[CRL] The Fixed Electoral Date Amendment

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

@Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP Are you planning to move forward with this for the final clark?

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

@Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP Are you planning to move forward with this for the final clark?

As a matter of fact I am. Would the Secretary of State please move this to the CRL for their review? @Sir Lüc

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

Approved.

[þerxh Sant-Enogat]

On the last article, the definition of Opposition currently includes DIEN, despite being classified as "External support" (see the Wiki entry related to current Cosa).
What happens if the 2 biggest Opposition parties have the same number of seats ? Should there be a vote among Opposition MCs between the 2 leaders, followed by a toss if a tie ?

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

On the last article, the definition of Opposition currently includes DIEN, despite being classified as "External support" (see the Wiki entry related to current Cosa).
What happens if the 2 biggest Opposition parties have the same number of seats ? Should there be a vote among Opposition MCs between the 2 leaders, followed by a toss if a tie ?

I think that seems like a logical tiebreaker. What if that article looked like this?

Article VI, Section 10 of the Organic Law is created to read:

All political parties holding seats in the Cosă but not having representation in the Cabinet shall be known as El Contrapharti Fieir da Sieu Maxhestà, or "His Majesty's Loyal Opposition" in English, or in short El Contrapharti or "The Opposition". Unless and until the members of the Opposition decide otherwise by majority vote , the "Leader of the Opposition" shall be the leader of the party within the Opposition with a plurality of seats. Should more than one Opposition party possess a plurality of seats, Opposition MCs will hold a majority vote upon the seating of a new Cosa to select a Leader of the Opposition from among those parties tied for a plurality, including multiple rounds of balloting as necessary in the event more than two parties are initially so tied. In the event this vote results in a tie among the final two participants, one of those two shall be chosen by random draw conducted by the Chancery.

[King Txec]

In the event this vote results in a tie among the final two participants, one of those two shall be chosen by random draw.

Who is supposed to administer this?

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

In the event this vote results in a tie among the final two participants, one of those two shall be chosen by random draw.

Who is supposed to administer this?

I have updated my proposed change to include that the draw, if necessary, is conducted by the Chancery.

I know we've tried to avoid adding too many things to the SoS's plate recently but given the fact that this is a fairly unlikely outcome, while it is still smart to include a contingency plan, I don't think it unreasonable to assign it to their duties.

[þerxh Sant-Enogat]

No objection on the Bill if it includes your latest version of Article VI, Section 10.

A suggestion on Article VII, Section 8 : could we replace "if at the end of any Clark the "no" vote outnumbers the "yes" vote, the Leader of the Opposition shall become Seneschal." By "If at the end of any Clark the "no" vote outnumbers the "yes" vote, the Leader of the Opposition shall nominate the Seneschal, whether themselves or someone else who accepts"

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

@Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP A quick reminder on this if you want it to move forward this term.

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

No objection on the Bill if it includes your latest version of Article VI, Section 10.

Yes, the updated version of Org.VI.10 as taken from feedback is the change listed and intended.

A suggestion on Article VII, Section 8 : could we replace "if at the end of any Clark the "no" vote outnumbers the "yes" vote, the Leader of the Opposition shall become Seneschal." By "If at the end of any Clark the "no" vote outnumbers the "yes" vote, the Leader of the Opposition shall nominate the Seneschal, whether themselves or someone else who accepts"

I'm not opposed to that idea -- I think it allows for some good flexibility -- but given the turnaround from one Clark to the next is roughly 10 days, it may be best to have the transfer remain an automatic one. Given that they've offered good feedback thus far, I'd be interested in seeing what @Breneir Tzaracomprada , @Munditenens Tresplet , and @King Txec have to say.

[Glüc da Dhi S.H.]

My recommendations:

I greatly prefer this new definition of the Leader of the Opposition over the one that's currently in the OrgLaw, but that does mean this amendment immediately creates an inorganic Lexhatx article. I'm not sure if anyone has gone through the lexhatx to see if there are any other conflicts, but generally I think it's bad practice to make sweeping OrgLaw amendments and then fix (or have someone else fix) the lexhatx later, so ideally this bill would be accompanied by the appropriate changes to the lexhatx (including removing lex H.4.3) before it gets clarked.

I see no other immediate technical issues.

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

My recommendations:

I greatly prefer this new definition of the Leader of the Opposition over the one that's currently in the OrgLaw, but that does mean this amendment immediately creates an inorganic Lexhatx article. I'm not sure if anyone has gone through the lexhatx to see if there are any other conflicts, but generally I think it's bad practice to make sweeping OrgLaw amendments and then fix (or have someone else fix) the lexhatx later, so ideally this bill would be accompanied by the appropriate changes to the lexhatx (including removing lex H.4.3) before it gets clarked.

I see no other immediate technical issues.

I have gone through the relevant portions of El Lexhatx to take note of necessary changes, though I thought it prudent to wait and see how this bill fared both with the Ziu and a referendum before changing Lexh.