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.

Okay, so it seems like there's a lot of offers of help with figuring this out.  I think I have a sense of my caucus, and I think I can say that there would be flat-out no real support for anything that gets rid of the Senats unless it was demonstrably better in very specific and practical ways.  My strong suggestion is that we focus on versions of this that would work with the Senats, not eliminate it, if we want to come up with something that has broad support.

So looking at the nuts and bolts here, we could:

• Elect a senator from each province at the current interval.
• Elect an MC from each province every election.
• Choose a party as well.

It doesn't seem like this would interfere with RCV for the Senats at all, and it seems like we'd have enough people for this, right?

Miestra has proposed that we'd add however many seats necessary to ensure that the results would be proportional to the vote.  But that's a question of degree, right?  Like... let'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.  How does that look?  How close would things need to be?

He was quoting Mic'haglh, I believe, who called the current oath an "Orwellian practice."

This prospective has not made a post on Wittenberg within a month of their introduction.  In accordance with Lexh.E.4, their application process is hereby terminated. @Minister of Immigration, please take notice.

This prospective has received a petition within sixty days of their eligibility.  In accordance with Lexh.E.4, their application process is hereby terminated. @Minister of Immigration, please take notice.

This prospective has received a petition within sixty days of their eligibility.  In accordance with Lexh.E.4, their application process is hereby terminated. @Minister of Immigration, please take notice.

Orwellian implies "draconian control by propaganda, surveillance, disinformation, and denial of truth." I fail to see how the current Oath is any of those things. You think OUR oath is "Orwellian" you should check out the United Kingdom's oath.

-Txec R

I don't think anybody objects to the change of the content of the oath, but I see that Mic'haglh insists on keeping unrelated Whereas clauses which aim at delivering some political messages.. Any opponent to these messages has already been qualified as Orwellian. Smart, isn't it ?

So done.

As someone who has advocated for MMP before, I'm certainly glad to see folks starting to soften to the idea. Even just discussing it is a good start.

I do agree that maintaining some sort of provincial representation is worth doing, but that having provincial representation in both houses goes too far. If we wanted to move the Cosa to an MMP setup, then I would agree that implementing something like Sir Luc's idea would be a good change for the Senats.

Overhang seats can of course be a concern, but as Miestra and Sir Marcel have both already pointed out, there are methods to reduce these. Though I would prefer a fixed size to the Cosa, I don't mind the method where seats are added to negate overhang seats. Especially if we take the German method of excluding party list votes for successful independent voters, that likely minimizes the number of overhang seats anyway, so one every few elections isn't objectionable.

One thing I don't really support is the majority bonus or majority jackpot system; yes, not using them makes government formation and stability a bit harder, but that just means you might have to actually negotiate things on occasion. C'e la vidă.

One of the nice things about MMP, in my opinion, is that it seems to be fairly flexible in the details of how you choose to implement it. As an example, there is nothing preventing us from still electing the party seats via an open-list method, or from using ranked-choice voting for provincial seats.