Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 03:49:30 PMI don't!  Saying I think it's good that we offer both Pepsi and Coke doesn't mean that I want to abolish Coke, it means that I think it's good we currently get to have both.

To sorta continue this metaphor, we don't currently get both. Or rather, we do, but not in the sense that everyone gets to choose either Pepsi or Coke for themselves, instead everyone currently gets a mix of both Pepsi and Coke at fixed ratios, so people who only like one of the two are left unsatisfied. And for me as a fan of Coke, it's especially strange to be served a mixed beverage like this when the bottles and dispensers, as well as the invitational flyers, are all labelled "Coke". It almost verges on false advertising.

QuoteIt's interesting there's other ways of having both direct and representative democracy.  Is liquid democracy simple?

It's similar to seat claiming in M-M, where people either claim a seat, or elect someone as their proxy. I'm not sure if this is the case in M-M, but proxies can also elect metaproxies for themselves, etc. In the end, you would have a Ecclesia of both seat claimants and representatives, which sounds like it would be right up your alley.

Well, we currently have 137 citizens. If we added a citizen a month and only lost a few each year, then we would have more than 200 citizens in 8 years. If we had two citizens a month on average , then it'll be even less time. But if a network effect kicks in, where we add a percentage rather than a steady rate, then it would take a lot less time.

I've never actually looked back at the immigration data to see if there's a correlation between total number of citizens and the immigration rate.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 02:24:33 PMMaybe not 200, although I think we'll grow into that number before too long as we turn things around

lolwut?

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 03:50:53 PMZoom, unless His Majesty is interested in a drive.  (I have a spare room and it's beautiful where I live!)

The East Coast is quite lovely, but all things considered, I don't expect I'll be driving the 3,000 miles at this time. Zoom is far more convenient and we can have people from all over the world join in!

-Txec R

No reason to be afraid, any vote is a good vote. What I'm trying to say is, please vote so we can move on to the next groups 🙂

Zoom, unless His Majesty is interested in a drive.  (I have a spare room and it's beautiful where I live!)

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Yesterday at 03:36:01 PMThe main difference is that a party leader can either assign 1 or 2 seats to somebody, instead of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,... or 20. I admit this is partially psychological, but assigning an MC either 1 or 2 seats is less arbitrary feeling than assigning them, say, 17.

Okay, so you see a benefit in the psychological difference, and because it would smooth the way for a Real Cosa in the future.  I'm not sure I'm on board, but I think I understand.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Yesterday at 03:36:01 PMThis was intended to rebutt your "Other countries aren't as lucky" statement.

Sure, and I was pointing out that some of these have a fairly low threshold, although I got my math wrong.  I do think we get to enjoy unique benefits because of how small we are, though, and I'm not sure why that's bad.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Yesterday at 03:36:01 PMI'm not sure what this means, really. Of course representing the people is a job and an honour. Why wouldn't it be?

Well, you were making an argument from principle that it's wrong that people can wield power by demanding it, but I was pointing out that they're wielding their own share of power.  You made the comparison to something earned, but they don't need to earn their own political power.  Sorry, we have a lot of things going at the same time here!

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Yesterday at 03:36:01 PMAnd if you want to abolish representative democracy outright then just say so.

I don't!  Saying I think it's good that we offer both Pepsi and Coke doesn't mean that I want to abolish Coke, it means that I think it's good we currently get to have both.

It's interesting there's other ways of having both direct and representative democracy.  Is liquid democracy simple?

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Yesterday at 03:36:01 PMI focussed on the ratio because that seems to be the real issue. If you're serious about wanting to reach more than 200 voting citizens within this term, would it not be at least in the realm of possibility that the same 7.5% ratio of New Citizen seats that is problematic in a 20 seat Cosă would be filled out in a 200 seat Cosă -- which would mean 15 new citizens claiming a seat?

We should be so lucky!

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Yesterday at 03:36:01 PMBut it's a valid concern no matter what. New Citizen seats can only be abolished via an OrgLaw amendment, which is outside the purview of this bill. If you want, we can get together and work on that right away. And even if we don't do this right away, this bill does not take effect immediately. We would have an entire calendar year and then some to abolish New Citizen seats.

If there's no rush, then my preference would be to take the time to fix it all now, not hope we can pass a related amendment later.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Yesterday at 03:36:01 PMI've already mentioned this in the message you responded to, I'm not sure that was not part of the block quote...

I apologize, I missed that.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on December 17, 2025, 03:37:10 PMI...hope to help arrange a live ceremony in conjunction with a Living Cosa.

Will this be on Zoom or in-person?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 02:24:33 PMSo I get that you think 200 is too big and you don't like it, but I'm not sure how switching to 20 would change the role of MCs.  Could you unpack that for me a little?  What's the difference between your party leader assigning you 2 seats instead of assigning you 20?

The main difference is that a party leader can either assign 1 or 2 seats to somebody, instead of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,... or 20. I admit this is partially psychological, but assigning an MC either 1 or 2 seats is less arbitrary feeling than assigning them, say, 17. I intend this to be a small step towards making individual MCs more responsible for the power they wield. Ultimately, I would like a full return to a proper Real Cosă. This could then be done by repealing or revising Lex.H.4.1. The reason why I didn't do that here was manpower concerns. We do not currently have 28 concurrent active citizens to be in the legislature, and as I understand it, your party was already struggling to assign seats under the current D&D approach, so switching to a Real Cosă right now would only exacerbate this issue.

QuoteI think that there's a significant difference in how our Cosa is run versus how the Danish Folketing is run, but I'd point out that they use a threshold of 2% -- effectively the same as us.  And in the Netherlands the threshold is 0.67%.

The difference, I assume, is that the Folketing is an actual parliament and not a congregation of party block votes with extra steps like the current Cosă, but that's what I would like to fix.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the Danish 2% threshold is "effectively the same as us". The effective threshold in the 200-seat Cosă is around 0.25%, or less than a quarter of a vote under the most recent turnout. And the Dutch threshold is the percentage of the vote needed to guarantee a seat, the Talossan equivalent of which would be 0.5% in the current Cosă. The Netherlands are an outlier for how low their statutory threshold is (most other thresholds are around 3%), but I mentioned them because they have a threshold. This was intended to rebutt your "Other countries aren't as lucky" statement.

QuoteAnyway, something to note is that people are accounted the amount of power that they personally wield in our political system.  The "earning" is the power of using their vote to make their choice... it's not a job or an honour.

In the purest sense of the word, it is much more democratic to allow people to personally wield their own share of political power in the legislature.

I'm not sure what this means, really. Of course representing the people is a job and an honour. Why wouldn't it be?

And if you want to abolish representative democracy outright then just say so. I wouldn't be opposed to this either: there are ways of arranging this, or even to establish a proper mixed form of direct and representative democracy called Liquid Democracy, but the point is that a pseudo-parliament is neither the simplest or the best way of going about this. If anything, if we are going to have a parliament, then why not let it look, sound and work like one, instead of making it partially representative, partially direct, partially a giveaway and full of backbenchers? No one is best served with the current arrangement.

QuoteYou're focusing on the ratio, but I'm pointing out the individual power each new citizen would wield.  It currently is half a percent, but this bill would increase it to 5% of the legislative power in the Cosa.  This has been called "spicy" elsewhere in the thread for good reason: it would be very destabilizing and antidemocratic.

There's not a lot in here that's a nonstarter, but I consider this aspect something that would absolutely need to be fixed before I could support something like this.

I focussed on the ratio because that seems to be the real issue. If you're serious about wanting to reach more than 200 voting citizens within this term, would it not be at least in the realm of possibility that the same 7.5% ratio of New Citizen seats that is problematic in a 20 seat Cosă would be filled out in a 200 seat Cosă -- which would mean 15 new citizens claiming a seat?

But it's a valid concern no matter what. New Citizen seats can only be abolished via an OrgLaw amendment, which is outside the purview of this bill. If you want, we can get together and work on that right away. And even if we don't do this right away, this bill does not take effect immediately. We would have an entire calendar year and then some to abolish New Citizen seats. I've already mentioned this in the message you responded to, I'm not sure that was not part of the block quote...

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Yesterday at 02:05:09 PMMaybe not 200, although I think we'll grow into that number before too long as we turn things around.  But maybe we should set the size of the Cosa as the size of the electorate.

Again, why bother with a Cosă if what you really aim for is an Athenian-style Ecclesia?

Com'ün MdC "solămint el Glheþ", coptéu S:reu Tafi.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk