|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jun 2, 2015 15:06:10 GMT -6
I don't suppose anyone's heard from the Scribe, and whether or not he's going to get caught up on the last few Clarks and the recent referenda that were just passed? I'll at least do the referenda, so the laws remain correct, I guess. The Scribe of Abbavilla is overloaded and is seeking to be replaced ASAP. But we'll have to wait for the new government to do that unless it's an emergency. Not any more than it has been the last few months.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Jun 2, 2015 15:15:40 GMT -6
I dont think a threshold would be a very good idea. It prevents one vote parties, but doesnt do anything to increase the value of cosa seats for people in the larger parties. It would be good I think if giving a voter a seat and the party getting his/her vote is no longer a favourable thing for parties unless the MC is a good MC and able to represent more than just himself. Let there be internal comeptition to select the best representatives. A threshold would only give more seats to bigger parties, which doesnt really seem fair. Reducing the number of cosa seats seems more like a fair deal to me. That way one vote parties would not make it to the cosa, but it wouldnt neccesarily be favourable for people to join the big parties as they might not have seats for everyone either.
On the other hand, a 20 seat cosa might really ruin some of the dynamic that allows for more than 2/3 parties and more than 2/3 people per party. A 40/50 seat cosa might feasibly increase competition in the next 10 years, though probably not immediatly, especially for parties that have relatively few voters outside their own members (this might be the case for both large or small parties)
A technical point. A 20 seat cosa now would have a seat cap of 2, not 1.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Jun 2, 2015 15:28:35 GMT -6
When I voted, I just wrote "Party Vote: MRPT" and expected it to count both nationally and provincially, but the database says I abstained on the provincial vote. Can this be fixed? Sadly, as far as I know, if you don't mention the province explicitly, it's not counted. If I am wrong, I can fix it. But I need confirmation. According to the Common Sense Act (45RZ5)
However, my vote did not specify that it was only for the Cosa, and therefore it should have counted both nationally and provincially
|
|
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă
Puisne (Associate) Justice of the Uppermost Court
Fraichetz dels punts, es non dels mürs
Posts: 4,063
Talossan Since: 9-23-2012
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Jun 2, 2015 15:45:29 GMT -6
Sadly, as far as I know, if you don't mention the province explicitly, it's not counted. If I am wrong, I can fix it. But I need confirmation. According to the Common Sense Act (45RZ5)
However, my vote did not specify that it was only for the Cosa, and therefore it should have counted both nationally and provincially This might be a good test case for the courts.
|
|
Vit Caçeir
"I hated being AG so much I fled as far from it as literally possible."
Posts: 810
Talossan Since: 11-19-2007
|
Post by Vit Caçeir on Jun 2, 2015 18:32:53 GMT -6
The Scribe of Abbavilla is overloaded and is seeking to be replaced ASAP. But we'll have to wait for the new government to do that unless it's an emergency. Found one.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jun 2, 2015 18:38:41 GMT -6
Yeah, I'm withdrawing my resignation, I think, so Dien has some back-up in making these decisions. I guess I was in no danger of the Scribe recognizing the resignation any time soon, but still... doesn't seem like the best time to leave the office high and dry.
|
|
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 Jun 2, 2015 18:53:41 GMT -6
Actually, Alex, funny thing, the Scribe has decided he's not resigning after all. You may stand down - the updation of the OrgLaw is well in hand.
|
|
|
Post by Sevastáin Pinátsch on Jun 2, 2015 19:06:48 GMT -6
Interesting times, these.
|
|
|
Post by Françal Ian Lux on Jun 2, 2015 22:25:25 GMT -6
According to the Common Sense Act (45RZ5)
However, my vote did not specify that it was only for the Cosa, and therefore it should have counted both nationally and provincially This might be a good test case for the courts. Whenever it's been reformed and redesigned
|
|
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă
Puisne (Associate) Justice of the Uppermost Court
Fraichetz dels punts, es non dels mürs
Posts: 4,063
Talossan Since: 9-23-2012
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Jun 3, 2015 5:15:20 GMT -6
This might be a good test case for the courts. Whenever it's been reformed and redesigned Not entirely sure what you are referring to here as the Uppermost Cort has indeed been reformed and now has a full panel of justices ready to hear cases.
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Jun 3, 2015 5:31:19 GMT -6
In that case, who shall serve on the electoral commission?
|
|
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă
Puisne (Associate) Justice of the Uppermost Court
Fraichetz dels punts, es non dels mürs
Posts: 4,063
Talossan Since: 9-23-2012
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Jun 3, 2015 6:33:20 GMT -6
In that case, who shall serve on the electoral commission? Well, there are five justices to choose from (though two of them are not very active).
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Jun 3, 2015 6:37:09 GMT -6
In that case, who shall serve on the electoral commission? Well, there are five justices to choose from (though two of them are not very active). Shouldn't only the two justices that were on the Uppermost Cort at the time the election was conducted be allowed to sit on the Commission? Because, technically speaking, the Electoral Commission could invalidate enough votes to prevent the passage of the amendment that (set off a clause in another law which) allowed the Magistrates to take their seats on the Cort, making them unable to sit on the Commission in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Jun 3, 2015 6:46:26 GMT -6
Well, there are five justices to choose from (though two of them are not very active). Shouldn't only the two justices that were on the Uppermost Cort at the time the election was conducted be allowed to sit on the Commission? Because, technically speaking, the Electoral Commission could invalidate enough votes to prevent the passage of the amendment that (set off a clause in another law which) allowed the Magistrates to take their seats on the Cort, making th em unable to sit on the Commission in the first place. I see what you mean, but I don't think it's really a problem... otherwise, if we had all of the justice resign prior to the election, there would be no way to make an electoral commission.
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Jun 3, 2015 6:49:28 GMT -6
Shouldn't only the two justices that were on the Uppermost Cort at the time the election was conducted be allowed to sit on the Commission? Because, technically speaking, the Electoral Commission could invalidate enough votes to prevent the passage of the amendment that (set off a clause in another law which) allowed the Magistrates to take their seats on the Cort, making th em unable to sit on the Commission in the first place. I see what you mean, but I don't think it's really a problem... otherwise, if we had all of the justice resign prior to the election, there would be no way to make an electoral commission. It may not be a problem in the sense that there probably won't be any invalid votes, especially enough to invalidate that amendment, but it is almost a legal paradox and technically should not be allowed to happen. I question whether it would even be legal period: the laws that were on the books at the time the election began are the ones that would apply.
|
|