Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Apr 18, 2013 16:42:16 GMT -6
Whereas there is currently little competition for Cosâ seats, and
Whereas this might be because there are more Cosâ seats than citizens, and
Whereas the result of this is that parties that barely get any votes can still be elected in the Cosâ, and
Whereas because of this there is little incentive for very small parties to work together, and
Whereas another result of the ridiculous amount of seats is that large parties are able to distribute near unlimited amounts of seats to candidates, and
Whereas these problems could be solved by switching to a real Cosâ, and
Whereas to realistically require parties to assign all their seats to different persons the size of the Cosâ needs to be reduced to about 20 seats, and
Whereas this would significantly reduce the proportionality of the Cosâ, and
Whereas this could be solved by not reducing the Cosâ but instead waiting for the population to increase, and
Whereas it will take an eternity for the population to increase enough to result in a real 200 seat Cosâ, and
Whereas a Cosâ of about 60 seats might be the best of both worlds, and
Whereas this would not significantly affect the proportionality of the Cosâ, but still increase competition for Cosâ seats, and
Whereas 60, unlike 200, can be divided by three, which might be useful, since 2/3rds of the Cosâ is an important threshold, now
Therefore Article VIII, Section 1 of the Organic Law, which previously read: “The Cosâ is composed of 200 seats, apportioned among political parties based on their performance in the General Election” will be amended to read: “The Cosâ is composed of 60 seats, apportioned among political parties based on their performance in the General Election” ;
Furthermore Article VIII Section 3, which previously read: “Seats won by each party shall be divided by that party among its own members and supporters as it sees fit, with the proviso that each Member of the Cosâ may hold no more than thirty seats.”, will be amended to read: “Seats won by each party shall be divided by that party among its own members and supporters as it sees fit, with the proviso that each Member of the Cosâ may hold no more than nine seats and seats must be assigned as a whole and cannot be divided among multiple MC's."
Noi urent q'estadra sa:
Glüc da Dhi (Senator, Cézembre)
Alexandreu Bisquinc (MC, MRPT)
Vitxalmour Conductour (MC, NPW)
Lüc da Schir (MC, MRPT)
C. Carlüs Xheraltescu (MC, ZRT)
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Apr 18, 2013 17:53:23 GMT -6
Question:
Shouldn't the total number of seats be divisible by how many seats a person can hold?
Otherwise, I can see fractions lurking.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Apr 18, 2013 18:34:47 GMT -6
The current number of seats isn't divisible by the current cap per MC, so I don't see a problem there. But I don't see the need for this change. The number of 200 seats goes all the way back to the creation of the Cosa. I wouldn't want to change it unless there was consensus that we should switch to a so-called "Real" Cosa.
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Apr 18, 2013 18:39:14 GMT -6
The current number of seats isn't divisible by the current cap per MC, so I don't see a problem there. But I don't see the need for this change. The number of 200 seats goes all the way back to the creation of the Cosa. I wouldn't want to change it unless there was consensus that we should switch to a so-called "Real" Cosa. True, but there are many more common denominators between 200 and 30, then there are 60 and 9. |
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 19, 2013 0:53:13 GMT -6
Because this would eliminate the proud and vital Talossan tradition of quixotic one-person parties, such as Conta Lorentzescu's Democratic Dandiprat Party, which first and solis advocated for democracy in Talossa, or X. Pol Briga's CRO, which stood alone in support of provincial rights and activity for years, I will ardently oppose this bill.
We are blessed with a system that allows both functioning party politics and self-representation, in a way that has functioned flawlessly for years. The individual and very small parties have never posed a problem, but have stood very much in the tradition of individual weirdness that gave birth to our country at her beginning.
|
|
|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on Apr 19, 2013 1:02:44 GMT -6
S:reu Davinescu, you are wrong. Such parties would not be eliminated under this system, but it would require a higher percentage of support for them to be elected to the Cosa. It's important to remember that there's more to a party than representation in the Cosa.
Individual weirdness is fine and dandy, organisational weirdness in which we have a Cosa which is larger than our population is not.
I would also note that whilst I have added my name as a co-sponsor for this bill, I do not believe it goes far enough. I will be working with my colleagues in the NPW to present a bill to the Ziu which will be completely real.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 19, 2013 1:27:36 GMT -6
Yes, it's true that this bill graciously abstains from outlawing small parties altogether. But I do not think it's a point in its favor that the bill is limited to excluding them from the political process.
Under the terms of this bill, Conta Lorentz and S:reu Briga would never have been able to achieve seats in the Cosa and would not have been able to be a part of Talossan politics, except as outsiders. Why is that a good thing? What purpose is served by excluding weird minority opinions from the Cosa? Why can't people represent themselves if they so choose, since we have a system that allows it without causing problems?
You say that "organisational weirdness" is not "fine and dandy," and the bill scorns the fact that "parties that barely get any votes can still be elected in the Cosâ." I want to know why, since this is being portrayed as something that is self-evident. To me, it's a good thing that we have a marvelous blend of representative democracy and direct democracy, where our nation is still small enough that people can vote themselves into the Cosa or join together in a party. Someday, that may not be possible, once our population grows so that a single vote no longer can bring a seat. I will regret that day when it arrives. But why rush that?
Talossa started with one boy's "organisational weirdness" and individualistic refusal to join others. It has grown and been kept proud with that tradition, as democracy and provincial interests found lone supporters. And this bill seeks to take that away, because... why? It's unseemly?
I support the DDP and the CRO. I will not support this bill, because it will eliminate the path that gave those proud uncompromising parties a voice in the legislature.
|
|
|
|
Post by D. N. Vercáriâ on Apr 19, 2013 1:45:38 GMT -6
On a slightly different topic, could we just have a debate on the basic issues before we present a law. It's somewhat like putting the cart before the horse, and kind of the high road to an obese body of badly written laws.
|
|
|
|
Post by D. N. Vercáriâ on Apr 19, 2013 1:47:32 GMT -6
Btw., a country that has more laws than citizens possibly took the wrong exit.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Apr 19, 2013 1:50:52 GMT -6
One-person parties warp the democratic process because it blurs the line between representative and direct democracy. This is usually to the benefit of the people who are in government already. One rule of thumb I have is that virtually every constitutional "peculiarity" - as opposed to cultural peculiarity - of Talossa was created by KR1 to increase his power, and is kept on by the current establishment in order to perpetuate their power. Kudos to the MRPT on this.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Apr 19, 2013 1:54:00 GMT -6
... wow. Just remembered that this session, we can possibly get a bill passed even if the RUMP says no. Glorious days indeed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ián B. Anglatzarâ on Apr 19, 2013 1:57:59 GMT -6
... wow. Just remembered that this session, we can possibly get a bill passed even if the RUMP says no. Glorious days indeed. You make it sound as if the RUMP ever had a consistent party line on anything... |
|
|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on Apr 19, 2013 2:14:32 GMT -6
I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that a representative of the people is representative of more than just their own views.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 19, 2013 2:44:43 GMT -6
One-person parties warp the democratic process because it blurs the line between representative and direct democracy. This is usually to the benefit of the people who are in government already. One rule of thumb I have is that virtually every constitutional "peculiarity" - as opposed to cultural peculiarity - of Talossa was created by KR1 to increase his power, and is kept on by the current establishment in order to perpetuate their power. Kudos to the MRPT on this. So one-person parties like the DDP and CRO "warp the process"... how? What does that mean, aside from mysterious bad connotations? Is it bad to "blur the line" and permit people to represent themselves, something not usually possible in larger nations? Isn't that one of the great things about a country as small as ours? I see a lot of spooky language, but the only thing about why this might be good for Talossa seems to be that you think it will hurt the RUMP. Personal political interest is not a good reason to ban the DDP, CRO, and other traditions. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that a representative of the people is representative of more than just their own views. I agree, it's not unreasonable - I am not crying tyranny or outrage. I just think it's a bad idea and there's no reason for it. And your reply still does not provide one. Have they harmed anyone, anything, or in any way damaged any aspect of the political process or national character? Why do you want to prohibit parties like the DDP and CRO from having a voice in the legislature? |
|
|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on Apr 19, 2013 3:08:59 GMT -6
I would rather that parties like the DDP and the CRO are able to appeal to more than a single person before they have a voice in the legislature. The CRO grew into a party that was more than just a single member, if I remember correctly.
I got involved in Talossa because I think politics is fun. So not only do I see one-person parties as being an affront to representative democracy (a democracy in which organisations represent more than just the interests of one person) but I also see it as damaging the fun aspect of contested elections, since all I need to do to get a seat is vote for myself.
|
|
"Ceterum censeo republicam proclamandum esse."
