The Fixed Electoral Date Amendment

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Seems to be working rather well for Norway, actually. The Storting is constitutionally required to serve its full term, but the Norwegian PM must retain the chamber's confidence.

I agree with MC Autofil's point here and am in full support of this reform. If a new proposed Seneschal, from the governing party or coalition, can garner the Ziu's confidence then it avoids another heated and unnecessary election. The procedure by which confidence is tested is something on which I am open but eliminating the failed VOC > immediate dissolution > election process (with no ability to test confidence for other proposed PMs is something I support.

You are shifting the election to the Ziu rather than the people. And given Talossa's electoral history, I would doubt that any Ziu would coalesce behind another single individual to lead them. So, once again, we're back to keeping in an unsupported government. Comparisons to real world examples are fine, except when we remember that Talossa is a very small community with very personal disagreements that extend into the political realm.

Yes, the Ziu is a body elected by the people of Talossa so shifting it to the Ziu should the previously elected Seneschal lose confidence outside of the normal election schedule is within that democratic framework and is supported by examples in other parliamentary regimes globally as was referenced by Mic'haglh.

I don't share your skepticism that the governing party or coalition would be unable to agree on a suitable alternative should the standing seneschal lose confidence.

[Munditenens Tresplet]

I don't share your skepticism that the governing party or coalition would be unable to agree on a suitable alternative should the standing seneschal lose confidence.

Okay, so pick someone and let's play test it before amending our constitution.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

I don't share your skepticism that the governing party or coalition would be unable to agree on a suitable alternative should the standing seneschal lose confidence.

Okay, so pick someone and let's play test it before amending our constitution.

I'm going to refrain from continuing to argue this point. I don't think we are going to get anywhere. I support the bill and hope to vote in support of it soon. In the meantime I'll keep beating the drum on annual elections.

[Mic’haglh Autófil, SMC EiP]

I will concede, though, that a VoC which automatically results in the leader of the largest party in opposition becoming Seneschal (rather than this motion thing) would take away a lot of these arguments above, save for my belief that the voters should immediately weigh in.

This is ultimately what I was looking for -- if this is an opportunity for me to reach a compromise (despite having done so already), then I am willing to explore it at a minimum.

What if we did something like this:

(6): Article VII, Section 8, which currently reads:

The Clark must contain, in every edition, a Vote of Confidence. Each MC may answer this question in his Clark ballot every month, either with a "yes" or a "no." If at the end of any Clark the "no" vote outnumbers the "yes" vote, the King shall dissolve the Cosa and call new elections.

is replaced in its entirety with the following:

The Clark must contain, in every edition, a Vote of Confidence. Each MC may answer this question in his Clark ballot every month, either with a "yes" or a "no". If at the end of any Clark the "no" vote outnumbers the "yes" vote, the Leader of the Opposition shall become the Seneschal.

This particular change may require a slightly more formalized process for naming a Leader of the Opposition, but those changes would be relevant to El Lexhatx, not the Organic Law.

Apart from the calling of new and too-frequent elections -- which as Member Tzaracomprada has already noted is what this legislation is explicitly intended to do away with -- would you say that this addresses your main concerns?

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Apart from the calling of new and too-frequent elections -- which as Member Tzaracomprada has already noted is what this legislation is explicitly intended to do away with

Yes this is a very good start. Hopefully we can build on it in the near future.

[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.