Yes - up to, as the existing legislation provides, 7.5% of the Cosa rounded up - i.e. 2 extra seats in total. Enough to make thing spicy lol

So this proposal would reduce the size of the Cosa from 200 to 20, but would still permit new citizens to claim seats?

Excellent work.

This proposal forms the first step in laying out the URL's broader Democracy Agenda, in response to a Government who's happier to include absolute monarchists than it is to cooperate with a much larger democratic party. It is vital for political health that it be possible to lose elections.

This from my address to the Party Convention some months ago, referring to the Progressive Alliance:

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on July 29, 2025, 05:03:04 PMI realised that previously I referred to this party as "conservative". I did so on the basis that, whatever changes are suggested to Talossan institutions or structure, they're agin' it. But that's not actually the right word. The right word is apolitical.

This party is, as I see it, not a political party in the way our new URL is. They are not held together by shared politics, but by friendships, by its internal culture. In a party which is a "social club" writ large, it's not a surprise that the party should have no distinctive politics of its own - or rather, that its politics should "default" to the preferences of whoever its most confident member is.

And an "apolitical party" produces an "apolitical politics" for Talossa. Confused? What I mean is: a politics that essentially holds that Talossa should not have politics. That debate about different visions of Talossa's future, its raison d'être (sorry, raziun d'estar), its institutional nature, is divisive and unseemly - even that it "drives away prospectives" - and that elections should reduce partly to deciding a team of administrators for the next six months, and partly to one of those funny things that Talossans do to be quirky.

The spectacle of a "progressive" party forming a coalition with an absolute monarchist party has confirmed my analysis above. Smoothing over any possible political differences to build the broadest possible consensus - what I refer to as "anti-politics" - leads to the same place as absolute monarchy, i.e. principled opposition and ideological disagreement are delegitimised.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on December 07, 2025, 06:58:29 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on December 07, 2025, 05:59:41 PMThe Progs do not have the same political differences from the UR

I would have thought not; which is why it is such a surprise that you told Mic'haglh that the Progs were not interested in a formal coalition with the URL (153/8 seats), but it turns out you are keen on one with the Absolute Monarchists (102/4 seats).

The terms on which we are engaged with the IDT are very similar to what I just mentioned for the URL, as you will note.  We did not have an appetite for the scale of collaboration that was initially proposed.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on December 07, 2025, 06:58:29 PMIMHO discussion can continue about specific items of legislation, including the Budget; but there can be no more talk of a confidence agreement while the Government already holds an absolute majority of seats.

Well yes, a confidence and supply situation would be suitable to support a minority Government, so that doesn't make sense definitionally, I would think?  But I take your meaning.

If you guys change your mind and are interested in being a part of the Government, we're still happy to discuss how to advance the interests of your constituents in achieving your party policy goals, since a lot of them seem great.  I respect your decision if you're just taking that off the table, but the door is open if you guys change your mind.  And of course, we'll be happy to discuss other items such as cooperation in the Senate, as well.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on December 07, 2025, 06:58:29 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on December 07, 2025, 05:59:41 PMThe Progs do not have the same political differences from the UR

I would have thought not; which is why it is such a surprise that you told Mic'haglh that the Progs were not interested in a formal coalition with the URL (153/8 seats), but it turns out you are keen on one with the Absolute Monarchists (102/4 seats).

Mximo should certainly be at the centre of ár comunità Ladintsch, and he's been playing that role already, but I don't know how to explain that someone who opposes democracy does not have a role in the Government of a constitutional monarchy. No-one would complain about a senior non-Cabinet position, although perhaps not replacing the Ladintsch Naziunal.

IMHO discussion can continue about specific items of legislation, including the Budget; but there can be no more talk of a confidence agreement while the Government already holds an absolute majority of seats.

Good to note that the cordon sanitaire holds; I did note that Sex Pest was saying that he wasn't going to be the opposition any more, which I saw as an attempt for him to weasel his way back into a renewed TNC-style coalition.

We're together mainly for el Glheþ/Jethus, and also to keep the monarchy relevant. I'll clarify my position: If the monarchy is elevated to a level comparable to that of Liechtenstein (formally called a semi-constitutional monarchy, in which the King is kinda like the POTUS), then it would meet the criteria for the government this party wishes to attain. I have no intent to suppress free speech, but it can be abused easily (I'm not saying you are, Madame PM!). That's all I have to say.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on December 07, 2025, 05:59:41 PMThe Progs do not have the same political differences from the UR

I would have thought not; which is why it is such a surprise that you told Mic'haglh that the Progs were not interested in a formal coalition with the URL (153/8 seats), but it turns out you are keen on one with the Absolute Monarchists (102/4 seats).

Mximo should certainly be at the centre of ár comunità Ladintsch, and he's been playing that role already, but I don't know how to explain that someone who opposes democracy does not have a role in the Government of a constitutional monarchy. No-one would complain about a senior non-Cabinet position, although perhaps not replacing the Ladintsch Naziunal.

IMHO discussion can continue about specific items of legislation, including the Budget; but there can be no more talk of a confidence agreement while the Government already holds an absolute majority of seats.

Good to note that the cordon sanitaire holds; I did note that Sex Pest was saying that he wasn't going to be the opposition any more, which I saw as an attempt for him to weasel his way back into a renewed TNC-style coalition.

WHEREAS Talossa is not roleplaying, and
WHEREAS therefore, operating under a "D&D Cosă" with more seats than voting citizens is untenable, and
WHEREAS political power ought not be a matter of course that is bought and paid for, but a privilege derived from sufficient popular mandate (or for our newest citizens, a courtesy extended by law),

NOW THEREFORE, be it enacted that the following provision be added to el Lexhatx as subsubsection H.4.1.1:

QuoteThe total number of party seats is twenty.

FURTHERMORE, according to LegOrg IV.2.1, this change will not take effect until the next election following the passage of a calendar year.

Uréu q'estadra så:
Marcel Tafial

Quote from: Max Maltezos on December 07, 2025, 05:47:13 PMthe Prime Minister has created an environment in which I am portrayed as a rebel

This is untrue. I would not use the term "rebel", which is the language of authoritarianism. This is a liberal democracy, and your right to express your politics is protected; a right you would not grant to my politics, were the institutions to be set up the way you seem to prefer.

Anyway, you've set up a deal where I won't be Prime Minister for more than a couple more days, so I don't see your problem.

The funny thing is I didn't say KR1 was a tyrant. Just made the point that even in Mximo's tradition, not all Kings are worthy of allegiance.

The technical term for how he operated would be "abusive bully and authoritarian". Imagine a country where the forms of multiparty democracy are intact, but the Head of State keeps up a constant stream of threatening invective and slander against opposition politicians, uses politicised investigations against them to drive them out of participation, and maintains a biased electoral system which gives his voting base proportionally unfair power.

Actually, if you're a US citizen, that shouldn't be hard to imagine LMAO.