@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.

I'm going to give the Government the benefit of the doubt here for a second and discuss this under the assumption that their issue with this bill is based on an appallingly-severe lack of reading comprehension, as opposed to the sort of blatant misrepresentation that has become common on their part. So let me start at the beginning.

His Majesty is a constitutional monarch. He is by leaps and bounds the most scrupulous monarch this country has ever had when it comes to respecting his constitutional boundaries and duties. I do not believe he is a strongman.

Constitutional monarchs "reign, but do not rule", as the saying goes. Consequently, since I believe he respects his role, I do not believe HM "rules" over Talossa at all, in a strongman fashion or otherwise. (Though in the colloquial complimentary sense, I would absolutely agree that he "rules".)

It is baffling to me that someone could read this bill, see that it removes the reference to His Majesty's government from the oath of citizenship, and honestly conclude that the bill says His Majesty is the one guilty of strongman tactics.

Frankly, the fact that the current Government is hellbent on keeping new citizens bending the knee to them is all the more argument in favor of the bill's value. Instead of saying "yes, condemning autocracy and removing parts of Talossan law that smell of it, however small they may be, is something we are on board with", they decry this bill's pro-liberty values as inappropriate for legislation; "some political message". Where, exactly, is political messaging more appropriate than the nation's legislature?

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 07:26:43 PMWe use RCV for the Senats, but I don't know how you have parliamentary democracy without party politics.  Also that might be a bridge too far for right now.  I don't know, though?

Parties will always exist, but I guess it's a matter of how institutionalised they are.

With the current closed party list voting system, parties are strongly institutionalised, and ultimate power ultimately rests with party leadership.

With a more open and direct voting system, hopefully power would be transfered to the voters and the MZs they elect, regardless of party affiliation (if any). I've spent several years researching proportional voting systems that do not require strongly institutionalised parties to function, and I feel like they might bring a positive change to the current culture.

We use RCV for the Senats, but I don't know how you have parliamentary democracy without party politics.  Also that might be a bridge too far for right now.  I don't know, though?

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on Yesterday at 04:06:49 PM

Quote from: Mximo Malt on Yesterday at 03:07:31 PM

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Yesterday at 01:31:13 PM

Quote from: Mximo Malt on April 28, 2026, 06:03:09 PMWhen did we start doing this?

When did we start doing what, exactly?

Reduced Cosă seats

It is not a good look for potential voters that you apparently didn't have a good look at 62RZ11 before you voted on it

Then I just won't seek a second term, and I'd bet you'd loooooooooooove that! How bout them apples!?

Quote from: Sir Ian Plätschisch on Yesterday at 04:37:23 PM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 26, 2026, 05:49:25 PMI know that we keep citizenship eligibility at 14 for historical reasons but we should consider a minimum age limit for being an MZ. I would suggest 18 or 21 (if this does not run afoul of the OrgLaw). If we are serious about making  structural improvements to the Ziu then it might be worth considering whether 14 or 16 is generally just too young to effectively participate in national decision-making.

ADDED: I mean no offense to our youngest citizens but wanted to broach the topic.

In my humble opinion, this would be terrible.

I totally get why we might not want to have minors here at all (even though it would be unfortunate given our founding), but assuming they are here, why would we not want them to participate in the thing most people find the most interesting? The stakes of "national decision making" are, all things considered, much to low to allow for that.

First, thanks for responding Ian.

I actually do support a higher minimum age for citizenship, I do suspect though, for some, it is a non-starter. But there are other ways for our youngest citizens to be involved...political parties could still accept them as members, etc. Honestly, the proposal comes from observing recent events as I think the actions of a few of our younger members of national politics have been motivated by immaturity. A period for participation as an observer for those between the ages of 14 and 16 or 18 would allow for some learning and maturation before entry into the nation's parliament. I do not think it is a good idea to throw 14 years (especially) into a nation's political fray as soon as they are citizens.

This might be a nonstarter but does the system have to be party-focused? Have we considered transitioning to a candidate-centric voting system for the Cosa?

I would argue it would eliminate many of the issues we're having as far as accountability and party transparency. If we use a system like Single Transferable Vote for example, we can elect individual candidates based on their merits instead of voting for a party who then decides which candidates to give seats to. I imagine this would reduce the propensity of MCs to vote solely based on party interests as they would be directly accountable to the electorate and it would allow citizens to split their votes if they choose instead of being forced to side with one party and tacitly endorse everyone on the list regardless of preference.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on April 27, 2026, 05:55:36 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 27, 2026, 04:44:12 PMlet's say that Party A won 50%, Party B won 25%, and Party C won 25%.  In a 20-seat Cosa, that's 10 seats for A, 5 seats for B, and 5 seats for C.  But if B won six of the provincial seats, then they'd have 30% (more than their share of the national vote) and so A and B would need extra until things were proportional.

You could do it that way, but that's the harder way. The simpler option would be to just live with the overhang. Let's say A and C both won 1 province. Then, Party A gets 9 party list seats (to sum up to 10) and Party C gets 4 seats (to sum up to 5). So that's a total Cosa of 21 seats. Party B gets a small bonus.

From my (limited) research, though, it seems like the overhang can get pretty bad.  I don't have any numbers on hand, but it seems like it could get pretty disproportionate.  Since this part isn't voter-facing, it might make sense to make it as good in as many ways as possible, even if the allocation gets complicated.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on April 28, 2026, 05:12:28 PMAnother thing which has been glossed over so far is the other side of the coin re: "giving voters effective control over who sits in the Ziu", and that is making sure party seats (as far as practicable) go to candidates whose names were on the ballot and who the voters were aware of. Considering the Seneschal has previously talked about taking a Cort case to declare party lists unconstitutional, that's something we have to sort out right now.

The current standard of "maximum 33% off-list" is a bare minimum, perhaps with an OrgLaw amendment to render it constitutional to the Seneschal's standards. I'd prefer 25% or even 20%; I understand that some wiggle-room is acceptable.

Do we have to sort it out right now?  It doesn't seem like that's structural here, so maybe we want to leave that until later.  If you're trying to work out a consensus view, it's often helpful to focus on strong points of agreement and progress, rather than focus on problems -- unless there's something I'm missing about this, and we need to figure it out before proceeding.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 26, 2026, 05:49:25 PMI know that we keep citizenship eligibility at 14 for historical reasons but we should consider a minimum age limit for being an MZ. I would suggest 18 or 21 (if this does not run afoul of the OrgLaw). If we are serious about making  structural improvements to the Ziu then it might be worth considering whether 14 or 16 is generally just too young to effectively participate in national decision-making.

ADDED: I mean no offense to our youngest citizens but wanted to broach the topic.

In my humble opinion, this would be terrible.

I totally get why we might not want to have minors here at all (even though it would be unfortunate given our founding), but assuming they are here, why would we not want them to participate in the thing most people find the most interesting? The stakes of "national decision making" are, all things considered, much to low to allow for that.