Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Today at 08:28:19 AMWow, this is a little bit confusing.

Let me first say that this proposal (not my favourite but one which still acknowledges parties) is based very heavily on the system of panachage used in German local elections. Which is to say, it works and has been shown to work for decades. It's not the simplest system in the world, but then again, simplicity is often the antithesis of fairness when it comes to voting (see FPTP).

QuoteAlso, I suspect we're going to have a problem with the practical implementation of this.  We should expect a majority of people to do what they've always done: cast party votes.

Sure, most would. That's why this is an explicit option.

QuoteThat means that we're giving wildly disproportionate power to people who cast individual votes.  They're steering all of those party votes' distribution.  (Also, what happens if a party gets no individual votes?)

I don't know what you mean by "wildly disproportionate" here. People who vote for a single list accept the list and the ordering of its candidates without change. People who vote for individuals care about ordering or cross-partisan support. If a party gets no individual votes, the party seats are distributed evenly among all candidates on the list, with preference given to candidates on the top of the list.

QuoteThis obviously disadvantages small parties, of course.

How?

QuoteIn our past, many times new or small parties have only had one or two candidates -- practically speaking, this system would force voters to spread out their vote if they choose candidates.

If people prefer a small party to the exclusion of all others, then they can just vote for that small party directly, no splitting required. If they choose to split their votes, they can. I don't see where or how voters would be forced to do anything.

QuoteThis seems like there'd be no seat maximum?  And it says nothing about replacement seats?

The way seat maximums and replacement seats are handled would be unaffected, which is why I didn't mention them.

QuoteHonestly, I'm not sure this proposal works for us just because we're so small.

What does size have to do with giving voters more of a say?

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on May 28, 2026, 10:03:52 AM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 28, 2026, 09:53:46 AMThe people's will is best and most directly expressed by their vote, and we should be careful about wise elders deciding when the people's will shouldn't count.

This is exactly why I oppose expanding off-list appointees or softening party list requirements any further, since it is essentially elder party leaders deciding that the directly expressed preference for a certain slate of candidates should not count as long as it's convenient for them.

Sure. And I'm saying that both things are true.  We need to find solutions that both allow for the most accurate representation of the will of the voters and which don't give party leaders absolute discretion to hand out seats.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on May 28, 2026, 10:03:52 AMBut setting all that aside, what do you think of the voting system I proposed a few posts ago?

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.

Wow, this is a little bit confusing.  Okay, so the way this works is that voters will be presented with two choices about how to have their vote counted... they can either just vote for a party with a block of 20 votes, or they can give out 20 votes to any individuals they want on any lists (up to 3 per person).

So, at a glance, I'll note that we probably want to have a maximum assignment that's a divisor of 20, since a lot of people will want to just evenly split up their vote.  I'd suggest just increasing it to 4.

Also, I suspect we're going to have a problem with the practical implementation of this.  We should expect a majority of people to do what they've always done: cast party votes.  That means that we're giving wildly disproportionate power to people who cast individual votes.  They're steering all of those party votes' distribution.  (Also, what happens if a party gets no individual votes?)

This obviously disadvantages small parties, of course.  In our past, many times new or small parties have only had one or two candidates -- practically speaking, this system would force voters to spread out their vote if they choose candidates.  I don't think that's the worse thing in the world, but it's not great.

This seems like there'd be no seat maximum?  And it says nothing about replacement seats?

Honestly, I'm not sure this proposal works for us just because we're so small.

Thank you. @Tong Mun Kit should have twenty seats total and @Moinul Moin should have seven total.

Moinul Moin presently holds two seats. He would only need to receive five additional seats, not seven.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 01, 2026, 02:56:53 PM[qu

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 01, 2026, 02:56:53 PM

Quote from: King Txec on May 01, 2026, 02:24:14 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 01, 2026, 01:06:08 PMArticle IV, Section 3 of the Organic Law of the Kingdom of Talossa says: "In the case of vacant party seats occurring between elections, the Secretary of State shall inform the King and the leader of whatever party held the vacant seat. The King shall appoint a replacement to each vacancy. If the seat belonged to a party with a functioning party leader, the King must appoint as a replacement whichever person shall be so designated by that party's leader."

Your Majesty, I am hereby designating Tong Mun Kit and Moinul Moin as replacements for these vacant party seats.


If you would do me a favor S:reu Seneschal @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu  and include the number of seats per MC I am appointing so we can do this as legally as possible.

Thank you.

-Txec R

Your Majesty,

Please appoint Tong Mun Kit thirteen seats, to a total of twenty, and assign the remaining seven to Moinul Moin.

It is my opinion that the Organic Law overrules the statute that purports to contradict it. I believe completely that Your Grace has only good intentions, and I commend your care. However, I do not believe that my party's voters should be disenfranchised by regulations that are inorganic and penalize success. I don't think there is any wiggle room in the phrasing of our supreme governing law.

Your Majesty, I am hereby designating Tong Mun Kit and Moinul Moin as replacements for these vacant party seats.

If you would do me a favor S:reu Seneschal @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu  and include the number of seats per MC I am appointing so we can do this as legally as possible.

Thank you.

-Txec R


Your Majesty,

Please appoint Tong Mun Kit thirteen seats, to a total of twenty, and assign the remaining seven to Moinul Moin.

It is my opinion that the Organic Law overrules the statute that purports to contradict it. I believe completely that Your Grace has only good intentions, and I commend your care. However, I do not believe that my party's voters should be disenfranchised by regulations that are inorganic and penalize success. I don't think there is any wiggle room in the phrasing of our supreme governing law.

Are these appointments still your intent @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu?
If so, I hereby appoint 13 seats to Tong Mun Kit and an additional seven seats to Moinul Moin.

-Txec R

The Chancery, having noticed Judge Perþonest's preliminary opinion, stands ready to assign 18 vacant seats as directed by @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu .

Given the limited time remaining before the Fifth Clark is slated to begin and in the interest of ensuring all seats are filled, if I receive no communication from the Seneschal within 24 hours I will assign the seats as initially requested (13 to Tong Mun Kit, for a total of 20, and 5 to Moinul Moin, for a total of 7).

Stage 20 Gemona del Friuli 1976-2026 -> Piancavallo

The penultimate stage featured two climbs of the first category Piancavallo, where Lüc was present to provide live commentary and scream Vingegaard to the top. The break of the day never got very far, but they did ensure Vingegaard couldn't get any more KOM points on the first ascent, which resulted in Ciccone securing the KOM classification after overtaking Vingegaard by scoring many points on friday.

On the final climb it was up to the GC contenders and it was again Vingegaard who proved to be the strongest. Behind him Gall and Hindley finished second and third securing their spot on the podium, whereas Gee and Arensman failed to make progress and finished 4th and 5th in the stage (and the other way round in GC). Bernal followed right behind Arensman. Storer and Piganzoli finished a bit behind in 9th and 10th place and Harper and Pellizzari had bad days and lost time in GC.

The stage was won by GHST who extend their already insurmountable lead. BDC came second and are headed for second place overall. In the race for the podium it was a good day for Team In the Wind who gained a lot of ground on CHX. Cyclohexane need a very good result today to get the overall third place, which probably involves Milan winning and Andresen finishing far behind. ITW is the clear favourite for the podium


Standings after stage 20:

Pos	±		Team	Pts Ove	Pts Today
1st	(=)		Gordon Hiatus Support Team (GHS)	7758	+811
2nd	(+1)		Cézembre Caçeirs dals Mailintzarăs (BDC)	6447	+756
3rd	(+1)		Els Talossaes Rexhital (REX)	6140	+472
4th	(-2)		Cyclohexane (CHX)	6061	+351
5th	(+1)		Team In The Wind (ITW)	5958	+573
6th	(-1)		Maritiimi-Maxhestic Mençeis (MMM)	5866	+390
7th	(=)		Velociposse Florencia (VFL)	5766	+454
8th	(=)		Cézembre Fieschā (CFA)	3822	+321

The general classification and overall winner of the pink jersey has now been fully decided. This will be crucial in determining the end of tour points scored by the teams.

TCAT 2026 general classification:
1. Vingegaard (CFA/ITW/BDC/GHS/MMM/CHX)
2. Gall +5'22"(REX/VFL)
3. Hindley +6'25" (BDC/GHS)
4. Arensman +7'02" (ITW/BDC/GHS/VFL)
5. Gee-West +7'56" (REX)
7. Storer +10'13" (REX/GHS/VFL)
8. Piganzoli +10'52" (GHS/MMM)
10. Bernal +12'54" (ITW/BDC)
17. Harper +30'43" (GHS)
20. Ciccone +56'40" (ITW/BDC/CHX)

Pellizzari in the end finished just outside the top 20.

Today the first leg of TCAT 2026 finishes in Rome. Vingegaard and his team can celebrate, but for the sprinters there is still one stage to be won, which may be crucial in determining the TCAT podium.

I have implemented an Approval Voting tabulator compatible with the Pseudo-Real 20 seat Cosă. Feel free to play around with it, and let me know what you think.

Link

New video is out and sent to the minister for comments -- soon, distribution!  Last time, we got a big burst of immigration, so we'll see if our hypothesis is correct that promotion really does work!

I know we had discussed it a bit over PM, but I'm very glad you chose to resurrect this particular bit of provincial fun. And I'm flattered to be made a Kernel!