Reserved seats for new citizens

Started by Miestră Schivă, UrN, December 27, 2021, 04:23:00 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Breneir Tzaracomprada

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on December 30, 2021, 05:38:31 PM
Why would this be dead? It needs to have approval from the CRL (or to be in the Hopper for 30 days) before it can be Clarked, but I'm very happy with the general principle.

Let me suggest some edits to make it easier to read, and which make sure that the provisions for new seats don't conflict with other provisions in the OrgLaw:

Quote
DRAFT AMENDMENT ON RESERVED SEATS FOR NEW CITIZENS

Whereas, the retention of new immigrants is an ongoing challenge for the Kingdom, and

Whereas, the option for new citizens to become immediately engaged in the Kingdom's government might lead to higher retention and activity levels.

Therefore be it resolved, that Organic Law Article IV, Sections 1-4 are amended to read as follows:

QuoteOrgLaw IV.1: The Cosa is the national legislative assembly, and is composed of a number of seats apportioned among political parties based on their performance in the General Election, as well as any additional seats authorised by this Organic Law.

OrgLaw IV.2. Based on the final results of the General Election, the Secretary of State shall calculate the apportionment of seats among the parties, hereinafter referred to as "party seats".

OrgLaw IV.2.1 The party seats shall total 200, or another number which may be set by law, with the provisos that any such change will not take effect until the next election following the passage of a calendar year; and that this number may never be less than twice the number of Senators minus one.

OrgLaw IV.2.2. Each party shall receive a percentage of party seats as equal as possible to its percentage of the popular vote, but each party shall receive a whole number of seats, and in turn, each party shall assign these seats to individuals, in accordance with law. The Secretary of State shall employ whatever mathematical formulae and calculations in the apportionment of seats as are set by law, or, in the absence of such law, as will best reflect the intentions of this Organic Law. The Uppermost Cort shall be the final judge in case of mathematical disputes.

OrgLaw IV.2.3. Only registered political parties may obtain party seats. Parties which win votes but are not registered may not assume their seats in the Cosa until they register. The process to register a party shall be defined by law. The Secretary of State may request from all parties a registration fee, to be set by law, to cover the cost of the election. This fee shall be uniform for all parties.

OrgLaw IV.3. In the case of vacant party seats occurring between elections, the Secretary of State shall inform the King and the leader of whatever party held the vacant seat. The King shall appoint a replacement to each vacancy. If the seat belonged to a party with a functioning party leader, the King must appoint as a replacement whichever person shall be so designated by that party's leader. If there is no functioning party leader, or if the party leader refuses to designate a replacement, the King shall appoint the replacement according to his own best judgement.

OrgLaw IV.4.1: In addition to the seats apportioned between parties after a General Election, the Secretary of State shall assign one Cosa seat to any citizen who becomes eligible to vote after the most recent Election Deadline but before the dissolution of the Cosa, upon the request of such citizen, up to a maximum number as this Organic Law might provide. Any additional seat so assigned shall cease to exist should its holder vacate or be removed from the seat and shall not be subject to the procedures for filling vacancies in the Cosa, and shall also cease to exist upon the dissolution of the Cosa.

OrgLaw IV.4.2 The maximum number of seats that may be assigned to new citizens between general elections shall be 7.5% of the seats apportioned between parties, rounded up to a whole number of seats.

Excellent, thanks for the edits, Miestra. Sponsors?


Distain, MC
Fighting the good fight

Miestră Schivă, UrN

In case anyone's interested in the numbers: if the last election had been a Direct Cosa election, there would have been 73 seats distributed between parties, and - under these provisions - 6 seats would have been available for new citizens.

PROTECT THE ORGLAW FROM POWER GRABS - NO POLITICISED KING! Vote THE FREE DEMOCRATS OF TALOSSA
¡LADINTSCHIÇETZ-VOI - rogetz-mhe cacsa!
"IS INACTIVITY BAD? I THINK NOT!" - Lord Hooligan

Ian Plätschisch

I will not be supporting this bill in its current form. I like the idea, but not when it is combined with getting rid of the Organic requirement of 200 Cosa seats.

I am sorry I did not post in this thread earlier; I know I made comments elsewhere but apparently not here.

Açafat del Val

#33
At some point I will hit an arbitrary deadend and stop reviving old threads today...

I voted against this amendment as a private citizen, and here's why: As we continue to amend the OrgLaw by piecemeal, it is going to become an unruly monstrous spaghetti mess again, which was precisely the thing that we hoped to rectify in 2017.

I recall a somewhat-recent amendment that the Ziu passed, which hoped to clarify some details about Senäts qualifications (the exact details escape me at the moment). No less than King John himself had authored the section and insisted that his intent should trump the plain language, which was extra ironic, because none of us could even agree on what the plain language meant.

Case in point: While the author must have thought that "never less than twice the number of Senators minus one" were clear, I would like to ask which of the following mathematical inequalities is accurate, not to the intent of the author, but to the plain language?


  • a ≥ (2n) - 1
  • a ≥ (2n - 1)
  • a ≥ (2) × (n - 1)

While you're pondering that, I wonder if the following phrases would have been clearer?


  • Never fewer than one less than a product of twice the Senators.
  • Never fewer than the sum of one less than a product of twice the Senators.
  • Never fewer than a product of one less than the number of Senators.*

Unfortunately, "knowing the order of operations" is a woefully insufficient excuse. If that were enough, professional mathematicians would forego the multitude of parentheses that they use in actual proofs and theorems – which is to say that, in some instances, and especially in a constitution (as the OrgLaw is), clarity should trump brevity.

I guess we'll have to file another amendment, or file another lawsuit, in order to determine this question, which is a sad state.

And, if you're reading a tone of sarcasm or bitterness, you'd be correct. I have made this complaint publicly and privately, and perhaps the most telling response that I got was: "This is democracy, so get used to it."

Woe unto me for wanting clear, concise, and complete laws so that justice is not perverted, needless lawsuits are avoided, and our Government can accomplish its duties without being bogged down by painfully ambiguous constitutional amendments.

*Edit: See how dangerous it is to introduce maths to a constitution? Even while trying to be careful, I made a mistake. I need to amend (pun intended) the third statement to read: "Never fewer than a product equal to twice the sum of one less than the number of Senators".
Cheers,

AdV
ex-Senator for Florencia
Jolly Good Fellow of the Royal Talossan College of Arms

Ian Plätschisch

We have tried several times to rewrite the OrgLaw from scratch and it has never worked
-It takes more than one person to get anything with broad support, and organizing that many people for that long is impractical, based on experience
-Even if an entirely new document we're produced, it would be bound to have a lot of its own problems. At least with our current OrgLaw we already know what most of the issues are.

We did successfully restructure the Organic Law in 2019 to make it clearer. Obviously it wasn't perfect, but it had the benefit of not starting from nothing.

Miestră Schivă, UrN

Plus, the King has a veto. The options are:

a) an OrgLaw that pleases Colorado John
b) an OrgLaw which has support of 75% of the Cosa (and therefore the blessing of fans of Colorado John)
c) start your own Talossa, with blackjack, and hookers, and an OrgLaw written however you want it, preferably without a Royal veto

PROTECT THE ORGLAW FROM POWER GRABS - NO POLITICISED KING! Vote THE FREE DEMOCRATS OF TALOSSA
¡LADINTSCHIÇETZ-VOI - rogetz-mhe cacsa!
"IS INACTIVITY BAD? I THINK NOT!" - Lord Hooligan

Mic’haglh Autófil, SMC MC EiP

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 18, 2022, 09:46:10 PMc) start your own Talossa, with blackjack, and hookers, and an OrgLaw written however you want it, preferably without a Royal veto

1) And this has already been done, no less
2) Didn't you point out gambling is now legal anyway under Talossan law after shaking off the legal Cheesehead Yoke?
3) "In fact, forget the Talossa and the blackjack!"
The Long Fellow, Royal Talossan College of Arms
Specialist, Els Zuávs da l'Altahál Rexhitál
Cäps Naziunal, Parti da Reformaziun