Ziu Reform Possibilities

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

I'll note that there's not clear guidance on when MZs should vote to expel one of their members.

I heartily endorse this event or product

Hey, I forgot about this one.

ORGANIC LAW REFORM AMENDMENT THREE: EXPULSIONS

Add new OrgLaw IV.11:

The Cosa may impeach any of its members from the Chamber with a two-thirds majority vote. Following impeachment, a replacement will be chosen as otherwise provided in this Organic Law. Following a failed expulsion, the accused Member of the Cosa may not again be tried for the same offence, pursuant to the Seventh Covenant of the Covenant of Rights and Freedoms. The former Member of the Cosa is not barred from running for office in future elections as long as the former Member of the Cosa maintains citizenship.

EDITED TO ADD: You will note that this will require reform to the existing OrgLaw IV.3. Because if a party leader really has total discretion over filling vacancies, there would be nothing to stop them simply reappointing the expelled MC.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Glad you remembered. I support this one as well.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TWO: REMOVING THE COPPER-FASTENING OF THE PROVINCIAL SENÄTS

Right now, amending the provincial basis of the Senäts would require a referendum win in every province, making it the least amendable of any OrgLaw provisions, including the Covenant of Rights and Freedoms. This amendment would retain a 2/3 Senäts majority needed to make such changes under the existing section XII.I.

Amend OrgLaw XII.4 as follows:

Proposed changes to this Organic Law that affect the representation of a province in the Senäts, or of the territory or equal sovereignty of a province, shall not take effect unless approved by a majority of participating voters in that province.

While I know this is well-intentioned, I do not think that this change would have broad support.  If we do amend the provincial basis of the Senats, and our changes have broad support, I think this is a hurdle that we can overcome.

Here is an alternative text of Amendment One, which would enable (but not mandate) an open-list system: that is, one where voters would have the option to choose specific candidates from one party list, or from more than one, depending on the details of the law. @Françal I. Lux and @Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP, is this something on which we can get cross-party consensus, and then perhaps figure out the details in the next Cosă?

The bit about the King being able to fill vacancies is there to avoid the "loophole" which is asserted to exist under the current provisions; i.e. a party can assert the right to give seats to whoever it wants if it can't fill the seats legally (making it quite easy to simply flout the law). Allowing the King to step in seems a middle ground between that and just keeping the seats vacant. It's a compromise which I'm happy to remove if it's not necessary.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT ONE: ENSURING THE ORGANICITY OF PARTY LISTS AND THE POSSIBILITY OF AN OPEN-LIST SYSTEM

OrgLaw IV.2 to be amended as follows:

Based on the final results of the General Election, the Secretary of State shall calculate the apportionment of seats among the parties, hereinafter referred to as "party seats".

    1. The party seats shall total 200, or another number which may be set by law, with the provisos that any such change will not take effect until the next election following the passage of a calendar year; and that this number may never be less than twice the number of Senators minus one.
    2. Each party shall receive a percentage of party seats as equal as possible to its percentage of the popular vote, but each party shall receive a whole number of seats, and in turn, the Secretary of State shall assign these seats to candidates nominated by that party, in accordance with law. Any seats which cannot be assigned in accordance with law may be filled by the King according to his own best judgment, or left vacant.
 3. The Secretary of State shall employ whatever mathematical formulae and calculations in the apportionment of seats as are set by law, or, in the absence of such law, as will best reflect the intentions of this Organic Law. The Uppermost Cort shall be the final judge in case of mathematical disputes.
    4. Only registered political parties may obtain party seats. Parties which win votes but are not registered may not assume their seats in the Cosa until they register. The process to register a party shall be defined by law. The Secretary of State may request from all parties a registration fee, to be set by law, to cover the cost of the election. This fee shall be uniform for all parties.

OrgLaw IV.3 to be amended as follows:

In the case of vacant party seats occurring between elections, the Secretary of State shall inform the King and the leader of whatever party held the vacant seat. The Secretary of State shall assign the seat to another candidate of that party, in accordance with law. If this is not possible, the King may assign the seat according to his own best judgment in accordance with law, or otherwise leave the seats vacant.

So it seems like this would just take the party leader out of it, right?  The Secretary of State would assign seats based on a consistent rule.  But many parties have a seniority system, with more seats going to established members.  That seems a pretty reasonable thing for a party to do -- could that work in this system, like by putting such a choice in statute?

(b) will this disadvantage the interests of my voter base, which is usually fairly broad but not very intense with active support, when compared to a voter base that is very intense but not as broad?

I'm not sure what this means, or how a candidates-based voting system would do anything like that.

I wouldn't put it exactly the way that Miestra did, but the basic idea is right: my party's voter base tends to be quite large, but less politically active.  While more Talossans support the Progressive Alliance than any other party during elections, we have a smaller group of active citizens who are active between elections... for us, that ratio is larger than for any other party.  So my question is whether or not this system would punish this voting population.

But what I really want to know is - would the good Baron agree, if this amendment were passed, that party lists as established by law would be indisputably Organic and enforceable? If not, there's not much point.

If the Organic Law says it, then it's set.  But that's just a question of tweaking the language to ensure that it covers the bases.

BTW, I fear the Baron might have a wrong idea that I/the URL are "out to get" the Senäts.

No, I don't fear bad faith or trickery.  But I have an ironclad responsibility to my voters and my party with regard to one of our party's clear priorities (preserving the Senats) while I know that both Tafi and yourself would support eliminating it completely.  There's nothing wrong with that perspective, but a new system that adjusts things to make that easier goes against our priorities and it's something that needs noting.

ORGANIC LAW REFORM AMENDMENT THREE: EXPULSIONS

Add new OrgLaw IV.11:

The Cosa may impeach any of its members from the Chamber with a two-thirds majority vote. Following impeachment, a replacement will be chosen as otherwise provided in this Organic Law. Following a failed expulsion, the accused Member of the Cosa may not again be tried for the same offence, pursuant to the Seventh Covenant of the Covenant of Rights and Freedoms. The former Member of the Cosa is not barred from running for office in future elections as long as the former Member of the Cosa maintains citizenship.

EDITED TO ADD: You will note that this will require reform to the existing OrgLaw IV.3. Because if a party leader really has total discretion over filling vacancies, there would be nothing to stop them simply reappointing the expelled MC.

I think we need to fix the language here so that we're not implying that this was a trial, which might trigger other protections.  But I support the basic idea here.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

I wouldn't put it exactly the way that Miestra did, but the basic idea is right: my party's voter base tends to be quite large, but less politically active.  While more Talossans support the Progressive Alliance than any other party during elections, we have a smaller group of active citizens who are active between elections... for us, that ratio is larger than for any other party.  So my question is whether or not this system would punish this voting population.

These voters could simply vote for candidates that best reflect their beliefs... I still don't understand the issue at hand.

[Françal I. Lux]

As long as the voters can choose who they want as their representatives regardless of party affiliation, I would be ok with an open list voting system as a compromise.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

The Secretary of State would assign seats based on a consistent rule.  But many parties have a seniority system, with more seats going to established members.  That seems a pretty reasonable thing for a party to do -- could that work in this system, like by putting such a choice in statute?

The rule (in statute) would be: the party list. The party puts its senior members at the top, in the case of a closed list; in the case of an "open list", the list ranking is determined by votes for individual candidates. Everyone on the list that is eligible going down gets one seat; when you run out, you go back to the top. The idea that one MC can have *multiple* times as many votes as another is something I dislike.

But what I really want to know is - would the good Baron agree, if this amendment were passed, that party lists as established by law would be indisputably Organic and enforceable? If not, there's not much point.

If the Organic Law says it, then it's set.  But that's just a question of tweaking the language to ensure that it covers the bases.

With respect, that's not an answer to my question. If this amendment were to pass, would you agree that the party list system as I have describe it would be organic and binding?

ORGANIC LAW REFORM AMENDMENT THREE: EXPULSIONS

I think we need to fix the language here so that we're not implying that this was a trial, which might trigger other protections.  But I support the basic idea here.

It's a copy-paste of the equivalent provision for the Senäts.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

As long as the voters can choose who they want as their representatives regardless of party affiliation, I would be ok with an open list voting system as a compromise.

There are several open list systems, but some only allow you to choose candidates from your preferred party list. I suppose you could have a system where you have a "party vote" and a "candidate vote", and your candidate vote could go to someone outside your preferred party; but that might have weird effects, like, URL voters making a concerted effort to push a Prog candidate whom they liked to the top of the Prog list, over the wishes of Prog voters. Would that be okay?

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

The rule (in statute) would be: the party list. The party puts its senior members at the top, in the case of a closed list; in the case of an "open list", the list ranking is determined by votes for individual candidates. Everyone on the list that is eligible going down gets one seat; when you run out, you go back to the top. The idea that one MC can have *multiple* times as many votes as another is something I dislike.

The issue with putting that in statute is that then you can just change the statute very easily.  So we just have to be careful, I think.  But this does make sense.  Maybe in that case, we can also get rid of seat limits.

With respect, that's not an answer to my question. If this amendment were to pass, would you agree that the party list system as I have describe it would be organic and binding?

I'm not trying to be cagey -- I will pay especial attention to make sure that the language in a bill would include making sure the whole thing is Organic.  I did with the first version of the party list bill, long ago!  I just don't feel comfortable saying that for sure until we get a full bill together.

ORGANIC LAW REFORM AMENDMENT THREE: EXPULSIONS


I think we need to fix the language here so that we're not implying that this was a trial, which might trigger other protections.  But I support the basic idea here.


It's a copy-paste of the equivalent provision for the Senäts.

I believe you, but I also suspect that it could be a problem, and we should fix it.  Probably in the Senats version, too.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

As long as the voters can choose who they want as their representatives regardless of party affiliation, I would be ok with an open list voting system as a compromise.

I still think the easiest way of implementing this, without any weird edge cases from trying to marry candidate votes and party votes, would be to implement a system in which party affiliation is listed on the ballot but irrelevant to the apportionment method.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

Maybe in that case, we can also get rid of seat limits.

I find it disgraceful to try and trade one way of systemically deceiving voters for another, as it were. By which I mean, seat limits, same as party lists (EDIT: as long as apportionment depends on parties), ought to be non-negotiable.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I don't understand how this would be deceptive. Every single person who got seats would be one of the people named on the party list, which seems like it would be an improvement. Also, I will point out that if we don't do that, we're going to be doing exactly what I feared... in fact, we would be making the current situation even worse! Currently, party leaders are at least able to assign some seats off list. But under this proposal, that wouldn't be possible at all, right? Seats would be distributed among people on the list, and if they are holding a maximum number of seats, then that's it. The seats will be lost, presumably. That is significantly worse than the current system.

Maybe I am misunderstanding something?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

All that the OrgLaw needs to say about seat allocation is that a party's seats go (as far as possible) to candidates named by that party at the election, in order of preference either named by the party or chosen by the voters. The actual mechanics should be in statute law for ease of tweaking.

This requires seat limits to make sure there is a party list. Otherwise you just get cxhn. Onemanband winning 51% of the vote and personally becoming half the Cosa. There seems to be an argument here that that would be perfectly fine if the Onemanband voters knew that's what they were getting. Again, I find the inequality between MCs repugnant, and I can handle a senior party member perhaps having 2x the seats of a junior member, but not 22x as is the current case.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

Maybe I am misunderstanding something?

Well, it's simple: there is nothing stopping you from only having one person on the party list (in fact, not submitting any party list results in a one-person de facto list by default), who would then get all the seats for that party. We could end up with one person controlling a majority of the seats, and thus concentrating all the power of the Cosă into one person. I don't think we should want this.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I agree that it would be undesirable to have someone assigning themselves all the seats. On the one hand, at least voters would know about that going into the election, but it's still a problem and not a situation we want.

But I think we might need to figure out some other solution here, because I feel like my concerns are valid too!

Maybe there's a way we could require a certain number of people stand for election for a party in order for it to be on the ballot?

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

But I think we might need to figure out some other solution here, because I feel like my concerns are valid too!

Seat limits are currently determined by turnout, so an election with fewer active citizens will already result in a higher seat limit, which sounds like exactly what we would want here.

I'll be honest, I think the current system of seat limits (made slightly more generous thanks to reducing the Cosă to 20 seats) and off-listers (made slightly less generous thanks to the same Cosă reduction) already gives way too much leeway to party leaders... in fact, this might be the first time in a long while, if not ever, that a party ran into problems satisfactorily filling their seats. Can someone fact-check me on that?

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Seat limits are currently determined by turnout, so an election with fewer active citizens will already result in a higher seat limit, which sounds like exactly what we would want here.

Right, except that my party has a significant issue with this, and so will any other fast-growing party, and this proposal would make it much worse.

Under this proposal, a ton of Progressive seats would be deemed abandoned.  We had eight individuals on our list, and three had been elected to the Senats, leaving five.  Since two are incommunicado (one for reasons of health), that means that we'd hit our maximum seats immediately with sixty assigned seats, and then twenty-seven (!) would be abandoned.  Now, as we have continued to gain new people as we've gotten our feet under us, we may not have this problem in the future.  But any other fast-growing party might still be penalized -- and heck, if we achieved a majority in the next election, we'd still be in a situation where we couldn't afford anyone getting sick.

So any solution here needs to avoid making the problem worse.