60th Cosă OrgLaw Reform Megathread

[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, SMC EiP]

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]

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?

[GV]

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.

<faints>