Good evening all! Just to provide a quick update:

No one actually applied for a new ID prior to the deadline's expiration, unfortunately.

However, there was one citizen who was waiting on their ID from a previous round, and two more who did fill out the old MinSTUFF application late last year, including passing their Civics Tests, so I'm treating these three as the current "batch" of IDs.

The updated tracker sheet can be viewed here.

I am currently still waiting to hear back from two of the applicants regarding some of their info. Since there are only three cards to make, the workload on my end will be pretty light. If everyone communicates on a reasonably-timely basis, I believe the initial target can be met of having these in the mail by the start of the Sixth Clark at the beginning of July.

I didn't really intend it as something you "join", if I'm honest. If you tinker and want to post about it, then post about it, no membership required.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on Yesterday at 11:47:05 PMOkay, so if everyone's agreed that what we're looking for is a series of OrgLaw and Lexhatx amendments that:

a) will mandate that all Members of the Cosa will be candidates who stood at the election (given some relaxation of seat limits);
b) will allow either a closed-list or open-list system to be established by normal statutory law (by the 63rd Cosa onwards);

then I think we can press forward with this. But I just want to make sure we're all on the same page with this.

I'm on board with this -- at least at first glance, it doesn't seem like the proposed changes would prohibit a more candidate-centric electoral method, whether that's the standard open-list system you and I have been advocating, or something like Sir Marcel's SPAV method. As long as the statute in question describes how the list is to be ordered for the purposes of awarding seats under the proposed Org.IV.2.2; maybe the proposed text should clarify that this list shall be ordered as determined by law? It mentions reaching the bottom of the list, going back to the top, etc., but does not clarify if the list is simply ordered as submitted, or assembled by the results of the election, or what. Explicitly having some flexibility there will ease the adoption of a new method, I think.

Okay, so if everyone's agreed that what we're looking for is a series of OrgLaw and Lexhatx amendments that:

a) will mandate that all Members of the Cosa will be candidates who stood at the election (given some relaxation of seat limits);
b) will allow either a closed-list or open-list system to be established by normal statutory law (by the 63rd Cosa onwards);

then I think we can press forward with this. But I just want to make sure we're all on the same page with this.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Yesterday at 08:34:43 PMNot directly related to what's going on here right now, but since it seems like we'll be going ahead with cyclical party lists, I've added cyclical tie-breaks to my SPAV tabulator. I have yet to hear anything about it... feel free to tell me if I should stop referencing it here.

I've had a chance to try the simulator as well and I'm intrigued. I'll look more into this as a serious alternative to our current system. I agree with Baron Davinescu that we probably will have to wait to implement this reform until the next term, but let's keep the idea alive until then.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Yesterday at 08:55:16 PM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on Yesterday at 08:51:27 PM

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Yesterday at 08:34:43 PMNot directly related to what's going on here right now, but since it seems like we'll be going ahead with cyclical party lists, I've added cyclical tie-breaks to my SPAV tabulator. I have yet to hear anything about it... feel free to tell me if I should stop referencing it here.

I checked it out but wasn't sure how to use it, Marcel.

Upload a ballot file -- you can download an example file based on the December 2025 election (I just noticed it was broken, I fixed it now), enter the turnout (last election's turnout was 105), select a tie-break method, and you should be getting the results.

Excellent, thanks.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on Yesterday at 08:51:27 PM

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Yesterday at 08:34:43 PMNot directly related to what's going on here right now, but since it seems like we'll be going ahead with cyclical party lists, I've added cyclical tie-breaks to my SPAV tabulator. I have yet to hear anything about it... feel free to tell me if I should stop referencing it here.

I checked it out but wasn't sure how to use it, Marcel.

Upload a ballot file -- you can download an example file based on the December 2025 election (I just noticed it was broken, I fixed it now), enter the turnout (last election's turnout was 105), select a tie-break method, and you should be getting the results.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Yesterday at 08:34:43 PMNot directly related to what's going on here right now, but since it seems like we'll be going ahead with cyclical party lists, I've added cyclical tie-breaks to my SPAV tabulator. I have yet to hear anything about it... feel free to tell me if I should stop referencing it here.

I checked it out but wasn't sure how to use it, Marcel.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 08:40:22 PMWhat kind of feedback were you looking for?  Should a bunch of us try it out?

It's meant to illustrate how SPAV tabulation works in practice, in case my explanation of it in this thread was too abstract or anything. The example file provided is based on the most recent election, and the output is what this Cosă would've looked like under 20-seat SPAV, provided that all voters chose to vote along partisan lines.

The table shows total (weighted) vote counts per candidate (row) and round (column), and a winning candidate is highlighted in yellow.

EDIT: Then again, since it isn't really the focus of this thread right now, I might as well stop linking to it for now.

What kind of feedback were you looking for?  Should a bunch of us try it out?