[ABANDONED] The MMP Cosa Amendment

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Well, we would want a situation where it takes winning over legislators who have been elected over the course of more than one election to make large-scale structural changes. I don't know how this could be implemented. Putting a small set of the legislators in their own group with longer terms is a pretty elegant solution, which also serves as our method of representing provinces and empowering some individual legislators outside of the party system (another check on party power we would want to implement).

We already pass laws with large-scale structural reforms pretty frequently and easily, and there are already relatively few checks on political party power. It's not a good situation. So at a minimum, any change over to a unicameral legislature shouldn't make things worse for the future prospects of our democracy.

This is also really low on the priority list for me. Taking active steps to recruit future citizens should be our first, second, third, fourth, and fifth priority.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Wouldn't be averse to electing only half the Cosa each time, if that would seal the deal for unicameralism

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

Wouldn't be averse to electing only half the Cosa each time, if that would seal the deal for unicameralism

How would that be compatible with proportional representation?

[xpb]

In corollary to the concerns of Glüc, it is desirable to have more options for party activities, not less.  A party can focus on a particular province to possibly to secure a Senate seat if they have limited resources, and in turn build interest in participating in the Cosa.  Or a party with greater resources can look for a broader cohort and influence a number of provinces.  However, attempts like this proposal to smooth out the unique characteristics of provinces which wax and wane is undesirable homogenization.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Wouldn't be averse to electing only half the Cosa each time, if that would seal the deal for unicameralism

How would that be compatible with proportional representation?

Very easily, 100 seats are proportional every time

I don't really *want* that to happen, but AD is all like he wants it to be hard to make anything change, and I'm trying to see whether that could happen without needing bicameralism

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Wouldn't be averse to electing only half the Cosa each time, if that would seal the deal for unicameralism

How would that be compatible with proportional representation?

Very easily, 100 seats are proportional every time

I don't really *want* that to happen, but AD is all like he wants it to be hard to make anything change, and I'm trying to see whether that could happen without needing bicameralism

It shouldn't be even easier to enact large structural changes.  It's already so easy that we usually get at least one a year, and here we are proposing another one.

(Again: none of this is a priority, and it's still crazy to me that several Government ministers are all focusing on rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, but still not doing anything about the iceberg.  If we need to do this, okay, but surely it needs to be done in conjunction with new policies to address our existential concern.)

[King Txec]

I have to agree. Citizenship should be a priority. I personally have been doing as much social media stuff as I can.

-Txec R

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Yes -- you and the PermSec for social media have been doing great work on Reddit!

[King Txec]

Yes -- you and the PermSec for social media have been doing great work on Reddit!

Not just Reddit, but Facebook as well.

-Txec R

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

Well, we can discuss this further. What would a good check on majority rule be in a unicameral Cosa, in addition to the Royal veto and the entrenched OrgLaw/Convenants? My preferred solution would be a "three-reading" system or something similar which would ensure quality law making with lots of opportunity for the minority to get their points heard

Well, we would want a situation where it takes winning over legislators who have been elected over the course of more than one election to make large-scale structural changes. I don't know how this could be implemented. Putting a small set of the legislators in their own group with longer terms is a pretty elegant solution, which also serves as our method of representing provinces and empowering some individual legislators outside of the party system (another check on party power we would want to implement).

We already pass laws with large-scale structural reforms pretty frequently and easily, and there are already relatively few checks on political party power. It's not a good situation. So at a minimum, any change over to a unicameral legislature shouldn't make things worse for the future prospects of our democracy.

One possible method of addressing this could be to require OrgLaw changes to require passage by more than one session of the Ziu before heading to referendum. This is actually the system we use in Wisconsin.