60th Cosa, 2nd Clark (September 2024) debate and voting thread

[GV]

Haha, Glüc...  Beat ya to it!

60RZ3 Contrâ
60RZ4 Contrâ
60RZ5 Contrâ
60RZ6 Për
60RZ7 Për
60RZ8 Për
60RZ9 an enthusiastic Për - long may Txec reign
60RZ10 Për
60RZ11 Për
60RZ12 Për - Duce!!
60RZ13 Për

- GV, Fiova

[Tric'hard Lenxheir]

RZ3-Contra
RZ4-Contra
RZ5-Per
RZ6-Per
RZ7-Per
RZ8-Per
RZ9-Per
RZ10-Per
RZ11-Per
RZ12-Per
RZ13-Per

Sorry it took me so long to get my votes in this Cosa

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

You are most definitely not late. Thank you.

[Glüc da Dhi S.H.]

On RZ4 - The Nonpartisan Chancery Act, I vote PER

The main argument is kinda obvious: the referee of our democracy shouldn't also be a player.

I have some additional thoughts based on my own experience as sos. When I became SoS I resigned my party membership including all access to member-only forums/chatgroups. It was occasionally difficult staying out of partisan politics, but I never regretted this decision. Some examples:

- Moderating witt. The SoS is also the main moderator of witt and the one who enforces wittiquette. Thankfully there mostly hasnt been much need for moderating political debate, but there have been times where things got rather heated on witt. Invariably when that happens people on one side believe that their side is making valid arguments whereas the other side is trolling and breaking wittiquette. I remember at one point a citizen sued me for editing their frequent posting of someones non-Talossan name. How do you judge what is acceptable and what is crossing the line or decide which posts are on-topic and which aren't without letting your own biases influence your thinking? That is hard enough even without a partisan affiliation. Clearly being a party member isn't going to help. And if you do intervene, are people gonna respect your decision if they might suspect it is motivated by partisanship (regardless of whether it actually is or not). We need a neutral arbiter for enforcing wittiquette.

- Certification of the election. In my time as SoS more often than Id hoped the electoral commission had to make decisions on the validity of certain votes. This has potentially major political consequences. The electoral commission members are frequently partisans as well, sometimes all three from the same party. Nearly all of the time they try to judge as fairly as possible, but there have been occasions where I suspected a members arguments to be influenced by their politics. There should be absolutely no doubt in the fairness of the election. Even the appearance of the SoS putting their thumb on the scale would be harmful for democracy.

- Seeing ballots. There have been occasions where I had to check a ballot that wasn't public. (Most obviously when someone votes my mail or post and indicates their vote as secret). Before I was SoS I was a pretty savvy political campaigner and I know how useful this kind of information can be. As SoS you have more access than most. This information can absolutely not be used in any way for campaigning later or it would give an unfair advantage.

And there are loads of smaller things I could mention: judging whether a bill is eligible for the clark (remember this discussion?), whether to work to implement government policies, how to deal with various lawsuits (surprisingly often about provincial elections), etc, etc. Many of these decisions have political consequences and the mere appearance of partisan favour can result in discussion.

Yes I know the argument that we have too few people to neatly separate everything. However, I'd argue if any position (perhaps other than King) should be non-partisan, it is the secretary of state. We should be able to do two non-partisan officeholders surely? And it's not like judges who don't get to do much most of the time. The SoS is always busy, and can easily be actively involved without also having to do politics, let alone hold a party office.

Yes I realise this bill doesn't actually ban the SoS from joining a party. Clearly however, being the chair of a party comes with more partisan pressure than simply being a member. (Personally I wouldn't mind having a completely non-partisan sos.)

I also realise there has been a lot of arguing about the motivation behind this bill. I'm don't particularly feel like picking a side there. I am simply judging it on its merit.

I'd advise my colleagues in the senate to do the same.

(I will add my votes on the other bills later, when Ive read all of them more carefully)

[Glüc da Dhi S.H.]

RZ3-Contra - I Like the idea of citizen terpelaziuns, but not for civil servants. Also requiring an MZ to sponsor sort of removes the potential effectiveness.
RZ4-Per (as mentioned above)
RZ5-Per
RZ6-Per
RZ7-Per
RZ8-Per
RZ9-Per
RZ10-Per - Simultaneously excited and hesitant. Does this really need to be in the law? Can't we make a nice wiki page/thread? Also won't this go out of date very quickly? Are we gonna change the law everytime a new song is added? All those reasonable thoughts are somewhat overruled by pride at tmt having become such a major institution in Talossa. Eh, it doesn't do any harm I suppose.
RZ11-Per
RZ12-Per, with congratulations to our Belacostan compatriots.
RZ13-Per

[Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu, O.SPM]

RZ3: Contra
RZ4: Contra
RZ5: Contra
RZ6: Per
RZ7: Per
RZ8: Per
RZ9: Per
RZ10: Per
RZ11: Per
RZ12: Per
RZ13: Per

VoC: Yes

[Ian Plätschisch]

RZ3 - CON
RZ4 - CON
RZ5 - CON
RZ6 - PER
RZ7 - PER
RZ8 - PER
RZ9 - PER
RZ10 - PER (my intention is to keep this updated every time a new song should be added)
RZ11 - PER
RZ12 - PER
RZ13 - PER

[Iason Taiwos]

RZ3: CONTRA
RZ4: CONTRA
RZ5: CONTRA
RZ6: PER
RZ7: PER
RZ8: PER
RZ9: PER
RZ10: PER
RZ11: PER
RZ12: PER
RZ13: PER