[ABANDONED] An amendment for at-large election of Senators

[King Txec]

I don't believe we can blame the immigration problem we currently have on the government. Looking at the last several applications, the prospectives never made any contact at all. That is not Dame Miestra's fault or the fault of any Talossan.

With that said, one way that I know of to spur activity is to make contact with Talossans outside of Wittenberg. I personally have been emailing, Discording, PM'ing (yes I know that's Witt), Facebooking, etc. formerly active Talossans just to keep in contact with them. One eminent Talossan lost her seat on the UC due to inactivity, but if people knew why she went inactive (read: off of Wittenberg) I can bet she would have kept her seat. Another prominent Talossan lost not only his son, but another close family member and just recently, his job. That keeps him away - his life is tough. A third prominent Talossan just got married and is moving to Europe. A fourth worries about his job as a federal employee. I know these things about my fellow Talossans because I reach out to them. We all need to be doing this. I imagine that if more people showed interest in our fellow citizens outside the constraints of Witt, we'd find some of them coming back to activity.

Oh, and this should NOT be something the government is required to do. It should be something we all WANT to do because Talossa is a family.

-Txec R

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I'm having flashbacks to the last days of the Lupul monarchy. Back then too, there could never be any compromise; any monarchy reform was possible because reform could only ever be "the first step to abolition".

Well, that kind of flies in the face of the many, many compromises that happened (many of which I helped to write!)

But returning to the topic: one of the key elements in a compromise is that both sides have to be able to credibly commit to the compromise.  Since the Free Democrats seem committed to eliminating the Senats and/or provinces, I think it's fairly reasonable to be a little cautious of starting a march in that direction.  If those things aren't on the table, then the situation is different.  So then... what's the plan?

I don't believe we can blame the immigration problem we currently have on the government.

Your Majesty, I agree that this problem wasn't caused by the Government.  But when the hurricane blows, it is the government's responsibility to deal with it.  They didn't cause the hurricane, and we all need to pitch in with the sandbags, but it's a threat to the country that the Government must prioritize.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

I have very little good to say about the Green Party or their sex-pest Svengali, but I commend the way - despite their minority status - they fulfil the function of an opposition party and post formal Terpelaziuns. If the Progressive Alliance really believe there is something the Government could be doing but is not re: increasing immigration or activity, I humbly request that they use that modality to inform us.

I apologise to the Baron for a sharp reaction, but the questions that he posed - that, outwith "the first step on a slippery slope to abolition", what is the point of at-large rather than provincialised Senäts elections - have been raised many time previously, firstly by @Sir Lüc .

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

I have very little good to say about the Green Party or their sex-pest Svengali, but I commend the way - despite their minority status - they fulfil the function of an opposition party and post formal Terpelaziuns.

Thanks @Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC the laugh I got from this almost makes up for the pain I recall from listening to Vostok Lake. Compliment appreciated.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I apologise to the Baron for a sharp reaction, but the questions that he posed - that, outwith "the first step on a slippery slope to abolition", what is the point of at-large rather than provincialised Senäts elections - have been raised many time previously, firstly by @Sir Lüc .

I accept your apology, and I understand your annoyance.  For my own part, I am sorry if we do have to retread the same ground a bit.  My party has pledged to work to preserve the Senats, though, so we have a vested interest in knowing if this plan would just be step #1 in that process.  I'm really not trying to be difficult.  I'm just a little slow and trying to understand why we would possibly want to do this.

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

I apologise to the Baron for a sharp reaction, but the questions that he posed - that, outwith "the first step on a slippery slope to abolition", what is the point of at-large rather than provincialised Senäts elections - have been raised many time previously, firstly by @Sir Lüc .

I accept your apology, and I understand your annoyance.  For my own part, I am sorry if we do have to retread the same ground a bit.  My party has pledged to work to preserve the Senats, though, so we have a vested interest in knowing if this plan would just be step #1 in that process.  I'm really not trying to be difficult.  I'm just a little slow and trying to understand why we would possibly want to do this.

For my part, I have accepted that the Senats is here to stay in some form or another for the foreseeable future, so I'm not pushing for abolition if that's your concern.

I do, however, believe that fewer Senators is a preferable change to make Talossa work better for Talossans, and regardless of whether we reduce them now or at some point in the future, decoupling them from provincial representation would be necessary to do that.

However, it may interest you to know that you and I agree on the issue of needing some form of provincial representation in the Ziu overall. (basing my understanding of your position off this quote:)

-From the look of things, in Option 1 we'd expect Fiova to have as many seats as Maritiimi-Maxhestic and Florencia combined.  And Maricopa would have twice as many seats as Vuode.  That seems like a problem.  Likewise, it also seems like a problem that Option 2 gives no reason for anyone to care about Vuode's interests as a province.

Granted, both of the apportionment methods I'd previously proposed do just that, so at that point, pick your favorite.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I do, however, believe that fewer Senators is a preferable change to make Talossa work better for Talossans, and regardless of whether we reduce them now or at some point in the future, decoupling them from provincial representation would be necessary to do that.

Could we speak to that, then?  It seems to me that this would only be true in the future if we continue to decline and shrink.  Problems like uneven levels of representation are real, and they can be addressed by catchment reform and other solutions.

While I'm open to the idea -- and have suggested as much in past discussions, touching on specific details -- right now I am fundamentally unconvinced of the specific merits of this reform or the long-term vision that would make it a necessity.

I'm trying very hard to keep open this dialogue, because I'm not a firm no.  But right now, it feels like we're planning on bulldozing the dining room because we don't have enough friends to keep hosting dinner parties.  Like, I get the logic, but there's better and healthier solutions to that problem, like making more friends (join a Zumba class or one of those painting-and-wine courses).

[þerxh Sant-Enogat]

Slow reaction on my side, sorry.
I want to keep the principle of a provincial representation, as a better way to have a second line of defense against damaging changes.
If the two chambers are elected by the same body of voters we will even increase the party alignment of these, eliminating the differentiation effect of provincial origin. Why not increasing even this differentiation, may be by being even more specific in associating geographies and provinces (in clear & a bit provoking : what is the proportion of US citizens in each province, should we review catchment areas to have more non-US provinces? This being said, I've not done any correlation stats between geographies and political affiliation)
Of course this may not solve political participation issue - unless if a higher chance to represent the opposition trigers competition - like we had in our most beautiful Province ?
I agree that increasing active population should remain our common goal- in the meanwhile let's not adapt to decline.
Why not also think about how the job of a legislator could be made more accessible, fun or rewarding ? "bests new law" title, badge system / gamification, enhancement to the arms, ability to be elected as a proxy of another MZ, mentoring of newbies, increased number of seats for first-time MCs, .. ?

[King Txec]

Slow reaction on my side, sorry.
I want to keep the principle of a provincial representation, as a better way to have a second line of defense against damaging changes.
If the two chambers are elected by the same body of voters we will even increase the party alignment of these, eliminating the differentiation effect of provincial origin. Why not increasing even this differentiation, may be by being even more specific in associating geographies and provinces (in clear & a bit provoking : what is the proportion of US citizens in each province, should we review catchment areas to have more non-US provinces? This being said, I've not done any correlation stats between geographies and political affiliation)
Of course this may not solve political participation issue - unless if a higher chance to represent the opposition trigers competition - like we had in our most beautiful Province ?
I agree that increasing active population should remain our common goal- in the meanwhile let's not adapt to decline.
Why not also think about how the job of a legislator could be made more accessible, fun or rewarding ? "bests new law" title, badge system / gamification, enhancement to the arms, ability to be elected as a proxy of another MZ, mentoring of newbies, increased number of seats for first-time MCs, .. ?

Population may not be the best indicator if that is what you are going for. For example, in the United States, the state of North Dakota has two US Senators. North Dakota has a population of approximately 750,000 people. The city of San Francisco in California, by itself, has a population of over 800,000 citizens. Some would argue that is an outdated way of thinking - that a state with fewer citizens than a modestly sized city has more representation in the US Senate is unfair or whatever.

Ataturk has an active citizenship of 16, while Vuode has an active citizen base of 9. Is the problem catchment? We've tweaked that and reconfigured it numerous times and the balance hasn't really changed. Is it the number of US/North American citizens versus European/overseas citizens? Right now, we have a good balance I believe of active citizens from the various regions so I don't think that is the problem either. I also don't think we need to do a mass re-balancing of citizens to "even things up." Just like in the United States system, some regions/states/provinces will be over or under respresented.

What is the problem then? In my view, too much about Talossa is politics and not enough is about culture. The most active citizens right now are either those in the government or those in opposition. Everyone else is off playing Fortnite or whatever. When I joined Talossa, I'd say about 20% of what we talked about was government stuff and the rest was the fun stuff. We've lost that thread and we're only getting more lost every day.

Before someone goes off and starts to blame others for the problem, or say it is this person or that person or this person's job or that person's job, I say it is ALL of our jobs and ALL of us who are responsible. Let's start doing more with the SciFi and Whiskey Club and the Toxophilite Club and make up new stuff that is fun and brings out the creative side of us all. Let's talk about Fortnite and what we did when we were 20 that we don't do when we are 50 and etc. Maybe then, some of these issues will resolve themselves. Let's reach out to our fellow citizens who we haven't seen in a while and check on them. Let's get on Discord and start using Talossan and making mistakes and learning how to conjugate verbs. Talossa isn't just the Clark and the endless cycle of politics.

Okay, your king is getting off his soap box now.

-Txec R

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

I want to keep the principle of a provincial representation, as a better way to have a second line of defense against damaging changes.

Well, that's just a repetition of a theme we got from the monarchy debates. "A defense against changes happening" is political conservatism. Many of us aren't political conservatives, so that argument means nothing to us.

I'm not happy that this debate got derailed onto "schemes for increasing activity", btw. That's the problem with political conservatism - there can never be a problem with the institutions, the question has to be how do we recruit to structures that people objectively aren't interested in.

[King Txec]

I'm not happy that this debate got derailed onto "schemes for increasing activity", btw. That's the problem with political conservatism - there can never be a problem with the institutions, the question has to be how do we recruit to structures that people objectively aren't interested in.

Yeah, sorry about that. I'm a bit salty today.

-Txec R

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

I'm not happy that this debate got derailed onto "schemes for increasing activity", btw. That's the problem with political conservatism - there can never be a problem with the institutions, the question has to be how do we recruit to structures that people objectively aren't interested in.

Yeah, sorry about that. I'm a bit salty today.

You're not the one who started it, and your points are excellent ones; make them in another thread, please :D

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Talossa isn't just the Clark and the endless cycle of politics.

Is this a symphony? Music to my ears.

[þerxh Sant-Enogat]

Well, that's just a repetition of a theme we got from the monarchy debates. "A defense against changes happening" is political conservatism. Many of us aren't political conservatives, so that argument means nothing to us.

I wrote about damaging changes, not changes in general. People against change in general are political conservatives. People in favour of good, carefully crafted changes are progressives.

I'm not happy that this debate got derailed onto "schemes for increasing activity", btw. That's the problem with political conservatism - there can never be a problem with the institutions, the question has to be how do we recruit to structures that people objectively aren't interested in.

hence my ideas to transform the legislative work into something people could objectively be more interested in - rather than lowering the number of people doing something we won't change.

[Munditenens Tresplet]

Would this amendment actually end the push to dissolve the Senate and/or force the merger of provinces over their will? It seems like it would, and that would be a strong reason to favor it, given the political push in the other direction. (This isn't to say I'm in support of the amendment at this time, just that I continue to keep an open mind.)

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

That's the problem with political conservatism - there can never be a problem with the institutions, the question has to be how do we recruit to structures that people objectively aren't interested in.

Of course, institutions can have problems and need reform.  I didn't rework our disparate body of laws into a legal code for the fun of it!  Instead, people -- such as yourself! -- identified a serious issue that needed to be fixed, and I agreed with your reasoning.  We lost a little -- there was some charm and a lot of history to those forty years of laws! -- but the benefits were far greater.

But just because some reforms are necessary doesn't mean all reforms are a good idea.  That's why I'm asking to discuss the merits of this one in detail.  And we just saw last election that the voters do not want this stuff shoved down their throat.  There was a historic rejection of a referendum, something that has almost never happened in our history, and so you should maybe take my concerns seriously.  Every province would need to vote in favor of a bill like this, so you need pretty broad agreement.

Again: my concern is that we're contemplating a permanent loss to deal with temporary lower levels of activity.  That seems short-sighted to me.

If we switch to an at-large Senats, then we're divorcing provinces from their only meaningful connection with the national legislature.  That's what this bill would do.  That puts the provinces in danger, since there's no one who's assigned in the Ziu to care about any particular province.

We're also making the Senats function more like a smaller Cosa, eliminating one of the fundamental differences between the two chambers. If the two function similarly and one of the main virtues of the Senats is eliminated, then it makes it a lot easier to eliminate the Senats entirely.  It's hard to mix oil and water, but easy to mix saltwater and freshwater.

If we're going to do this, we'll be abandoning some old traditions and history, we'll be endangering the provinces, we'll be endangering the Senats, and we'll be losing some of the benefits of the current Senats.  Given all of that, we need pretty compelling benefits.  So can we focus a little more on that side of the balance sheet?

Would this amendment actually end the push to dissolve the Senate and/or force the merger of provinces over their will? It seems like it would, and that would be a strong reason to favor it, given the political push in the other direction. (This isn't to say I'm in support of the amendment at this time, just that I continue to keep an open mind.)

I also continue to keep an open mind, but there's no reason to think clearing the path for someone is going to discourage them from continuing on their way.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

If we switch to an at-large Senats, then we're divorcing provinces from their only meaningful connection with the national legislature.  That's what this bill would do.  That puts the provinces in danger,

No they're not. Before 1997, when there was no Senäts, the provinces were intermittently active when anyone took an interest in them (usually to annoy the Kingdom government). Since 1997, the provinces have been... intermittently active when anyone takes an interest in them. It has NO relation to the Senäts seat. I would love Fiova's delightful direct-democracy constitution to get more interest, but whether it does or not has no relation to whether we keep giving GV an uncontested legislative seat every 2 years or not.

And Mic'haglh keeps talking to you about his MMP Cosa idea, which IMHO makes the provincial connection stronger. Adopting it along with an at-large Senäts seems a fine tradeoff.

If we're going to do this, we'll be abandoning some old traditions and history,

Or going back to even older ones? Talossan history didn't start in 1997.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Would this amendment actually end the push to dissolve the Senate and/or force the merger of provinces over their will? It seems like it would, and that would be a strong reason to favor it, given the political push in the other direction. (This isn't to say I'm in support of the amendment at this time, just that I continue to keep an open mind.)

I can personally say that the at-large Senäts would end the interest in provincial mergers on my part, or at least, the interest in any mergers which weren't initiated by the provinces themselves.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

If we switch to an at-large Senats, then we're divorcing provinces from their only meaningful connection with the national legislature.  That's what this bill would do.  That puts the provinces in danger,

No they're not. Before 1997, when there was no Senäts, the provinces were intermittently active when anyone took an interest in them (usually to annoy the Kingdom government). Since 1997, the provinces have been... intermittently active when anyone takes an interest in them. It has NO relation to the Senäts seat. I would love Fiova's delightful direct-democracy constitution to get more interest, but whether it does or not has no relation to whether we keep giving GV an uncontested legislative seat every 2 years or not.

I certainly didn't claim that the existence of the Senats promotes activity in the provinces, lol.  Instead, the existence of the Senats helps protect the sheer continued existence of the provinces.  There is someone whose job it is to represent their province, and they run for election regularly.  I don't know that it's a hugely strong influence, but it's definitely there.  If we asked our senators whether or not it's part of their job to look out for the well-being of their provinces in particular, I hope they'd agree.

And Mic'haglh keeps talking to you about his MMP Cosa idea, which IMHO makes the provincial connection stronger. Adopting it along with an at-large Senäts seems a fine tradeoff.

Party seats would still be in the gift of the party leader.  There'd be zero reason to care about your province.  In fact, there would be heavy incentive for party leaders to assign seats to those who were more loyal to their party than their province!  Why choose someone who's going to kick up a fuss just because you want to mess with their province?

If we're going to do this, we'll be abandoning some old traditions and history,

Or going back to even older ones? Talossan history didn't start in 1997.

Talossa has had the Senats in its current form for most of her history... and that's even counting the earliest years when the government was just "whatever Robert I decided that week!"  If we go from when the Kingdom started to become a nation of laws in like 1988, with the Constituziun, then we have had the current Senats format for 81% of our history -- including all of our modern history and the entire time everyone involved in this discussion has been a Talossan.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

And Mic'haglh keeps talking to you about his MMP Cosa idea, which IMHO makes the provincial connection stronger. Adopting it along with an at-large Senäts seems a fine tradeoff.

Party seats would still be in the gift of the party leader.  There'd be zero reason to care about your province.  In fact, there would be heavy incentive for party leaders to assign seats to those who were more loyal to their party than their province!  Why choose someone who's going to kick up a fuss just because you want to mess with their province?

Candidates who are elected for constituency seats are not "assigned" by the party leadership. They are directly elected by their province. Unless you mean to say that being assigned by a party leader to run in a specific constituency in the first place would lead to the incentive to prioritise party loyalty over province loyalty you spoke of, but in that case, parties already have that kind of influence over senatorial candidates in the current system, whether we continue to pretend that Senators are above party politics or not. What am I missing here?