[ABANDONED] An amendment for at-large election of Senators

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Deleted a post because it made my point inexpertly, let's see if this is better:

the existence of the Senats helps protect the sheer continued existence of the provinces... If we asked our senators whether or not it's part of their job to look out for the well-being of their provinces in particular, I hope they'd agree.

You're doing that thing again where you act like the purpose of democratic elections is to preserve the institutions, rather than the institutions serving a democratic function.

The provinces existed before the Senäts and were just as lively (or not).

whether we continue to pretend that Senators are above party politics or not.

Yeah, this is part of what I'm getting at. AD is pretending (or, as he says, "hoping") that current Senators are "loyal to their province" - i.e. he would prefer that they act if that was the case. Because if they're not, if - for example - the Senäts is just as partisan as the Cosa only not elected on a proportionally representative basis - then his argument about the incentives the Senäts provides are inoperative.

It's actually a wider issue of pretending that Talossa is a federation. It's not, even though the 1997 OrgLaw was copied from that of an actual federation (Australia, thank you Evan). Again: provinces were created top-down by the Kingdom. They're analogous to maybe English counties, which have pomp and tradition and value but not a guaranteed seat in Parliament.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

And Mic'haglh keeps talking to you about his MMP Cosa idea, which IMHO makes the provincial connection stronger. Adopting it along with an at-large Senäts seems a fine tradeoff.

Party seats would still be in the gift of the party leader.  There'd be zero reason to care about your province.  In fact, there would be heavy incentive for party leaders to assign seats to those who were more loyal to their party than their province!  Why choose someone who's going to kick up a fuss just because you want to mess with their province?

Candidates who are elected for constituency seats are not "assigned" by the party leadership. They are directly elected by their province. Unless you mean to say that being assigned by a party leader to run in a specific constituency in the first place would lead to the incentive to prioritise party loyalty over province loyalty you spoke of, but in that case, parties already have that kind of influence over senatorial candidates in the current system, whether we continue to pretend that Senators are above party politics or not. What am I missing here?

If we're talking about a specific bill (I guess the one in the Hopper?) where each province gets to pick specific individuals who represent that province, then we can probably make that easier by just keeping the Senats.

Deleted a post because it made my point inexpertly, let's see if this is better:

the existence of the Senats helps protect the sheer continued existence of the provinces... If we asked our senators whether or not it's part of their job to look out for the well-being of their provinces in particular, I hope they'd agree.

You're doing that thing again where you act like the purpose of democratic elections is to preserve the institutions, rather than the institutions serving a democratic function.

The provinces existed before the Senäts and were just as lively (or not).

I think that our institutions have value beyond the needs of the moment, and shouldn't be sold like secondhand chairs at a fire sale.  And as proof, I present to you an active and engaged monarch, helping others and promoting our culture.  That would be impossible if the monarchy had been eliminated -- if people like me hadn't fought for to protect it.

We need to think about tomorrow's Talossa, not just today.  Let's plan for a vibrant and growing country.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

I present to you an active and engaged monarch, helping others and promoting our culture.  That would be impossible if the monarchy had been eliminated

Can we go to the alternate universe where President Nordselvă took office 10 years ago and is on his third term of doing an excellent job? In that alternate universe, I can also imagine that Talossa has 200 active citizens who are all fluent conversationalist in ár glheþ, because I'm not wedded to status-quo bias.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I present to you an active and engaged monarch, helping others and promoting our culture.  That would be impossible if the monarchy had been eliminated

Can we go to the alternate universe where President Nordselvă took office 10 years ago and is on his third term of doing an excellent job? In that alternate universe, I can also imagine that Talossa has 200 active citizens who are all fluent conversationalist in ár glheþ, because I'm not wedded to status-quo bias.

If we're allowed to submit alternate universes as proof that we're right, then we should all be libertarians since Atlas Shrugged exists, or socialists since News from Nowhere exists, or... well, I don't know what lesson we'd learn from the Butlerian Jihad of Dune.

Listen, actual reality is pretty good evidence that there's real merit to preserving institutions and traditions.  It's not the only thing that's important: when I remade the Zuavs, we discarded all that they had been, and I think Talossa is the better for it.  But this stuff is important as we weigh the costs and benefits of any change.

It's actually especially important in a country like our own, since there's no brick-and-mortar Ziu building to act as a physical symbol.  For as long as all of us discussing this have known Talossa, and for four-fifths of her existence as a nation of laws, the Senats has served to allow for individual representation of the interests of each province.  That's not everything, but it's not nothing.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

If we're talking about a specific bill (I guess the one in the Hopper?) where each province gets to pick specific individuals who represent that province, then we can probably make that easier by just keeping the Senats.

...what? I'm not talking about a specific bill, I'm talking about how constituency seats under MMP work.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

the Senats has served to allow for individual representation of the interests of each province

See, I don't believe that provinces in Talossa have distinct interests, with the possible exception of Cezembre.

[xpb]

I support the continued representation in the Senate of one resident of that province as senator.

At large representation is already handled by the Cosa.  Should there be more or fewer provinces in the future, then there will be more or fewer Senators.

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

Would this amendment actually end the push to dissolve the Senate and/or force the merger of provinces over their will? It seems like it would, and that would be a strong reason to favor it, given the political push in the other direction. (This isn't to say I'm in support of the amendment at this time, just that I continue to keep an open mind.)

As noted earlier in the thread, for my part I have accepted that the Senate will continue to exist for the foreseeable future; continuing to move its workings in a more democratic direction is something I like to think more people could agree on than outright abolition.

As to forcing provinces to merge, I'll admit to some confusion as to what you refer to. While I've been a strong proponent of reducing the number of provinces, and even trying to coordinate those on a "big-picture" level, I'm not sure if anyone is under the impression one can Organically force provinces to merge without their consent. I don't believe this is possible; the whole thing is down to negotiation and compromise, as with pretty much anything else in politics.

I would still argue that either of my proposed reforms to the Cosa -- including the Mixed-Member Proportional proposal, but the "Biproportional" plan as well -- retain a degree of provincial representation, since I see that some people view that as a sticking point (and I myself am in favor of retaining it to some extent), but do so in a more democratic fashion.

[xpb]

Would this amendment actually end the push to dissolve the Senate and/or force the merger of provinces over their will? It seems like it would, and that would be a strong reason to favor it, given the political push in the other direction. (This isn't to say I'm in support of the amendment at this time, just that I continue to keep an open mind.)

As noted earlier in the thread, for my part I have accepted that the Senate will continue to exist for the foreseeable future; continuing to move its workings in a more democratic direction is something I like to think more people could agree on than outright abolition.

As to forcing provinces to merge, I'll admit to some confusion as to what you refer to. While I've been a strong proponent of reducing the number of provinces, and even trying to coordinate those on a "big-picture" level, I'm not sure if anyone is under the impression one can Organically force provinces to merge without their consent. I don't believe this is possible; the whole thing is down to negotiation and compromise, as with pretty much anything else in politics.

I would still argue that either of my proposed reforms to the Cosa -- including the Mixed-Member Proportional proposal, but the "Biproportional" plan as well -- retain a degree of provincial representation, since I see that some people view that as a sticking point (and I myself am in favor of retaining it to some extent), but do so in a more democratic fashion.

The current Senate is democratic -representing subgroups of citizens where the Cosa represents all citizens in general.  it provides important checks and balances.  Changing the Senate to representing all citizens in general removes this factor of balance.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

It strikes me that, if OrgLaw XII.4 means what it seems to on its face, that the provincially-elected Senäts is the MOST entrenched part of the Organic Law. Like, it's more entrenched than the monarchy, or than the Covenant of Rights and Freedoms.