The MMP Cosa Amendment

[Glüc da Dhi S.H.]

Note I made a couple of assumptions here about the exact procedure for determing party list seats or how provincial seats are elected or how compensation works when any party gets more provincial seats than they would get in total in a proportional system because the bill doesn't mention any of that and seems to leave it up to El Lexhath. Or even the provinces themselves maybe? These details are really crucial in determining how workable this is. What is the plan here?

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

(5): Article IV, Section 13 is created to read:

Provincial MCs will not be eligible for award of any party seats during a Cosă term unless they appear on a registered party list for the most recent General Election.

This doesn't really address the problem.

Let's say there are two provinces.
In province A 12 voters support party X and 10 voters supports party Y. In province B 11 voters support party Y and 10 voters support party X.

There are 3 party list seats and 1 provincial seat for each province.

Party X runs a candidate for the provincial seat in both provinces.
Party Y does not run provincial candidates but instead two voters who support party Y nationally run as independents.

In province A the party X candidate wins. In province B the independent candidate wins.

For the party list seats if this were done without MMP Party X would just get 2 seats and party Y would get 1 seat, because party X has 22 voters and party Y has 21.

However party X already has a provincial seat and party Y doesn't so to make it more equal party Y gets 2 seats and party X gets 1.

As a result Party X has more supporters, but Party Y's supporters get more cosa seats (although strictly one of them is an independent, but being a party Y supporter they vote with party Y most of the time).

In Germany, party list votes of voters who voted for a successful independent are annulled to prevent "double counting". I believe this would solve your problem.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

I'll run it through the math here, as far as I understand the situation, assuming a highest remainder apportionment method:

There are 5 seats in total, two of which provincial.

Province A is won by the X Party candidate. (12 X vs. 10 Y)
Province B is won by an independent. (10 X vs. 11 Y)

Because independents don't belong to any party, they are excluded from the proportional apportionment. Which is to say, 4 seats are to be divided between the parties X and Y.

Without German-style independent annullment,
X is entitled to 22 / 43 = 51% ≙ 2.05 --> 2 seats.
Y is entitled to 21 / 43 = 49% ≙ 1.95 --> 1 seat.

One seat is left over, which goes to Y due to their larger remainder, yielding a parliament of 2 X, 2 Y and 1 independent. Since the independent candidate is heavily associated with the Y Party, this would be an unfair result.

Now, with German-style independent annullment all 11 Y Party voters from province B are disregarded since the independent candidate they voted for won the province, which means:
X is entitled to 22 / 32 = 69% ≙ 2.75 --> 2 seats.
Y is entitled to 10 / 32 = 31% ≙ 1.25 --> 1 seat.

Again one seat is left over, but this time it goes to X because their remainder is bigger. The resulting parliament is thus 3 X, 1 Y and 1 independent, perfectly proportional.

If I made any mistakes here, let me know.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I think it's a good one because it enables proportional political representation for the provinces

I think that's a benefit.  But we've had the Senats in this form for almost thirty years, and if we're throwing it on the pyre, I'd hope for more than somewhat more proportional representation.  And I'd hope for some sort of new check on the power of the majority in the new unicameral Cosa.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

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

[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]

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]

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