BTW, I am actively offended by the idea of depriving younger citizens of political rights. Talossa started as a child's fantasy endeavour, and it is repugnant for adults to try to eliminate kids from something they started because adults can't be trusted.

But I'm in favour of age limits for being an MC, though. An upper age limit. We can't be like the "Boomers who won't let go", I think that once you hit 40 or something you should only be able to run for a Senäts seat

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 29, 2026, 04:56:50 PMFrom my (limited) research, though, it seems like the overhang can get pretty bad.

Not in the NZ system. I think this parliament we've had the biggest overhang ever (3 seats out of 120), because Te Pāti Māori won 6 of the Māori districts with 3% of the national list vote.

Quote from: Mximo Malt on April 29, 2026, 07:03:18 PMThen I just won't seek a second term, and I'd bet you'd loooooooooooove that! How bout them apples!?

Tell you what, Max, why don't you join the URL. We can mentor you.

We have seen in recent elections that many Talossans are confused or offended by ranked-choice voting for single seats (in the Senäts). Ranked-choice voting for multiple seats - while a great system in many ways - is far harder to explain to a hostile nation, especially its counting system.

The other problem with STV at a Talossan level is that either you'd have to divide the country into 3 or 4 voting districts (making gerrymandering possible), or elect 20 MCs at large, which would mean a "tablecloth ballot".

A possible simpler candidate-focused system would be that used in Kosovo, where you vote for a party and also for one person on that party list. So the seats are proportionate between parties but if a party gets X seats, they go to the top X individual vote winners

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 29, 2026, 03:02:22 PM@Moinul Moin has graciously agreed to represent the Progressive Alliance.  Please increase @Tong Mun Kit 's allotment to twenty seats, reflecting our confidence in his growing experience, and assign the remaining seven to @Moinul Moin .  Thank you!

The above has now been reflected on the database. S:r Moin will be emailed database credentials for Clark voting in short order.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on April 29, 2026, 11:21:40 PM@Sir Lüc , please forgive the early tag; as I will be travelling tomorrow for a funeral I may not be on Witt much. However, in the event the CRL does not inappropriately delay the Freedom of Conscience Act outside their limited scope of responsibility, I would ask that you add it to the Clark once it receives the requisite approval.

That's a reasonable ask under these circumstances. My deepest condolences.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 28, 2026, 03:47:49 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 28, 2026, 02:59:06 PM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 23, 2026, 11:31:46 AMS:r Secretary,

I am Clarking the following: The Sentient Rights Act

Just FYI: this bill should not be accepted under the terms of Lexh.H.2.1.7.1, since it is too deficient in function to work.  In the time since it was proposed and placed in the CRL, that section of the law was amended by an intervening bill, and so it's proposing to amend a provision that does not exist.

Thanks so much! I have updated the El Lex amending references to account for The Blanking Blank Act.
@Sir Lüc S:r Secretary, please let me know if these changes prevent it from being Clarked and I will hold off until the fifth Clark.

No, it's good to go on this Clark. The changes are minor enough.

Pursuant to Article X, Section 4 of the Organic Law, with a heavy heart the Chancery acknowledges S:r Vitxalmour Axhairsegol's renunciation of citizenship and accordingly issues the present to serve as Writ of Termination.




Sir Lüc da Schir, UrB
Secretary of State

I think we're both in perfect agreement that His Majesty is not a strongman.  And you already have made it clear that you didn't mean to suggest otherwise.  But several people, including His Majesty, reached a different conclusion when they first read the bill.  This is probably because of the nature of the phrase "His Majesty's Government."  The literal meaning can be different from what a casual reader might understand.

My preference would be for you to fix the wording of the whereas clause in question, so that it more clearly expresses your meaning.  It's a problem with the form of the bill that the wording doesn't match your intent.  That's the only concern I have, since otherwise the bill is fine in form and function.  I will reserve my CRL vote for now.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on April 29, 2026, 11:21:40 PM@Sir Lüc , please forgive the early tag; as I will be travelling tomorrow for a funeral I may not be on Witt much. However, in the event the CRL does not inappropriately delay the Freedom of Conscience Act outside their limited scope of responsibility, I would ask that you add it to the Clark once it receives the requisite approval.

Rest eternal to your loved one.