[PASSED] The Fixed Electoral Date Amendment

[C. M. Siervicül]

Unless I'm mistaken, the position of Leader of the Opposition doesn't exist at all in the OrgLaw at present. I think it's risky to give important OrgLaw responsibilities to positions that depend completely on lower-level law for their existence.

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

Unless I'm mistaken, the position of Leader of the Opposition doesn't exist at all in the OrgLaw at present. I think it's risky to give important OrgLaw responsibilities to positions that depend completely on lower-level law for their existence.

That's a valid concern. I had actually drafted this as part of a change to El Lexhatx to formalize the LotO selection process, but I see no reason we couldn't insert it into OrgLaw instead.

Title H, Section 4.3, which currently reads:

Members of the Cosâ who (in a given session of the Cosa) have voted NON on the most recent Vote of Confidence, or intend to do so on the next Vote of Confidence, shall be known as El Contrapharti Fieir da Sieu Maxhestà, or "His Majesty's Loyal Opposition" in English, or in short "El Contrapharti / The Opposition". Unless and until the members of the Opposition decide otherwise by majority vote , the "Leader of the Opposition" shall be the leader of the party with the most Cosa seats assigned to MCs who voted NON on the last Vote of Confidence.

shall be amended to read

Members of the Cosâ who (in a given session of the Cosa) are not present on a Petition to Appoint a Seneschal shall be known as El Contrapharti Fieir da Sieu Maxhestà, or "His Majesty's Loyal Opposition" in English, or in short "El Contrapharti / The Opposition". Should a Vote of Confidence fail to pass, all MCs who voted PER shall become the new Opposition. The "Leader of the Opposition" shall be elected by majority ballot of all Cosa seats held by MCs in Opposition, including but not limited to at the beginning of a new Cosa term and upon the failure of a Vote of Confidence.

[King Txec]

Why not simplify it further by stating that the largest party NOT represented in the Cabinet shall be the loyal opposition.

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

Why not simplify it further by stating that the largest party NOT represented in the Cabinet shall be the loyal opposition.

I'm not opposed (no pun intended) to that -- a sort of Canadian-style "Official Opposition" -- but I wanted to have some sort of consensus-process in place if we're going to be making that person the Seneschal when a VoC fails. If people think that the Official Opposition approach is easier, we can go that way too, I'm open to ideas.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Why don't we remove the "parties that voted Non" part and replace with the leader of the largest party outside of government? I think this is the common tradition across other parliamentary democracies. (That may be what King Txec is proposing). I do not see it as a positive that a third or fourth party could lead the opposition with minimal public support in the last election.

[King Txec]

Why don't we remove the "parties that voted Non" part and replace with the leader of the largest party outside of government? I think this is the common tradition across other parliamentary democracies. (That may be what King Txec is proposing). I do not see it as a positive that a third or fourth party could lead the opposition with minimal public support in the last election.

That is exactly what I am proposing.

- Txec R

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

Yes, I think all three of us are discussing the same change at this point. I'd be interested in hearing from @Munditenens Tresplet and @C. M. Siervicül to see if the proposed changes thus far would assuage some of their concerns.

[Munditenens Tresplet]

I still think that a failed VoC should go to an immediate GE. But the changes are much better than originally proposed, so I will withdraw from expressing my disapproval publicly.

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

This proposal has been altered to reflect feedback received; specifically, provisions 6 and 7.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

It is still rather odd for us not to simply go with the tried and true convention that the Leader of the Opposition is the leader of the largest party outside of Government. What is the reason for changing this?

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

@Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP Are you planning to move forward with this for the final clark?

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

@Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP Are you planning to move forward with this for the final clark?

As a matter of fact I am. Would the Secretary of State please move this to the CRL for their review? @Sir Lüc

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

Approved.

[þerxh Sant-Enogat]

On the last article, the definition of Opposition currently includes DIEN, despite being classified as "External support" (see the Wiki entry related to current Cosa).
What happens if the 2 biggest Opposition parties have the same number of seats ? Should there be a vote among Opposition MCs between the 2 leaders, followed by a toss if a tie ?

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

On the last article, the definition of Opposition currently includes DIEN, despite being classified as "External support" (see the Wiki entry related to current Cosa).
What happens if the 2 biggest Opposition parties have the same number of seats ? Should there be a vote among Opposition MCs between the 2 leaders, followed by a toss if a tie ?

I think that seems like a logical tiebreaker. What if that article looked like this?

Article VI, Section 10 of the Organic Law is created to read:

All political parties holding seats in the Cosă but not having representation in the Cabinet shall be known as El Contrapharti Fieir da Sieu Maxhestà, or "His Majesty's Loyal Opposition" in English, or in short El Contrapharti or "The Opposition". Unless and until the members of the Opposition decide otherwise by majority vote , the "Leader of the Opposition" shall be the leader of the party within the Opposition with a plurality of seats. Should more than one Opposition party possess a plurality of seats, Opposition MCs will hold a majority vote upon the seating of a new Cosa to select a Leader of the Opposition from among those parties tied for a plurality, including multiple rounds of balloting as necessary in the event more than two parties are initially so tied. In the event this vote results in a tie among the final two participants, one of those two shall be chosen by random draw conducted by the Chancery.

[King Txec]

In the event this vote results in a tie among the final two participants, one of those two shall be chosen by random draw.

Who is supposed to administer this?

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

In the event this vote results in a tie among the final two participants, one of those two shall be chosen by random draw.

Who is supposed to administer this?

I have updated my proposed change to include that the draw, if necessary, is conducted by the Chancery.

I know we've tried to avoid adding too many things to the SoS's plate recently but given the fact that this is a fairly unlikely outcome, while it is still smart to include a contingency plan, I don't think it unreasonable to assign it to their duties.

[þerxh Sant-Enogat]

No objection on the Bill if it includes your latest version of Article VI, Section 10.

A suggestion on Article VII, Section 8 : could we replace "if at the end of any Clark the "no" vote outnumbers the "yes" vote, the Leader of the Opposition shall become Seneschal." By "If at the end of any Clark the "no" vote outnumbers the "yes" vote, the Leader of the Opposition shall nominate the Seneschal, whether themselves or someone else who accepts"

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

@Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP A quick reminder on this if you want it to move forward this term.

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

No objection on the Bill if it includes your latest version of Article VI, Section 10.

Yes, the updated version of Org.VI.10 as taken from feedback is the change listed and intended.

A suggestion on Article VII, Section 8 : could we replace "if at the end of any Clark the "no" vote outnumbers the "yes" vote, the Leader of the Opposition shall become Seneschal." By "If at the end of any Clark the "no" vote outnumbers the "yes" vote, the Leader of the Opposition shall nominate the Seneschal, whether themselves or someone else who accepts"

I'm not opposed to that idea -- I think it allows for some good flexibility -- but given the turnaround from one Clark to the next is roughly 10 days, it may be best to have the transfer remain an automatic one. Given that they've offered good feedback thus far, I'd be interested in seeing what @Breneir Tzaracomprada , @Munditenens Tresplet , and @King Txec have to say.