The Reform Plan, Reformed

[Mic’haglh Autófil, SMC EiP]

Based on my summary of feedback to the initial PdR reform plan, I submit for public review the "Reform" Plan, Reformed.

Key Points:

Ziu Reform:

• Unicameralism: The Senäts is abolished with the general election following ratification of the relevant Organic amendment.
  
  • Senators are still "grandfathered" into a "merged" Cosa as previously proposed, in slightly different ways depending on the electoral method below.
• Cosa Option 1: Biproportional Representation
  
  • One of the two proposed methods of Cosa election is the "biproportional representation" method previously proposed.
  • Seats are apportioned among each province based on how many votes were cast from that province in the previous election, and parties are awarded seats within a given province based on their proportion of votes within that province.
  • Any seats that cannot be assigned to a single party are awarded at the national level via a "topping-off" once all provincial seats possible are awarded.
  • The apportionment of seats to provinces and the awarding of seats to parties (both at the provincial level and the nationwide "topping-off" stage) is all accomplished via the Webster method.
  • Incumbent Senators at the time of the Senäts' dissolution (of which there would be five) are automatically assigned half of their respective province's seats for each election during the remainder of what would have been their current Senatorial term. Should any of these ex-Senators appear on a party's list (with their consent) during such an election, their automatic seat assignment will count towards that party's seats in that province instead.
• Cosa Option 2: Mixed-Member Proportional Representation
  
  • The Cosa is split between "provincial seats" and "list seats".
  • Each province is assigned an equal number of seats, such that the total number of provincial seats does not exceed one-half of the whole Cosa.
  • Provincial MCs are elected by Instant-Runoff Vote and hold all of their province's seats.
  • The remaining seats are apportioned between parties, taking the provincial seats into account in order to arrive at a proportional amount.
  • Incumbent Senators are considered their province's "provincial MC" for the remainder of their Senatorial term.

[Note: It may not be an awful idea to submit these two options, along with "Status Quo", to Ranked-Choice Referendum 2]

A Fixed Legislative Schedule:

• Elections now occur three times over a biannual schedule (every eight months).
• The Seneschal may still issue a single month of recess per Cosa term, but this no longer pushes back subsequent Clarks (in other words, this Cosa will instead have five Clarks instead of six).
• Because elections are now fixed, a Vote of Confidence is no longer capable of calling a new election. As a result, the current-style VoC is removed from the Clark.
• It is replaced by a "Constructive Motion of No Confidence" -- this bill, which can be moved through the Hopper quickly as it may be an emergency, names a specific candidate to take over as Seneschal. If it does not pass, the current Government remains in office.
• As an alternative, we could simply extend the ability to submit a "majority petition to name a Seneschal" throughout the term, since as the law is currently written it may only be usable upon the seating of a new Cosa.
  
  • This could potentially be harder to use, since the petition requires a majority of the whole Cosa, and not just a majority of seats currently held. As a result, an "absentee Government" could still be active enough to avoid losing their seats, blocking the usage of the petition.
  • On the other hand, this could also prevent a poorly-timed absence from a given Clark from allowing a minority government to take office based on little more than luck.

Other Reforms:

• The ability of MCs to petition the Chancery for official recognition / "parliamentary status" for a new party in the middle of a Cosa term is retained in this proposal, along with the same limitations on doing so.
• A convention to coordinate provincial mergers is also retained.

Removed:

• The "power-swapping" arrangement between the Crown and Ziu regarding Seneschal appointments and vetos. (This was the only plank to get a negative score when I summarized the feedback.)
• Retaining the entire country as a single electoral district when moving to a unicameral Ziu. This proposal, one of two for the method of electing the Cosa, was replaced with MMP in this new proposal.
• The move to a yearly Cosa schedule had quite a bit of support from the people who supported it, and quite a bit of opposition from the people who opposed it. (It actually registered a perfectly even 0 in my summary tally.) So while I believe we should continue to push for it, I also recognize that sometimes you need to walk before you can run. The point is establishing consensus, after all.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

This is really well done, this latest proposal and the style with which you've handled the discussion. Out of all the Avant coalition members the Reform Party has best demonstrated an ability to build consensus. I personally support Cosa Option 1 and hope to continue pushing for yearly fixed elections as I think more time for government action is not a bad thing nor is it bad for more time for the development of apolitical ventures.

[Mic’haglh Autófil, SMC EiP]

Feedback so far:

Proposal	In Favor	Neutral	Opposed
Unicameral / Biproportional	2	1	1
Unicameral / MMP	3	1	0
Fixed Elections	3	1	0

Interested in what others have to say!

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

I've supported unicameralism and MMP for years, and the fixed election schedule is pretty appealing.

I'm not super sure about the exact methodology laid out in theo original post here -- specifically, I don't know if using instant runoff for constituency seats is at all worth the added complexity when Parliament at large will be proportional anyway -- but that's nitpicking.

[Mic’haglh Autófil, SMC EiP]

I've supported unicameralism and MMP for years, and the fixed election schedule is pretty appealing.

I'm not super sure about the exact methodology laid out in theo original post here -- specifically, I don't know if using instant runoff for constituency seats is at all worth the added complexity when Parliament at large will be proportional anyway -- but that's nitpicking.

That's a fair concern -- I used IRV to help mitigate the risk of overhang seats, since I didn't intend for the Cosa to change in size, but I'm also open to using the standard FPTP for provincial seats.

[Tric'hard Lenxheir]

I prefer the current governmental setup with both a senat and cosa, I do however support a fixed election date, I have never really understood why our elections move around, it makes it quite confusing. A yearly election makes much more sense to me.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

• Unicameralism: The Senäts is abolished with the general election following ratification of the relevant Organic amendment.

We already have barely any checks in our system to curtail a Government.  They have steadily vanished over the years.  The removal of the Senats would eliminate yet another.  That is a serious problem.

It is quite easy to pass major legislation changing our country's constitutional or statutory laws.  It happens with great frequency.  We're only five years out from a sweeping set of amendments to nearly every part of the Organic Law.  In that time, we've also seen these other major changes to the laws:

• A complete reworking of the justice system, both civil and criminal.
• A reworking of the operations of the legislature.
• Multiple changes in how our chief executive is chosen.
• A reworking of the finance law.
• A reworking of the laws governing the two most important cabinet ministries, STUFF and Interior.
• The addition of an entirely new method of representation in the legislature, awarding seats to new citizens without an election.
• The elimination of the hereditary monarchy and creation of a new method of succession.
• The nationalization and new governing procedures for the main method of our country's communication, official business, and casual interactions: Wittenberg.
• Several different major changes to the immigration laws.
• The reworking of the entire honours system.
• The creation of new laws and procedures for government transparency and official record-keeping.

And that's an incomplete list.  There are almost no checks on rapid changes to our country and its governance, since the royal veto is almost never used -- you're proposing to eliminate one of the last real checks on Government power when we're already passing laws and making changes at a breakneck pace.

• The ability of MCs to petition the Chancery for official recognition / "parliamentary status" for a new party in the middle of a Cosa term is retained in this proposal, along with the same limitations on doing so.

It seems as though the Chancery can already do this, should they choose to.  As far as I'm aware, it's just Chancery policy, not the law.  Maybe I'm missing something?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

"We can't abolish the Senäts because it removes constraints on the Government"
> lists a whole lot of things that the Senäts didn't constrain

The royal veto was not an acceptable constraint because King John was clearly politically biased. The Senäts has been, and I'll happy admit it, biased in the opposite political direction for several terms. A "check on Government power" which operates only in one political direction is not good.

The appropriate checks on Government power are:
a) free and fair elections;
b) a non-partisan Chancery and civil service;
c) the entrenched Organic Law and Bill of Rights.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

The appropriate checks on Government power are:
a) free and fair elections;
b) a non-partisan Chancery and civil service;
c) the entrenched Organic Law and Bill of Rights.

+1, it is good to see this stated even if the Clark votes do not make this self-evident.
Open Society will be reintroducing legislation on this matter should it be necessary next term.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

"We can't abolish the Senäts because it removes constraints on the Government"
> lists a whole lot of things that the Senäts didn't constrain

That doesn't make any sense.

We're going 70 miles per hour on the highway, and someone is proposing speeding up to 100 mph.  It's not crazy to say, "We're already going pretty fast!"

A "check on Government power" which operates only in one political direction is not good.

There's nothing inherent to the Senats that magically makes it an FDT stronghold.  There was a time when it was a RUMP stronghold -- ten years ago or so.  That's the whole point of the institution... it requires multiple sustained elections to build power there, and it resists rapid change.

The appropriate checks on Government power are:
a) free and fair elections;
b) a non-partisan Chancery and civil service;
c) the entrenched Organic Law and Bill of Rights.

Elections are not magically free or fair.  The civil service is not magically non-partisan.  The Organic Law does not magically remain entrenched.  These things must all be a part of a system that balances competing interests and prevents the victor of the moment from changing the rules that impede their momentary success.  You can't just trust that victors will always be virtuous.

At some point in the future, someone with whom you vehemently disagree will attain power in Talossa.  This happens in every country.  Giorgia Meloni won an election.  Donald Trump won an election.  Javier Milei won an election.

There should be checks to deter such people from immediately changing election laws so that they're no longer free and fair, to deter them from making the Chancery and civil service into a partisan force, and to deter them from altering or subverting the Organic Law and Covenants.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

b) a non-partisan Chancery and civil service;

+1, it is good to see this stated even if the Clark votes do not make this self-evident.

The reason you keep writing bad legislation is that you think words mean things that they don't mean.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

b) a non-partisan Chancery and civil service;

+1, it is good to see this stated even if the Clark votes do not make this self-evident.

The reason you keep writing bad legislation is that you think words mean things that they don't mean.

I think one's actions show what one thinks words means too. Your actions appear to indicate you don't know what nonpartisan means...or that it has changed between 2022 and now, Miestra. Please lets resolve this issue as we don't want you announcing another SoS serving as FreeDems president. :)

[Munditenens Tresplet]

• Unicameralism: The Senäts is abolished with the general election following ratification of the relevant Organic amendment.

We already have barely any checks in our system to curtail a Government.  They have steadily vanished over the years.  The removal of the Senats would eliminate yet another.  That is a serious problem.

I echo this 100%. No abolishment of the Senats.