60th Cosă OrgLaw Reform Megathread

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

The frequency is an issue if our goal is to create space for apolitical activity.

There is space more than enough already. The months in between elections are wide open.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

(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.)

Points for admitting this, Miestra. The Senats current activity level reinforces my own unicameralist views.
I will leave longer Cosa terms for the next election. There has, however, been some discussion on fixed election dates and the ability for votes of confidence outside of the monthly clark. I would also support the removal entirely of clarks, as Miestra suggested. And Sir Luc's (?)idea for the King to consult with party leaders for a new government without immediately going to an election after a loss of confidence.

I would also suggest we create some mechanism, if it does not yet exist, to register parties outside of the election process.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Also, seriously @King John

I hoped to be making this statement in celebration of the nomination of the Heir to the Throne, as promised by His Majesty Ián I Lupul lo these many months ago. Rumour has it that this is coming soon. Rumour has it even that the nomination speech is written. I have no idea why it has not been produced yet. I have no idea because the King does not talk to me, and has not talked to me in a long time. This is a symptom of exactly why we need a new King, and why we've been struggling for years to reach the point of getting one.

When will the Ziu be receiving your nomination of a successor?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Speaking of the King, as to increasing the span of apolitical activity (inc. the Royal Civil Service), dare I say that this should be part of the Head of State's job description? As opposed to, I don't know, just vetoing everything that threatens his ego.

Another thing that's bugged me for a little while; even if there is not room to downgrade Royal powers, I would offer a deal such as: the King regains the right to name the Seneschal in return for giving up his legislative and especially his OrgLaw veto. I would prefer a system as in Ireland, where the Head of State is entitled to ask the CpI for an opinion as to whether a bill is inOrganic, or so badly written that it won't do what it says, and to veto it (with no override) if the answer is yes.

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

I have updated the OP with a link to a document summing up the discussion so far. Viewers can add comments, if you wish to do so.

From what I'm seeing it looks like most of our attention has focused on reforms to both houses of the Ziu, so it seems to me that would be the best place for us to start refining our efforts further. Not sure if any polling would be appropriate; I know Dama Litz suggested a referendum on the future of the Senäts, but I'm not sure we're quit to the point of referenda yet.

Also, if you see anything not mentioned in the document that you've brought up in some other thread, repost it here for visibility's sake.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Excellent summary of discussions to date.

In answer to the editor's note:
The ability to register outside of an election period allows for activity by parties not in existence during the last election. I've observed official actions being based on party registration (as of) the last election but there is no scheme currently for party registration outside of the election. It is common practice in macronations for parties to have the ability to register without need for waiting until the next election period and I can't see a downside, other than the self-interest of the existing parties to prevent it here. I say this as the leader of one of those existing parties.

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

In answer to the editor's note:
The ability to register outside of an election period allows for activity by parties not in existence during the last election. I've observed official actions being based on party registration (as of) the last election but there is no scheme currently for party registration outside of the election. It is common practice in macronations for parties to have the ability to register without need for waiting until the next election period and I can't see a downside, other than the self-interest of the existing parties to prevent it here. I say this as the leader of one of those existing parties.

Which official actions are you talking about? I don't see any reason why one cannot simply claim to have started a new party whenever they want, if they wish to start recruiting or publicizing themselves or what have you. The only time where this registration really seems to matter is at election time anyway -- between then, the procedure appears to basically be "do whatever".

I'm not saying this shouldn't be allowed, for reference, I'm just trying to understand your argument for what benefit it would confer.

[King Txec]

Here is the relevant section of OrgLaw:

Article IV Section 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.

So far as I am aware, the only "official actions" taken by the Chancery are in relation to seats in the Cosa. Are you advocating @Breneir Tzaracomprada that at any time during the Cosa, a new party should be allowed to register and claim seats despite having won none of them during an election?

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Here is the relevant section of OrgLaw:

Article IV Section 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.

So far as I am aware, the only "official actions" taken by the Chancery are in relation to seats in the Cosa. Are you advocating @Breneir Tzaracomprada that at any time during the Cosa, a new party should be allowed to register and claim seats despite having won none of them during an election?

Yes. The party would not be able to claim seats but if the MC of an existing party decides to "cross the floor." then it is fine as the individual MC owns the seats according to our current approach.

As far as an official action, I believe you applied this standard to the ability to create party forums, Txec.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

In answer to the editor's note:
The ability to register outside of an election period allows for activity by parties not in existence during the last election. I've observed official actions being based on party registration (as of) the last election but there is no scheme currently for party registration outside of the election. It is common practice in macronations for parties to have the ability to register without need for waiting until the next election period and I can't see a downside, other than the self-interest of the existing parties to prevent it here. I say this as the leader of one of those existing parties.

Which official actions are you talking about? I don't see any reason why one cannot simply claim to have started a new party whenever they want, if they wish to start recruiting or publicizing themselves or what have you. The only time where this registration really seems to matter is at election time anyway -- between then, the procedure appears to basically be "do whatever".

I'm not saying this shouldn't be allowed, for reference, I'm just trying to understand your argument for what benefit it would confer.

Party forums on Witt has been one area where registration has been the limiting factor for action. If we apply this same standard to other abilities for parties between elections then we have a clear benefit for parties to be able to register, no? Do whatever certainly does not appear to be an accurate portrayal though.

[King Txec]

As far as an official action, I believe you applied this standard to the ability to create party forums, Txec.

To be fair, I don't even recall if any party has formed during my time in the Chancery and has ever requested a party forum board.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

As far as an official action, I believe you applied this standard to the ability to create party forums, Txec.

To be fair, I don't even recall if any party has formed during my time in the Chancery and has ever requested a party forum board.

We may be thinking of different things but I am referring to the boards created for the FreeDems, TNC, COFFEE, PdR, and Open Society

[King Txec]

As far as an official action, I believe you applied this standard to the ability to create party forums, Txec.

To be fair, I don't even recall if any party has formed during my time in the Chancery and has ever requested a party forum board.

We may be thinking of different things but I am referring to the boards created for the FreeDems, TNC, COFFEE, PdR, and Open Society

Please show me where any other non-election party has requested a board be created. I don't see how this can be a problem you showcase when, to the best of my memory, it has never even occurred.

Also, upon re-reading, I meant to say that I was referring to any party created outside an election period. I obviously know about the boards created for registered parties.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

As far as an official action, I believe you applied this standard to the ability to create party forums, Txec.

To be fair, I don't even recall if any party has formed during my time in the Chancery and has ever requested a party forum board.

We may be thinking of different things but I am referring to the boards created for the FreeDems, TNC, COFFEE, PdR, and Open Society

Also, upon re-reading, I meant to say that I was referring to any party created outside an election period. I obviously know about the boards created for registered parties.

I answered what you wrote, Txec. Now that you have confirmed that what you wrote and what you meant are at odds I will answer that.

There is no example which is why I said it is a benefit of registration which is currently only allowed during election periods. So far no one has given a reason WHY NOT to do this.

[King Txec]

Gotcha. I was just curious what you meant. Thanks.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Gotcha. I was just curious what you meant. Thanks.

Should I be calling you King Txec, yet? <3

[King Txec]

Should I be calling you King Txec, yet? <3

As the king has not yet made his nomination announcement, that would be premature. :-)

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

Yes. The party would not be able to claim seats but if the MC of an existing party decides to "cross the floor." then it is fine as the individual MC owns the seats according to our current approach.

As far as an official action, I believe you applied this standard to the ability to create party forums, Txec.

Party forums on Witt has been one area where registration has been the limiting factor for action. If we apply this same standard to other abilities for parties between elections then we have a clear benefit for parties to be able to register, no?

Ok, I see what you're saying. When we talk about "registering parties", I interpret that as "founding a party". You mean it instead as "having the party recognized by the Chancery". You're advocating we have a concrete way to recognize new parties as having parliamentary representation should a member of an existing parliamentary party wish to break off and join their own. Do I understand you correctly?

While the precedent is that individual MCs own their seats, should this new party's MC resign (or be removed due to inactivity), the seats they hold would still return to the original party, correct? Does Lex.B.7 sufficiently cover what to do if no party can really claim to be "the original party"? (For example, if instead of a splinter group, there's a full-on dissolution.)

Should be fairly easy to reverse the process described in Lex.B.8.2 for partisan mergers.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Ok, I see what you're saying. When we talk about "registering parties", I interpret that as "founding a party". You mean it instead as "having the party recognized by the Chancery". You're advocating we have a concrete way to recognize new parties as having parliamentary representation should a member of an existing parliamentary party wish to break off and join their own. Do I understand you correctly?

Yes, that is correct. I have meant registration as the process implemented by the Chancery at the national level. To the best of my knowledge there is no way other than the merging with pre-existing parties for new parties to be recognized between elections.

While the precedent is that individual MCs own their seats, should this new party's MC resign (or be removed due to inactivity), the seats they hold would still return to the original party, correct? Does Lex.B.7 sufficiently cover what to do if no party can really claim to be "the original party"? (For example, if instead of a splinter group, there's a full-on dissolution.)

Yes, that is correct. The precedent is that the MC owns the seats until they resign from the Cosa or are removed due to inactivity. I think Section B. 8 would be the area to include some ability for the Secretary of State to process registrations outside of the election period.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Since discussion has died down, I think we might be close to choosing *some* of the most popular suggestions to go into the Hopper for more concrete discussion.

Biggest problem I can see is that a unicameral system will, as far as I can see, require rewriting the whole OrgLaw?