The "Reform" Plan

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

If we were to move to an MMP Cosa, it may make it possible to hold "mid-term" elections, so to speak.

Electing provincial seats separately from list seats would make it not MMP, but its much less proportional cousin Parallel Voting. Speaking strictly for myself, I would oppose such a system.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

If we were to move to an MMP Cosa, it may make it possible to hold "mid-term" elections, so to speak.

Electing provincial seats separately from list seats would make it not MMP, but its much less proportional cousin Parallel Voting. Speaking strictly for myself, I would oppose such a system.

True in general, but my country has "by-elections" when a Direktmandat becomes vacant. That sometimes messes up proportionality a bit, but *shrug*

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

-We already have barely any checks in our system to curtail a Government.  They have steadily vanished over the years.  This would eliminate yet another.  This is a serious problem.

The United States has a reasonably unique political culture on a global level, in the sense that the horizon of liberal thought is that democracy and the rule of law are meant to stop the government doing things, rather than to enable the popular will to be expressed through government doing things. I agree with the Baron that elections are where Talossa comes alive, but I've never been happy with the argument that the best elections are where nothing changes and nothing happens except a different group of people get to "wear the funny hat" while doing nothing.

That said: my desire for unicameralism is not to remove roadblocks to Government power (why would it when my party has had a lock for the last few terms?), it's the Warm Bodies problem. Having a bicameral legislature requires too many citizens to operate, leading to the "drafting" of quasi-unwilling citizens who act as "lobby fodder". Also, the provinces as they stand have unequal numbers of politically committed citizens, meaning that barely-active incumbents can pretty much carry on in office forever. I want a legislature which has *competitive* elections and is composed of citizens who are keen to be there.

[Mic’haglh Autófil, SMC EiP]

If we were to move to an MMP Cosa, it may make it possible to hold "mid-term" elections, so to speak.

Electing provincial seats separately from list seats would make it not MMP, but its much less proportional cousin Parallel Voting. Speaking strictly for myself, I would oppose such a system.

I mean, if we were to also re-elect list seats at the mid-year election, it would qualify as MMP, no? At that point, provincial seats are provincial seats, regardless of whether they were up for election, because the party list seats will still even out the count as much as possible.

I'm not super-jazzed about this proposal either, since it really means that we have two Cosas per year of four Clarks each, but I was trying to find something to go along with AD's suggestion for frequent elections as a thought experiment if nothing else.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

I'll believe the FreeDems support Senats abolition when they propose it and make an effort to pass it. But please note I said "the FreeDems" not Miestra personally...

Looks like GV, a FreeDems senator, supports the abolition, which is surprising ...

Do you even listen to yourself speak?

Again, propose and pass it. Your personal beliefs I am hoping are not law even in the backrooms of the FreeDems debate lounge.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

I'll believe the FreeDems support Senats abolition when they propose it and make an effort to pass it. But please note I said "the FreeDems" not Miestra personally...

Looks like GV, a FreeDems senator, supports the abolition, which is surprising ...

Do you even listen to yourself speak?

Again, propose and pass it. Your personal beliefs I am hoping are not law even in the backrooms of the FreeDems debate lounge.

When the FreeDems take a position as a caucus on something, it's anti-democratic behind-closed-doors rigged partisanship. When they don't, in favour of an open debate with a hopefully non-partisan conclusion, it's just as bad, for... reasons.

That reason being Brenéir's subjective hostility.

I would *recommend* listening to yourself speak.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

I'll believe the FreeDems support Senats abolition when they propose it and make an effort to pass it. But please note I said "the FreeDems" not Miestra personally...

Looks like GV, a FreeDems senator, supports the abolition, which is surprising ...

Do you even listen to yourself speak?

Again, propose and pass it. Your personal beliefs I am hoping are not law even in the backrooms of the FreeDems debate lounge.

When the FreeDems take a position as a caucus on something, it's anti-democratic behind-closed-doors rigged partisanship. When they don't, in favour of an open debate with a hopefully non-partisan conclusion, it's just as bad, for... reasons.

That reason being Brenéir's subjective hostility.

I would *recommend* listening to yourself speak.

Lol no, Miestra. I assume most hostility is subjective. In this case, however, I am skeptical, not hostile, based on my own experiences. It is, as you have frequently said, a matter of trust.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

No, no, listen to yourself:

I support unicameralism.

Miestră, the FreeDems President, supports unicameralism.

A FreeDems Senator supports unicameralism.

No FreeDem has publicly opposed unicameralism.

CONCLUSION: the FreeDems are going to oppose unicameralism, because that's what I need to believe to make my subjective hostility make sense.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

No, no, listen to yourself:

I support unicameralism.

Miestră, the FreeDems President, supports unicameralism.

A FreeDems Senator supports unicameralism.

No FreeDem has publicly opposed unicameralism.

CONCLUSION: the FreeDems are going to oppose unicameralism, because that's what I need to believe to make my subjective hostility make sense.

Ok fine, I'll ask a subjectively hostile question. Are the FreeDems endorsing abolition of the Senats?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

The FreeDems are not taking a position as a party on anything in this debate.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

The FreeDems are not taking a position as a party on anything in this debate.

So then that is a no, at the present moment. Why not just say no, Miestra? I said to Autofil that I was skeptical of the FreeDems supporting it. I did not mention you specifically, he did. I am skeptical your party will endorse it.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

The Free Democrats are a deeply undemocratic organization which operates in lockstep with whatever Miestră tells them to do. Except in this one case, where they will (as a party) do the opposite of Miestră's preference.

Because that's what I need to justify my subjective hostility.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

So then that is a no, at the present moment. Why not just say no, Miestra?

Hmmm.

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

There I said it.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

There I said it.

Lol, once again great memery from S:reu Plätschisch. Thanks.