Quote from: Françal I. Lux on Yesterday at 03:57:15 PMI will also continue to advocate for a candidate-based voting system. As I've state before, I believe it would solve a lot of the issues we're having to grapple with in the current system. I am still uncomfortable with party lists on principle and would prefer political parties to be decentralized enough to let individual candidates take the lead in their own campaigns.

I also don't buy the argument that it's too hard so we shouldn't bother with it. If the right solution is a little bit more complicated than the current flawed system but actually solves a lot of the issues we all know exist, we shouldn't be afraid to implement it regardless of how it would impact us politically or ideologically because it's what's right for the nation in the long-term. It's also on us as elected officials to explain to the public thoroughly the change and why it's necessary. I believe our citizens are sophisticated enough to understand and would appreciate reforms that would actually empower them at the ballot box.

I'm a little skeptical we could get that written in the time remaining to us, but we could at least start something in terms of getting some text down.  Education is going to be key, and so will ballot design, and the language needs to be careful.  As I have found, there's a lot of places where statutes touch on this... my bill will clean up a lot of those, at least, and make way for a candidate-based system (maybe in the next term?)

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on Yesterday at 04:15:52 PMI haven't had a chance to look at the Baron's bill closely yet, but I'm not 100% convinced we need to push on to a Sixth Clark bill. I reiterate my preference for a minimal OrgLaw amendment which would (a) clarify that only candidates on the ballot get to sit in the Cosa - in exchange for the excellent compromise of a 33% increase in seat limits - and that includes filling vacancies; (b) verbiage that allows either a closed-list or open-list system, details to be worked out by statute law in the 63rd Cosa.

I think we have time to get this done if we keep cracking at it.

My bill is fairly minimal -- a lot of the changes are just fixing all the little bits and bobs about party leaders getting to change things.  I used your language on a lot of it, adding on a bit where problems became obvious (like to prevent another problem like we just had, with different appointment methods at different times).  I think I found all of the references to leaders getting to appoint people at will and things associated with that.

Quote from: Sir Lüc on Yesterday at 04:26:33 PMNo, I simply moved back to the Hopper (and tagged as "Clarkable") all the bills that are deemed to have passed the CRL by laying there for over a month. I thought it would be helpful if the CRL sub-board only contained bills actively under the scrutiny of the CRL, which those bills no longer would be.

Ah, thanks for clarifying.

No, I simply moved back to the Hopper (and tagged as "Clarkable") all the bills that are deemed to have passed the CRL by laying there for over a month. I thought it would be helpful if the CRL sub-board only contained bills actively under the scrutiny of the CRL, which those bills no longer would be.

I haven't had a chance to look at the Baron's bill closely yet, but I'm not 100% convinced we need to push on to a Sixth Clark bill. I reiterate my preference for a minimal OrgLaw amendment which would (a) clarify that only candidates on the ballot get to sit in the Cosa - in exchange for the excellent compromise of a 33% increase in seat limits - and that includes filling vacancies; (b) verbiage that allows either a closed-list or open-list system, details to be worked out by statute law in the 63rd Cosa.

62RZ25 Për

GV, Fiova

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Yesterday at 12:07:57 PMSad to see the issue of candidate-based voting not further acknowledged. Personally, I'm not willing to give up on this project just yet, as I still think it's worth considering.

I will also continue to advocate for a candidate-based voting system. As I've state before, I believe it would solve a lot of the issues we're having to grapple with in the current system. I am still uncomfortable with party lists on principle and would prefer political parties to be decentralized enough to let individual candidates take the lead in their own campaigns.

I also don't buy the argument that it's too hard so we shouldn't bother with it. If the right solution is a little bit more complicated than the current flawed system but actually solves a lot of the issues we all know exist, we shouldn't be afraid to implement it regardless of how it would impact us politically or ideologically because it's what's right for the nation in the long-term. It's also on us as elected officials to explain to the public thoroughly the change and why it's necessary. I believe our citizens are sophisticated enough to understand and would appreciate reforms that would actually empower them at the ballot box.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on Yesterday at 01:38:00 PMNorth Vancouver is only 25-30 minutes away from where I am in Burnaby. As a former Quick Recall captain I am tempted to try this out.

That BC site is led by Lee-Ann Whitlock, who is also the coordinator of Trivia Nationals in Las Vegas Aug 7-9 trivianationals.org

North Vancouver is only 25-30 minutes away from where I am in Burnaby. As a former Quick Recall captain I am tempted to try this out.

There are spots all over the globe at worldquizzing.com but here is a map of the North American sites (click on it for interactivity)