Okay, so these are the effects of the bill:

• Baseline 20 seats
• Ordered list
• Redistribution via ordered list
• Seat limit change
• Consent to be on a list required

I think there's no barrier to these things being expected to come into effect immediately upon ratification:

• Seat limit change

I think that these requirements require a process that cannot be expected to have occurred (ranked lists) or which have a timer running, and so they will happen with the 64th Cosa:

• Baseline 20 seats
• Ordered list
• Redistribution via ordered list
• Consent to be on a list required

I would have said a lot differently about some of those things, but Miestra's argument as you recount it is rock-solid... parties can't have ordered lists going into this election, and so effects cascading from that are nullified.

Maybe a PD is in order to clarify expectations and the timeline, since you're right that this is confusing.  That's what happens when you rush, I guess... we really hustled to make the last Clark with that one.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on August 04, 2026, 05:35:44 PMWhen and where did the Ziu agree that this particular baseline change to Org.IV.2.1 would only enter into effect during or after February?

The Ziu affirmed the underlying rule governing when changes to the size of the Ziu would come into effect by passing the same language with that requirement, unchanged.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on August 04, 2026, 05:35:44 PMThat's an interesting point, actually. Miestră believes that ironclad lists cannot come into effect immediately because electoral lists under the current pre-referendum system are not the same form as the ironclad post-referendum system, i.e. they're not numerically ordered. In her view, the Cosă constitutes under the old rules as soon as the election results are published, but before any amendments enter into effect.

If this isn't a reason for all of us to come to an agreement as to when and how the amendment enters into effect and what ramifications it would have, I don't know what is.

That's actually a really good point.  Could people be fairly held to requirements that didn't yet exist, knowing that they probably will but might not exist in the future?  I don't think so... I think you're right on this one, and I'm wrong.  I think the whole thing will come into effect not in this upcoming Cosa, but the next one.  Good thinking.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on August 04, 2026, 05:27:14 PMThe Ziu affirmed a change, yes.  But it also affirmed the requirement that a change to the size of the Ziu would happen after the clock ran.

Where? If you agree with my interpretation that baseline changes are immediate and only statutory changes are subject to delays (you called my interpretation to that effect "spot-on" half an hour ago), then the effect would be immediate. When and where did the Ziu agree that this particular baseline change to Org.IV.2.1 would only enter into effect during or after February?

QuoteI don't think there's anything to hold up anything like the ironclad Cosa lists, which will come into effect immediately after the referendum is passed (so everyone should prepare for that now!)

That's an interesting point, actually. Miestră believes that ironclad lists cannot come into effect immediately because electoral lists under the current pre-referendum system are not the same form as the ironclad post-referendum system, i.e. they're not numerically ordered. In her view, the Cosă constitutes under the old rules as soon as the election results are published, but before any amendments enter into effect.

If this isn't a reason for all of us to come to an agreement as to when and how the amendment enters into effect and what ramifications it would have, I don't know what is.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on August 04, 2026, 05:26:55 PMBut even if the baseline change would enter into effect immediately rather than next year, would that mean the 63rd Cosă would have 20 seats? And what about the other changes to the Cosă's composition such as seat limits and iron-clad party lists, would they come into effect with the 63rd Cosă or the 64th? We've actually been debating this on the URL Discord and it seems the only thing we could agree on is that this stuff is confusing lol. I believe there is a lot of potential for confusion and grave misunderstandings here that we would be better avoiding at all costs, so it'd be practical to collectively agree on some sort of "timeline of events" beforehand.

There's no other provision requiring a waiting time for any other changes, so I think everything else would come into play after the referendum passed.  I don't think there's anything to hold up anything like the ironclad Cosa lists, which will come into effect immediately after the referendum is passed (so everyone should prepare for that now!)

The Cosa will have 200 seats this upcoming term, and 20 after that.

The Ziu affirmed a change, yes.  But it also affirmed the requirement that a change to the size of the Ziu would happen after the clock ran.

But even if the amendment's changes enter into effect immediately rather than next year, would that mean the 63rd Cosă would have 20 seats? And what about the other changes to the Cosă's composition such as seat limits and iron-clad party lists, would they come into effect with the 63rd Cosă or the 64th? We've actually been debating this on the URL Discord and it seems the only thing we could agree on is that this stuff is confusing lol. I believe there is a lot of potential for confusion and grave misunderstandings here that we would be better avoiding at all costs, so it'd be practical to collectively agree on some sort of "timeline of events" beforehand.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on August 04, 2026, 05:11:14 PMYour interpretation is spot-on, but that doesn't really have any bearing on what I'm saying.  I'm saying that this was a change to the party seats that has been set by law, and that change happened with the passage of the statutory change earlier in the term.  The Organic Law says that "such change" takes effect after a certain amount of time.  That limit was just affirmed by the Ziu again.

What I'm saying is that the Ziu has actually affirmed a change of the baseline during the last Clark by passing the Democracy Act and Amendment, independent of any statutory changes that will enter into effect as per the relevant proviso sometime next year. After all, should the amendment pass its referendum, Org.IV.2.1.1 will say "The party seats shall total 20, [...]", with the rest being equal.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on August 04, 2026, 05:01:01 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on August 04, 2026, 04:59:58 PMThanks!  I got it stuck in my head the other way for some reason, and now I keep making that mistake.

You know who originally used to spell it that way? The guy who was its original editor, ESB

Do you think that's where I got it from?  Maybe.  Sometimes when you see a word for the first time, it sticks that way.

I was hanging out with a friend the other night, and she told me that equaniminous isn't a word.  It's "equanimity" but "equanimous," without the extra syllable.  But I can't get my head around it.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on August 04, 2026, 04:59:03 PMThis has nothing to do with annoyance. Just to be clear, here is the sentence in question:

QuoteThe party seats shall total 200, or another number which may be set by law, with the provisos that any such change will not take effect until the next election following the passage of a calendar year; and that this number may never be less than twice the number of Senators minus one.

The way that IV.2.1.1 is phrased currently, the word "such" in the subordinate clause listing the provisos refers back to the directly preceding subordinate clause, not the whole sentence. Choosing to interpret that sentence in such a way that these provisos apply to all changes to the size of the Cosă instead of merely "such" change such as "another number which may be set by law" would risk rendering it ungrammatical to me. Amending this part of the OrgLaw is not merely setting "another number" "by law", but a direct modification of the baseline, and the provisos still would only apply to statutory law overriding that baseline.

Then again, maybe I'm not as good as English as I thought...!

Your interpretation is spot-on, but that doesn't really have any bearing on what I'm saying.  I'm saying that this was a change to the party seats that has been set by law, and that change happened with the passage of the statutory change earlier in the term.  The Organic Law says that "such change" takes effect after a certain amount of time.  That limit was just affirmed by the Ziu again.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on August 04, 2026, 04:59:58 PMThanks!  I got it stuck in my head the other way for some reason, and now I keep making that mistake.

You know who originally used to spell it that way? The guy who was its original editor, ESB