Lex.H.4.1. The reason why I didn't do that here was manpower concerns. We do not currently have 28 concurrent active citizens to be in the legislature, and as I understand it, your party was already struggling to assign seats under the current D&D approach, so switching to a Real Cosă right now would only exacerbate this issue.

QuoteI think that there's a significant difference in how our Cosa is run versus how the Danish Folketing is run, but I'd point out that they use a threshold of 2% -- effectively the same as us.  And in the Netherlands the threshold is 0.67%.

The difference, I assume, is that the Folketing is an actual parliament and not a congregation of party block votes with extra steps like the current Cosă, but that's what I would like to fix.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the Danish 2% threshold is "effectively the same as us". The effective threshold in the 200-seat Cosă is around 0.25%, or less than a quarter of a vote under the most recent turnout. And the Dutch threshold is the percentage of the vote needed to guarantee a seat, the Talossan equivalent of which would be 0.5% in the current Cosă. The Netherlands are an outlier for how low their statutory threshold is (most other thresholds are around 3%), but I mentioned them because they have a threshold. This was intended to rebutt your "Other countries aren't as lucky" statement.

QuoteAnyway, something to note is that people are accounted the amount of power that they personally wield in our political system.  The "earning" is the power of using their vote to make their choice... it's not a job or an honour.

In the purest sense of the word, it is much more democratic to allow people to personally wield their own share of political power in the legislature.

I'm not sure what this means, really. Of course representing the people is a job and an honour. Why wouldn't it be?

And if you want to abolish representative democracy outright then just say so. I wouldn't be opposed to this either: there are ways of arranging this, or even to establish a proper mixed form of direct and representative democracy called Liquid Democracy, but the point is that a pseudo-parliament is neither the simplest or the best way of going about this. If anything, if we are going to have a parliament, then why not let it look, sound and work like one, instead of making it partially representative, partially direct, partially a giveaway and full of backbenchers? No one is best served with the current arrangement.

QuoteYou're focusing on the ratio, but I'm pointing out the individual power each new citizen would wield.  It currently is half a percent, but this bill would increase it to 5% of the legislative power in the Cosa.  This has been called "spicy" elsewhere in the thread for good reason: it would be very destabilizing and antidemocratic.

There's not a lot in here that's a nonstarter, but I consider this aspect something that would absolutely need to be fixed before I could support something like this.

I focussed on the ratio because that seems to be the real issue. If you're serious about wanting to reach more than 200 voting citizens within this term, would it not be at least in the realm of possibility that the same 7.5% ratio of New Citizen seats that is problematic in a 20 seat Cosă would be filled out in a 200 seat Cosă -- which would mean 15 new citizens claiming a seat?

But it's a valid concern no matter what. New Citizen seats can only be abolished via an OrgLaw amendment, which is outside the purview of this bill. If you want, we can get together and work on that right away. And even if we don't do this right away, this bill does not take effect immediately. We would have an entire calendar year and then some to abolish New Citizen seats. I've already mentioned this in the message you responded to, I'm not sure that was not part of the block quote...

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Today at 02:05:09 PMMaybe not 200, although I think we'll grow into that number before too long as we turn things around.  But maybe we should set the size of the Cosa as the size of the electorate.

Again, why bother with a Cosă if what you really aim for is an Athenian-style Ecclesia?

Com'ün MdC "solămint el Glheþ", coptéu S:reu Tafi.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Should be pointed out that your math is backwards. Our "threshold", such as it exists, is not 2%, it's 0.5% (1/200). Realistically it's probably even less than that, as anything above 0.25% would be "rounded up" to one seat.

Given our current electorate's size, even one vote puts you well over either.

My next nominee is someone with whom I have argued more than anyone else in my party, and yet always with a smile on my face.  Because while Tric'hard Lenxheir is a talented man, he lacks the talent to see himself.  He's also part of a demographic that's well-represented in our populace but seldom in our government, and his voice is not just valuable... it's necessary.

Because MC Lenxheir is not an attorney, he will not be tasked with giving me legal advice.  And in anticipation of our rare need for prosecutors or the like, we will appoint a Solicitor-General for that task.  Instead, MC Lenxheir's task as minister will be to look through the law with the eyes of a no-nonsense layperson and point out things that don't make sense or that are confusing.  Some of these things will need fixing.  In other words, he will be the rare Avocat-Xheneral who actually makes some change and reforms things around here.

Talossan law is for everyone, and so everyone should be able to understand it.  And I am grateful to MC Lenxheir for helping us move towards that goal.

Aglhorc:

Éu perventüră requestéu, qe Voastra Maxhestà apünta Tric'hard Lenxheir àl óifisch del Avocat-Xheneral, es lo quaxhitéu à servar el Legeu Orgänic es sieu Regeu àl miglhor da sieux capacitaes.

So then:

I hereby request that His Majesty appoint Tric'hard Lenxheir to the office of Attorney-General, and I urge him to serve the Organic Law and his King to the best of his abilities.

Françal I. Lux was very active in Talossa for a long while, but was drawn away by life.  Now he is back, gloriously back -- and returning to politics with a moral courage that we see too seldom.  It's one thing to take a loud, principled stand against your enemies... but against your friends?  Now that is something worthy indeed!

MC Lux has shown us that courage, and also that he will not be dragged down from that stance.  It is my hope that he will continue to speak up for the sake of principle and the people, even when I am the one with whom he disagrees, and also that everyone will find a way to return to friendship once more.

He has agreed to take on the position of Finance.  This means that his primary focus will be the budget, but I will also be asking him to work hard in his supervisory capacity to ensure that Talossan merchandise is available once more.  Further, we need to see about building some sustaining donors who can give on a monthly or annual basis to support our small needs, so we can free politics from the shackles of money.  And I am sure he will have other projects of his own -- including a lot of fun, I hope!

Thank you for your willingness to serve, Françal!

Aglhorc:

Éu perventüră requestéu, qe Voastra Maxhestà apünta Françal I. Lux àl óifisch del Ministreu dal Finançù, es lo quaxhitéu à servar el Legeu Orgänic es sieu Regeu àl miglhor da sieux capacitaes.

So then:

I hereby request that His Majesty appoint Françal I. Lux to the office of Minister of Finance, and I urge him to serve the Organic Law and his King to the best of his abilities.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Today at 02:05:09 PMThere are several reasons why one would want to go back to that value. For instance, because 200 is simply too big. It's more than the total population, what is the point of that? The way that seat distribution works also gives too much emphasis on political parties rather than MCs, whose job it ostensibly is to represent the people. In the current set up, it seems more like MCs themselves are an afterthought and serve no real purpose in and of themselves, and I find this to be anathema to the concept of representative democracy.

So I get that you think 200 is too big and you don't like it, but I'm not sure how switching to 20 would change the role of MCs.  Could you unpack that for me a little?  What's the difference between your party leader assigning you 2 seats instead of assigning you 20?

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Today at 02:05:09 PMThe Cosă is supposed to reflect the popular mandate, and being in the position to represent this mandate is something that should be earned, and not merely demanded, just like citizenship and peerage is earned in this country. One person who simply demands to have power but can't even convince one other person to vote for them is not reflective of popular mandate.  ...
other countries disagree that letting everyone who wants to wield power over their fellow citizens do so is a benefit. Countries like Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands, some of the most democratic in the world, institute explicit electoral thresholds to exclude tiny parties that do not reflect a sufficient popular mandate, and in Germany the threshold of 5% is a consequence of Weimar-era political chaos, and is meant to ensure stable and responsible government.

I think that there's a significant difference in how our Cosa is run versus how the Danish Folketing is run, but I'd point out that they use a threshold of 2% -- effectively the same as us.  And in the Netherlands the threshold is 0.67%.

Anyway, something to note is that people are accounted the amount of power that they personally wield in our political system.  The "earning" is the power of using their vote to make their choice... it's not a job or an honour.

In the purest sense of the word, it is much more democratic to allow people to personally wield their own share of political power in the legislature.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Today at 02:05:09 PMThe ratio of New Citizen seats to Cosă seats is competely unchanged. I'm not exactly sure who came up with the 7.5% figure or why this had to be an OrgLaw amendment, but if you believe that having up to 7.5% of seats be unelected victims of broosking will be a problem, then surely it is also already a problem now.

You're focusing on the ratio, but I'm pointing out the individual power each new citizen would wield.  It currently is half a percent, but this bill would increase it to 5% of the legislative power in the Cosa.  This has been called "spicy" elsewhere in the thread for good reason: it would be very destabilizing and antidemocratic.

There's not a lot in here that's a nonstarter, but I consider this aspect something that would absolutely need to be fixed before I could support something like this.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Today at 02:05:09 PMThe 200 seat Cosă is more "representative" than the total voting population, let alone the total number of cast non-Present ballots. I am not sure how this sort of exaggerated representativeness, seemingly for its own sake, is worth holding onto.

Maybe not 200, although I think we'll grow into that number before too long as we turn things around.  But maybe we should set the size of the Cosa as the size of the electorate.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Today at 12:16:20 PM20 feels like quite a jump, and I'm a little bit nervous we haven't thought about the downstream implications yet.  I also don't honestly have much of a sense about why we'd want to do this.

As you know, it's not just some arbitrary value: the Cosă used to be 20 seats big until 2003. There are several reasons why one would want to go back to that value. For instance, because 200 is simply too big. It's more than the total population, what is the point of that? The way that seat distribution works also gives too much emphasis on political parties rather than MCs, whose job it ostensibly is to represent the people. In the current set up, it seems more like MCs themselves are an afterthought and serve no real purpose in and of themselves, and I find this to be anathema to the concept of representative democracy.

QuoteI get that you shouldn't be able to buy a seat in the Cosa, but that's more of an argument for getting rid of fees than anything else.

The problem is not that it costs money to sit in the Cosă. The problem is a combination of seats being readily available (just vote for yourself). This ready availability goes against what I consider the concept of popular mandate. The Cosă is supposed to reflect the popular mandate, and being in the position to represent this mandate is something that should be earned, and not merely demanded, just like citizenship and peerage is earned in this country. One person who simply demands to have power but can't even convince one other person to vote for them is not reflective of popular mandate. Which brings us to:

QuoteObviously, the bill would bar small parties from the Cosa.  That doesn't seem like it's necessarily a good thing.  Right now, it seems like a benefit that we get to enjoy a combination of direct democracy and representative democracy.  Other countries aren't so lucky.

This makes it sound like other countries would rather prefer our current system but are prevented for some reason. On the contrary, other countries disagree that letting everyone who wants to wield power over their fellow citizens do so is a benefit. Countries like Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands, some of the most democratic in the world, institute explicit electoral thresholds to exclude tiny parties that do not reflect a sufficient popular mandate, and in Germany the threshold of 5% is a consequence of Weimar-era political chaos, and is meant to ensure stable and responsible government.

My proposal does not institute such an explicit threshold, instead a party simply needs enough votes to earn a seat. 5% are needed to guarantee a seat, but 2.5% (which is to say, 2 to 3 votes depending on turnout) are enough to qualify for a seat. Convincing one or two other people to vote for you should not be a big hurdle. I managed it twice before, completely by accident.

QuoteNew citizens would be wildly more influential.  Right now, they get a token seat so they can jump right in and participate, but now they'd wield much more power.  The temptation to broosk would be much higher -- no vote necessary, just get someone new to join your party and it's the same as getting 5% of the vote.  That seems like it hasn't been thought out very much.

The ratio of New Citizen seats to Cosă seats is competely unchanged. I'm not exactly sure who came up with the 7.5% figure or why this had to be an OrgLaw amendment, but if you believe that having up to 7.5% of seats be unelected victims of broosking will be a problem, then surely it is also already a problem now. If this is deemed an issue worth fixing, it can be remedied by abolishing New Citizen seats again (should this bill pass, we would have more than a year to get the necessary OrgLaw amendment through before the bill comes into effect).

QuoteAnd of course, the Cosa would be less representative of the vote.  This is just an unmitigatedly bad thing.

The 200 seat Cosă is more "representative" than the total voting population, let alone the total number of cast non-Present ballots. I am not sure how this sort of exaggerated representativeness, seemingly for its own sake, is worth holding onto.