The "Reform" Plan

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

That would be preferred, once we can arrive at a broader consensus. As it stands, the sixth Clark is tentatively scheduled for January, though if the Seneschal declares a month of recess for December that pushes it out to February. I'd like to think we can arrive at something by then. (I may actually go back through the thread and tabulate people's responses to individual items in the proposal, that way we know which parts are more likely to achieve broader support.)

This news is well-received and I look forward to what you come up with. I know there is some opposition but I want to put in another plug for longer terms if a way to address concerns can be found.

Finally, I do want to apologize for the delayed response -- the past few weeks most of my energy has been devoted to a higher-than-usual workload at work and the process of beginning legal proceedings for marital dissolution. La vidă martscha.

Thank you Mic'haglh and I am sorry to hear of your dissolution. I am also going through a separation which will likely end in a divorce so you have my sympathies as you go through this process.

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

I'm really curious, as the current elections administrator, what actual reasons there are for making the period between elections longer? (sorry I've had trouble following this so forgive me for inane questions).

I do see the allure of running elections less frequently, as that is probably the busiest time in the life of the Chancery. What practical reasons would there be though? Too long and we risk losing the government to inaction.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

I'm really curious, as the current elections administrator, what actual reasons there are for making the period between elections longer? (sorry I've had trouble following this so forgive me for inane questions).

I do see the allure of running elections less frequently, as that is probably the busiest time in the life of the Chancery. What practical reasons would there be though? Too long and we risk losing the government to inaction.

For me, the allure comes from allowing more time for actual government work as opposed to the near-constant election season. We are now half-way through this term and I've already observed comments about the coming election. I don't see the harm in adding two or three months and standardizing the election cycle and creating opportunities for a more active Civil Service to fill in that space. We are not talking about an extra six months but two or three so that we have elections at the same time and perhaps open up a bit more space apolitical folks.

Those of us who love politics will not become disinterested in that extra time between elections but those who are more interested in culture, academia, media, and sports might have the space to nurture those efforts.

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

Fair enough!

[Mic’haglh Autófil, SMC EiP]

I'm really curious, as the current elections administrator, what actual reasons there are for making the period between elections longer? (sorry I've had trouble following this so forgive me for inane questions).

I do see the allure of running elections less frequently, as that is probably the busiest time in the life of the Chancery. What practical reasons would there be though? Too long and we risk losing the government to inaction.

The two main reasons are:
- Increase space for "apolitical" activity; if elections are less frequent, that's more time people can spend on doing things that aren't inherently related to elections. (As a knock-on benefit, spacing out "political" activity should help to lower the political temperature somewhat)

- Allow governments more time to actually focus on getting through their agenda outlined at the beginning of a term.

As for your second point, this is why the VoC would be retooled as a "constructive" vote of confidence -- this is something that allows the government to change hands in between an election.

[Mic’haglh Autófil, SMC EiP]

After going through the results, I first recorded everything quantitatively. Please note this was subject to my own interpretation if your comment was sort of ambiguous.
* "In Favor" indicates clear support
* "Open To" indicates agreement with the general idea, but uncertainty based on the details or preference for a slightly different method.
* Neutral (obvious)
* "Skeptical" is best typified by Luc claiming to "vaguely preferring" keeping the Senats in favor of the proposed unicameralism
* Firmly Against (obvious)

Proposal	In Favor	Open To	Neutral	Skeptical	Firmly Against
Royal "power swap"	Autofil, Schiva				Breneir, AD, Luc, Ian
Unicameralism	Autofil, Breneir	Schiva, GV		Ian, Luc	AD
Biproportional	Autofil, Luc			Schiva, AD
Nationwide single district	Luc		Autofil	AD
MMP (not proposed but discussed)	Schiva	Autofil, GV
Fixed election schedule	Autofil, Breneir	AD		Schiva
Year-long term	Autofil, Breneir, Luc				Schiva, AD, Ian
Constructive VoC	Autofil, Breneir	Schiva, AD, Luc
Mid-term party registration	Autofil, Breneir		Luc
Provincial reductions	Autofil

If we assign these categories integer values from +2 to -2, preference is as follows:
* Constructive VoC (+7)
* MMP (+4)
* Fixed elections (+4)
* Mid-term party registration (+4)
* Unicameralism (+2,)
* Biproportional (+2)
* Provincial reductions (+2)
* Nationwide single district (+1)
* Year-long Cosa term (0)
* Royal "power swap" (-4)

I'll be paring down the proposal based on this feedback over the coming days as we seek to arrive at a consensus.