60th Cosă OrgLaw Reform Megathread

[Mic’haglh Autófil, SMC EiP]

Azul Talossaes! As one of its goals, the incoming Government is committed to a nationwide discussion on reforms to the Organic Law and Talossa's constitutional structure. This discussion is open to all, and it is intended to be open-ended. In recent weeks, we've seen different suggestions and brainstorming for reforms to the monarchy and succession, ideas on how to reform both the Cosă and the Ziu, and various suggestions for how to reform how provinces function (and even how many of them there should be) -- but the list shouldn't stop there if you have something else you'd like to discuss!

I think as a first step, it would be prudent for anyone who has posted such a suggestion in some other thread to repost it here in a central location, and I can start keeping a list of the different ideas posted. If you have an idea you haven't posted elsewhere, add it anyway! This will make it easier for us to identify popular ideas and areas in which we can move the discussion forward productively.

You can find a recap of the discussion so far here. Anyone with this link can also comment.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

I am going to start the ball rolling with a great idea from @Sir Lüc  which should get discussed.

There is a big problem with the Senäts, and that is: huge incumbency advantage in elections, especially since active Talossans are unevenly divided between the provinces. So barely active citizens get in Senäts seats and stay there. Also, Talossa has never been a federal system, the provinces are sporadically active at best, so the argument for "provincial representation" is meaningless.

(Yes, I'm aware of what that implies about the FreeDems' persistent Senäts majority. All the more reason why opposition parties should be keen on what I am about to suggest, lol.)

The suggestion: every Cosă election, half the Senäts seats are elected at large by the whole Kingdom.

My personal preference that this be by Single Transferable Vote - but of course that's complex. An easier alternative would be Single Non-Transferable Vote - every citizen gets 1 vote and the top 4 candidates get in. (I would totally oppose a "four votes for four seats" position because that would guarantee the most popular Senäts "ticket" of 4 candidates would get all the seats.) Possibly we could do the reform and set the electoral system later by legislation.

This preserves the best thing about the current Senäts, i.e. the ability of non-party independents to win. While my sympathies are with unicameralism, that would be *much* more complicated to enact, you might need a whole new OrgLaw.

Comments?

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

My personal preference that this be by Single Transferable Vote - but of course that's complex. An easier alternative would be Single Non-Transferable Vote - every citizen gets 1 vote and the top 4 candidates get in. (I would totally oppose a "four votes for four seats" position because that would guarantee the most popular Senäts "ticket" of 4 candidates would get all the seats.)

I know this isn't the main focus of the post, and I'm biased, but I wrote a webpage that evaluated approval ballots proportionally using MSPAV, and I'd love to see it considered at least.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Open Society proposed a draft bill based on a previous effort by @mpf concerning annual elections. We think that longer Cosa terms with a larger Civil Service to support would open up space for a flowering of non-political activity. Talossa has plenty of opportunities for politicians and political scientists. 9-10 month long Cosa terms and fixed election dates.

We would also propose making it mandatory during that longer Cosa term to have a live Cosa session (preferably the mid-point in the Cosa term, which gives the Government plenty of time to prepare). Too much of Talossa is activity where we do not see each other. This is an easy way for us build connections beyond the written word. We need to build into our processes efforts to connect beyond Wittenberg which technology definitely allows. Talossa is rather anachronistic in this regard.

[Sir Lüc]

Open Society proposed a draft bill based on a previous effort by @mpf concerning annual elections. We think that longer Cosa terms with a larger Civil Service to support would open up space for a flowering of non-political activity. Talossa has plenty of opportunities for politicians and political scientists. 9-10 month long Cosa terms and fixed election dates.

I have long mulled something similar to this, mostly because I feel six Clarks is really not a lot if you want to get stuff done without significant pressure from deadlines and time constraints - for instance, failing to get your bill on a Clark is less of an issue when you have more time to work with to begin with. There's also the practicality angle, since lots of cultural events and financial deadlines are either yearly or tied to election timing, and yearly-fixed election dates would help with planning and scheduling.

One major issue would be that we presently adopt a parliamentary system where a term of the Ziu may effectively be cut short for any number of reasons (usually, but not exclusively, loss of Confidence). But I feel this might be addressed in two ways:

- Removing the requirement to hold a VoC every month, and instead requiring a certain number of MCs to sponsor and Clark a resolution stating the Cosă has no confidence in the Government;

- Removing the requirement to dissolve the Cosă when Confidence is lost, and instead allowing the King to inquire with party leaders whether a caretaker Government can be formed. (Or indeed, whether the same government can be reappointed if the King ascertains that the loss of Confidence is due to a temporary justified absence of an MC.)

[Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN]

I am going to start the ball rolling with a great idea from @Sir Lüc  which should get discussed.
There is a big problem with the Senäts, and that is: huge incumbency advantage in elections, especially since active Talossans are unevenly divided between the provinces. So barely active citizens get in Senäts seats and stay there. Also, Talossa has never been a federal system, the provinces are sporadically active at best, so the argument for "provincial representation" is meaningless.
(Yes, I'm aware of what that implies about the FreeDems' persistent Senäts majority. All the more reason why opposition parties should be keen on what I am about to suggest, lol.)
The suggestion: every Cosă election, half the Senäts seats are elected at large by the whole Kingdom.
My personal preference that this be by Single Transferable Vote - but of course that's complex. An easier alternative would be Single Non-Transferable Vote - every citizen gets 1 vote and the top 4 candidates get in. (I would totally oppose a "four votes for four seats" position because that would guarantee the most popular Senäts "ticket" of 4 candidates would get all the seats.) Possibly we could do the reform and set the electoral system later by legislation.
This preserves the best thing about the current Senäts, i.e. the ability of non-party independents to win. While my sympathies are with unicameralism, that would be *much* more complicated to enact, you might need a whole new OrgLaw.
Comments?

Personally, my first preference would be to see the Senäts abolished completely and Talossa become a unicameral system with one legislative body, the Cosa. Aside from the legal fiction of "provincial representation" (which I agree is meaningless), I fail to see any reason why we need the Upper House at all, nor what functions it performs that can't be done just as well in a unicameral system. Therefore, I would like to see a referendum on the future of the Senäts, namely, whether it should be abolished or reformed.

Should the majority of my fellow citizens choose the reform option, I can see merit in what is proposed above, and it is not a bad alternative. Personally, however, I would like to see something more like the Republic of Ireland's Seanad being adopted, where the Senäts is divided into panels (or in Talossa's case: seats) of experts in certain fields. For example (and these are just suggestions), if we have five seats in the Senäts, one seat would be for an expert in law, one for an expert in culture, one for an expert in el glheþ, one for an expert in media, and one for an expert in foreign affairs. These five experts wouldn't be directly elected but would all be elected by MCs from amongst their membership before the first Clark. Thus, the Upper House would be a house of seasoned experts in all things Talossan, rather than citizens who are there because no one else was interested in running.

Anyway, that's one suggestion to add to the thought process, and I am glad that this discussion has started.

My two bence,

-- Litz

[Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN]

Open Society proposed a draft bill based on a previous effort by mpf concerning annual elections. We think that longer Cosa terms with a larger Civil Service to support would open up space for a flowering of non-political activity. Talossa has plenty of opportunities for politicians and political scientists. 9-10 month long Cosa terms and fixed election dates.

I have long mulled something similar to this, mostly because I feel six Clarks is really not a lot if you want to get stuff done without significant pressure from deadlines and time constraints - for instance, failing to get your bill on a Clark is less of an issue when you have more time to work with to begin with. There's also the practicality angle, since lots of cultural events and financial deadlines are either yearly or tied to election timing, and yearly-fixed election dates would help with planning and scheduling.

One major issue would be that we presently adopt a parliamentary system where a term of the Ziu may effectively be cut short for any number of reasons (usually, but not exclusively, loss of Confidence). But I feel this might be addressed in two ways:

- Removing the requirement to hold a VoC every month, and instead requiring a certain number of MCs to sponsor and Clark a resolution stating the Cosă has no confidence in the Government;

- Removing the requirement to dissolve the Cosă when Confidence is lost, and instead allowing the King to inquire with party leaders whether a caretaker Government can be formed. (Or indeed, whether the same government can be reappointed if the King ascertains that the loss of Confidence is due to a temporary justified absence of an MC.)

 I would be against removing the monthly Vote of Confidence (VoC) requirement because of the way the Clark system works. It would take far too long for a VoC to be voted on and passed in the manner you suggest. For example, say the Government does something on the 1st of August that results in the majority of the Cosa losing confidence in said Government. With this suggestion, it would be no sooner than the 21st of September before the Government could be removed from office—far too long by Talossan standards. With a VoC on the Clark every month, it allows for a quick response to confidence in the Government. If a resolution of no confidence in the Government could be tabled and voted on without being in the Clark, it would address this concern.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

I would be against removing the monthly Vote of Confidence (VoC) requirement because of the way the Clark system works. It would take far too long for a VoC to be voted on and passed in the manner you suggest. For example, say the Government does something on the 1st of August that results in the majority of the Cosa losing confidence in said Government. With this suggestion, it would be no sooner than the 21st of September before the Government could be removed from office—far too long by Talossan standards. With a VoC on the Clark every month, it allows for a quick response to confidence in the Government. If a resolution of no confidence in the Government could be tabled and voted on without being in the Clark, it would address this concern.

I really wish Witt had a love button.
This would be great. Especially if combined with @Sir Lüc suggestion on allowing the King to consult with party leaders to see if a new government can be formed without moving immediately to an election. Both of these are standard procedures (unless I am mistaken) of many parliamentary systems which I think would be good for Talossa too.

[Mic’haglh Autófil, SMC EiP]

We could also make it so that elections to the Cosa occur on a fixed schedule, but "constructive votes of no confidence" allow a change of government mid-term. Basically, if you're voting Non on the VoC, you need to nominate someone else as Seneschal, at which point we could handle it one of several ways:

• If a majority vote Non and all nominate the same person, that person takes over as Seneschal
• If a majority vote Non, and a majority of those nominate the same person, that person takes over as Seneschal (I feel a little weird introducing what is basically the Hastert Rule to the Cosa, but here we are)
• If a majority vote Non, whoever wins a plurality of their nominations becomes Seneschal

That last one feels sub-optimal, but it's the only one of these three that doesn't lead to a situation where a VoC returns "Non" but the Seneschal isn't automatically removed. The first two would maybe just lead to a shuffling of coalitions if possible? If nothing else "hey, the Government lost a Vote of Confidence" would likely touch off negotiations to form a new one, even if it's just by using the same "majority petition process" we use now.

[Sir Lüc]

Open Society proposed a draft bill based on a previous effort by mpf concerning annual elections. We think that longer Cosa terms with a larger Civil Service to support would open up space for a flowering of non-political activity. Talossa has plenty of opportunities for politicians and political scientists. 9-10 month long Cosa terms and fixed election dates.

I have long mulled something similar to this, mostly because I feel six Clarks is really not a lot if you want to get stuff done without significant pressure from deadlines and time constraints - for instance, failing to get your bill on a Clark is less of an issue when you have more time to work with to begin with. There's also the practicality angle, since lots of cultural events and financial deadlines are either yearly or tied to election timing, and yearly-fixed election dates would help with planning and scheduling.

One major issue would be that we presently adopt a parliamentary system where a term of the Ziu may effectively be cut short for any number of reasons (usually, but not exclusively, loss of Confidence). But I feel this might be addressed in two ways:

- Removing the requirement to hold a VoC every month, and instead requiring a certain number of MCs to sponsor and Clark a resolution stating the Cosă has no confidence in the Government;

- Removing the requirement to dissolve the Cosă when Confidence is lost, and instead allowing the King to inquire with party leaders whether a caretaker Government can be formed. (Or indeed, whether the same government can be reappointed if the King ascertains that the loss of Confidence is due to a temporary justified absence of an MC.)

 I would be against removing the monthly Vote of Confidence (VoC) requirement because of the way the Clark system works. It would take far too long for a VoC to be voted on and passed in the manner you suggest. For example, say the Government does something on the 1st of August that results in the majority of the Cosa losing confidence in said Government. With this suggestion, it would be no sooner than the 21st of September before the Government could be removed from office—far too long by Talossan standards. With a VoC on the Clark every month, it allows for a quick response to confidence in the Government. If a resolution of no confidence in the Government could be tabled and voted on without being in the Clark, it would address this concern.

That is a great point. It would be great to have a way to vote on extra-Clark motions - the Senate did it a bunch of times while I was Mençei - but I'm doubtful the activity levels of presiding officers and members could sustain it enough to justify codifying it into law.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

We could just abolish the Clark system altogether and the Ziu (and/or the houses thereof) just schedule their votes how and when they want. Now that's a radical reform.

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

Speaking of OrgLaw reform, does anyone know when the latest referenda from the election will be scribed? Who is the scribe?

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

@Bentxamì Puntmasleu

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Speaking of OrgLaw reform, does anyone know when the latest referenda from the election will be scribed? Who is the scribe?

That would be @Bentxamì Puntmasleu . You can always find out who's who on the Seneschal's List.

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

You'd think I would know that. Thanks!