Can someone please explain to me how this works. I don't see how this reduces the size of the Cosa, so maybe I'm reading it incorrectly.

-Txec R

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on December 07, 2025, 07:40:25 PMYou can -- and should -- consider whether very large reaction memes are a great way to discuss legislation, Max.

You have a point...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You can -- and should -- consider whether very large reaction memes are a great way to discuss legislation, Max.

I'm not a math whiz, so I might be wrong.  But this means the first two new citizens can claim seats, and those seats will be equivalent in voting power to 5% of the vote, instead of the current 0.5%... something like six votes in the most recent election, for example?  Is that right?

With the recent legislation by Marcel and the mention of a Democracy Agenda I am looking forward to seeing another party conduct a vigorous set of activities as the Opposition. This is a healthy aspect of our democracy so lets see who will make up the URL shadow cabinet. As mentioned Greens are taking a less active approach to terpeleziuns as a member of the Opposition but we will when necessary submit enquiries to the PA/IDT government.

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.