The Ranked Choice Constitutional Referendum Bill

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

D:na Seneschal:

Is this bill intended for the first Clark of regular business?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Certainly is

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

D:na Seneschal:

Thank you for your prompt and economical reply.  Do you intend to Clark it in the current form listed in the first post of this thread?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Sounds like a trick question, but yes. The counting method is copy/pasted from existing Senats counting procedure.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

D:na Seneschal:

Thank you. Two copyediting suggestions: the bill ends with a "4" after a list of "3.x," which is confusing.  You might want to adopt the "FURTHERMORE" formulation for multiple effective clauses, which is suggested to prevent just such confusion, or some other change to make this easier to parse.  Secondly, the bill ends by stating that a proposal must be introduced, but clearly that is unnecessary if the people desire the status quo, so you might want to change that, too.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Secondly, the bill ends by stating that a proposal must be introduced, but clearly that is unnecessary if the people desire the status quo, so you might want to change that, too.

The current text reads:

If an option involving a change in the Organic Law wins this referendum, the Government shall introduce an Organic Law amendment to that effect within the lifetime of the 55th Cosă.

If the first option listed ("- the King of Talossa shall continue to have the political powers granted by the current Organic Law.") wins, that requires no change in the Organic Law and thus no proposal to be introduced, I thought that was clear. I'm not 100% sure what you mean by the use of "FURTHERMORE". I suppose clause 4 could be left out altogether if it's less confusing.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Ah, I see I misread the last bit.  Thank you for helping me sort out my confusion.

My note about the numbering was just to stop it from being a bit confusing, since the last clause could be read as part of the list before it.  Just by putting FURTHERMORE, you could make it clear it's another provision and not part of the same number list.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

D:na Seneschal:

Will you give me a bit more time with this before you Clark it?  There doesn't appear to be any rush, since it doesn't seem to matter if it is queued up for the next election this month or next.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Is that a warning that you're going to veto it, if it goes forward as is?

I added the FURTHERMORE in the place where I think you suggested it go.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Is that a warning that you're going to veto it, if it goes forward as is?

I added the FURTHERMORE in the place where I think you suggested it go.

It's not a warning that I'm going to veto it, it's a polite request to keep discussing it because it doesn't make any material difference whether you do so for this Clark or the next and I'd hoped to go over the options on offer.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Well, you have 3 days to discuss those options, and if I don't hear anything that appeals to the Government and the Ziu majority, it's getting Clarked.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Well, you have 3 days to discuss those options, and if I don't hear anything that appeals to the Government and the Ziu majority, it's getting Clarked.

D:na Seneschal:

Ten minutes after telling me that I would at least have three days to discuss this with you before you Clarked the bill, you Clarked the bill.  It doesn't appear to be a mistake because you explicitly confirmed that you wanted this Clarked as normal to the Secretary of State.  Please explain.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

I'll unClark it if you give me a good reason to. That's a possibility, and the reason why the SoS has given it the "last slot" on the Clark.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

D:na Seneschal:

Please just remember that it's important to act in good faith and speak honestly while we work, all the more so when discussing something difficult.  If I have to wonder if you're telling the truth about your intentions, then the process can break down quickly.

Anyway, I have a question about the capitalization in the bill.  Both "Co-prince" and "Head of State" are capitalized in their respective options; is the intention that these are specific office titles, or are they capitalized to indicate their importance?

[Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM]

I'll unClark it if you give me a good reason to. That's a possibility, and the reason why the SoS has given it the "last slot" on the Clark.

This bill is only listed last because I had trouble figuring out how to add it and whether it was a referendum or not.