Real Cosă 2021

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Thinking about it, just setting the number of Cosa seats at the same number of votes cast in the election (1 vote = 1 seats) would simplify the hell out of calculations and eliminate rounding error! But that would require an OrgLaw amendment anyway. So why not think big.

I should point out that I still think my "circular party list" idea is valid and could apply to any number of seats, and should be considered on its own. The argument from Senator dal Vàl is that "more active legislators should get more seats". That doesn't happen, though. You're as likely to disappear off the face of the planet with 20 seats as with 1. Also, it gives too much power to a party leader to "play favorites" - contrary to certain smears I want to reduce the power of party leaders.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

It would be much harder for a new party to get representation in the Cosa under your plan.  That effect would exclude new smaller parties and raise the threshold to compete with larger existing parties, such as the one you lead.

^^^ Regent attempts to argue that 12 > 15  :o

Anyway, kudos for dealing with the question of the threshold. The whole question is whether there should be a threshold, not "shrinking the Cosa".

Quite a journey.  Anyway...

For all the talk about the glorious Talossan tradition of 1 person parties, we haven't had any of those for (*quick check*) miéida sant, since before Reunision. Even in the glorious days of the "blank cheque" ballot and RUMP dominance. We've had a few 2 person parties since then, of course, so that's the effective threshold that the popular will itself has imposed. Let's use that as our starting point.

Great.  So with 100 voters, it currently takes at least two votes to get a seat.  So while we definitely don't want to reduce the size of the Cosa seats down, we might want to increase it if we get back up to 120 voters or more (48th Cosa in 2015 had 126).  That would keep it granular enough to permit the same threshold of participation.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Great.  So with 100 voters, it currently takes at least two votes to get a seat.

... your maths is upside down

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Great.  So with 100 voters, it currently takes at least two votes to get a seat.

... your maths is upside down

It is?  But didn't you just say that there were only two-person parties?

Wait, I see my mistake.  Okay then, great!  Nothing to fix at all, then!

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

Nothing to fix at all, then!

Think about what I said. I want to hear your opinion on it.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Nothing to fix at all, then!

Think about what I said. I want to hear your opinion on it.

Sure.

So there are a lot of virtues to our current system, with a very granular, flexible, and responsive Cosa matched with a localized, small-bodied, and long-term Senats.  Since the powers of the monarchy have been dramatically scaled back over time, and the judiciary is increasingly intermingled with the legislature, the fact that the Ziu is bicameral is one of a very small number of ways in our system to slow demagogues and corruption.  You can't take over every institution with one or even two big waves of popular support, since you need several successive elections to be in legitimate control of both chambers of the Ziu.

All of those elements would be things that I'd want to see preserved in any prospective new system, especially if the new system is being proposed primarily for aesthetic reasons (because people just like the idea of a Real Cosa more, as opposed to the virtualization of flexibly assigned seats).

Looking at what you said and thinking about it a fraction of as much as you, this seems like its main virtue would come in the reduced power of party leaders to enforce party discipline through seat allocation.  Are there other benefits?