Some suggestions:

* remove MC's, Senators and the Seneschal from the convocation (or even better: explicitly exclude them). The King should ideally be some counterbalance to the short term politics that govern us and represent its long-term culture and history. I'd be nice if the system that produces the monarch was completely separated from the partisan politics which already dominates everything else.
(We shouldn't really want parties with silly names like the King Lüc Party explicitly campaigning on their position in the convocation whenever a convocation is coming up)

* The convocation should probably also be convened whenever we are without a King for other reasons than the convocation removing him.

* Maybe establish some explicit procedure for convening the convocation. I.e. have someone (the SoS?) call all eligible members (maybe an email requirement) and then set some deadline at which point the convocation is fixed (and anyone who hasn't responded to the call at that point is not part of that particular convocation.

* Some formal system for the various voting round when choosing a new King. For example:
Each vote takes two days and is preceded by three days of discussion.
New votes are called until a candidate reaches 2/3rd of the vote
In the first two rounds all votes are free
In the third round members are only allowed to vote for candidates who received votes in the second round (or abstain)
In the fourth round members are only allowed to vote for candidates who received at least 10% of the vote in the third round (or abstain).
In the fifth round members are only allowed to vote for the top 4 candidates from the fourth round (or abstain).
In the sixth round members are only allowed to vote for the top 3 candidates from the fifth round (or abstain).
In the seventh and eight round members are only allowed to vote for the top 2 candidates from the sixth round (or abstain).
In the ninth and tenth round members are only allowed to vote for or against the candidate with the most votes in the eight round.
If after ten rounds the remaining candidate does not get 2/3rd of the vote, the convocation is dissolved and a referendum is held on the remaining candidate during the next election. If the candidate fails a new convocation is called the month following the election.

The above is just an example, but this is supposed to be a major event that solidifies the Monarchy and its legitimacy for another seven years. Some overly formal and pompous rules would be nice (plus there should definitely be some rules to establish what happens if no candidate gets 2/3rd of the vote anyway).

A smaller, more efficient Cosa would also allow for people to take on other interests in Talossa other than politics. “Not everyone gets to play legislator” is definitely a understatement given the events of recent weeks.

Our institutions are crumbling all around us while more and more people flee for the hills like we’re nearing the end. Apathy has seeped in everywhere even in CURRENTLY ELECTED members of the legislature. We need to pass meaningful reforms NOW, not just half-measures—those won’t cut it anymore. I swear it’s like the twilight days of a great civilization around here nowadays. How many of us are left? How many more of us have to lose interest before we decide to take the hard but necessary step of making meaningful change?

The proposal is to replace the current Organic Law II.3, namely

The King of Talossa is King John I, until his demise, abdication, or removal from the throne. Should the King at any time renounce or lose his citizenship, that renunciation or loss shall be deemed to imply his abdication of the Throne. Upon the demise, abdication, or removal from the Throne of the King, the Uppermost Cort shall be a Council of Regency.

with the following:

The King of Talossa shall be chosen by a National Conclave (Conclave) of all members of the Ziu, all members of the Cort Pü Inalt (CpI), the heads of government of all provinces, and all Talossans who have been citizens for at least ten (10) years. Every member of the Conclave shall have one vote. All the discussions of the Conclave will be open, but its votes shall be by secret ballot. The Conclave shall be chaired by the Senior Judge of the CpI, or in their absence the next available CpI judge in order of seniority, unless it decides differently.

The Conclave shall convene upon the demise, abdication, or removal from the throne of the King.
Unless the King of Talossa is chosen as their own successor they shall be deemed to have abdicated upon having served in that role for ten (10) years. There shall be no limitations on the number of allowable terms of office served.

Conclave members will vote as to whether the King shall remain on the throne. Should more than two-thirds of the Conclave express a desire that the King not remain on the throne, then the Conclave shall commence a period of reflection not to exceed three (3) months; it shall be constituted as described above, but not necessarily with the same members. After the period of reflection, the Conclave shall vote once-again as to their desire that the King remain on the throne. Should more than two-thirds once more express a desire for the King’s removal then deliberations shall begin immediately on selecting a King-Elect.

The Conclave shall set its own rules as to nomination, selection, and approval of King-Elect candidates. The candidate approved by the Conclave shall be confirmed by a simple majority of the nation in an immediate referendum. Should the candidate be confirmed by popular vote then they shall receive the title of "King-Elect". The King-Elect shall swear an oath, in as practicable as possible live session, promising to protect and uphold the Organic Law of Talossa and the rights of all its citizens, and thereupon become King of Talossa.

If there is no King-Elect, the Uppermost Cort shall be a Council of Regency until a King-Elect is chosen.

Ureu q'estadra sa:
Breneir Tzaracomprada (Sen-FL)

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on August 24, 2021, 04:27:11 PM

It is a mammoth task to get anything to change if the King or conservative forces think it diminishes their power. And those conservative forces will die in a ditch over preserving a Cosa which encourages party splintering and no-one can ever be voted out because they make obstruction of the political majority into a positive good.

I really don't see how one connects to the other here. If a party splinters and thereby loses support in the next election, then sure, they might not lose every last one of their seats, but they should lose a considerable number of them, right?

Sorry, I may have misphrased that. I didn't mean "splintering" in the sense of "breaking up", I meant it in the sense of "encouraging large numbers of micro parties", in the way stereotypically associated with Israel and pre-1994 Italy. As you know, to get monarchy reform through we had to negotiate a deal with at least 5 parties in this Cosa, and 2 of them (in whole or part) reneged on the deal without explanation, and there's nothing we can do about it because you only need to vote for yourself to get seats.

There is a real disconnect in Talossa between those who think democracy means "the majority will should prevail, with respect for minority rights", and those who think it means a kind of eternal status quo where minorities can block any serious reform (and let's face it, a Monarchy is the ultimate minority).

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on August 21, 2021, 06:10:52 PM

... and the NPW delegation to the Cosă just abstained on this bill that the Party promised to vote for.

I just give up on Talossan politics, as long as there's no way for a party to be put out of the Cosă in an election. There is just nothing to stop people making agreements and then just tearing them up without reason, logic, or explanation. You can't make multi-party deals in such circumstances and therefore doing anything "important" is impossible.

Which is why we desperately need to downsize the Cosa.

As I've said elsewhere, one of the reason Talossa's politics are so "immobile" is that our institutions have a built-in conservative bias, made doubly strong by the Royal veto. It is a mammoth task to get anything to change if the King or conservative forces think it diminishes their power. And those conservative forces will die in a ditch over preserving a Cosa which encourages party splintering and no-one can ever be voted out because they make obstruction of the political majority into a positive good.

An alternative to a smaller Cosa would be an explicit threshold ("you must gain X number of votes to get any seats"). It would still require an OrgLaw amendment but it would put paid to the "granularity" argument. Then we could argue firmly over where political accountability is a higher good than "everyone should get to play legislator".