Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Sept 24, 2015 8:48:28 GMT -6
I find those answers to be quite satisfactory What do you think of my latest version?
|
|
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 Sept 24, 2015 9:15:39 GMT -6
I find those answers to be quite satisfactory What do you think of my latest version? I'm on the road now, but I'll think about it.
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Sept 24, 2015 9:55:19 GMT -6
Also, is it within the Organic purview of the Ziu to control how a party functions? It seems odd to view a rule of "each party can choose its own rule" as more controlling of how a party functions than the one-size-fits-all approach that you're proposing. Your revised language is an improvement, but while I agree with M-P's point about the burden on the SoS imposed by the original proposal, I dislike the solution of forcing parties to give the same number of seats to each MC. That's why I placed a minimum to give to people on the list, and then, they do whatever they want: they fulfilled their list.
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Sept 24, 2015 9:57:05 GMT -6
Of course, we could go back to RC20... where we have 20 Cosa members, each with 1 seat... 1 people, 1 vote.
Then, a party just names it's Cosa Members in order, and additional ones are from the citizen pool.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Sept 25, 2015 7:14:58 GMT -6
Of course, we could go back to RC20... where we have 20 Cosa members, each with 1 seat... 1 people, 1 vote. Then, a party just names it's Cosa Members in order, and additional ones are from the citizen pool. That was a whole other discussion
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Sept 26, 2015 13:52:56 GMT -6
WHEREAS The current coalition agreement says that a goal of ours is to "introduce a nuanced system of mandatory Cosa lists which allow parties to deal with events beyond their control", and
WHEREAS A voter should know which individuals they are voting for when casting a vote for a certain party, and
WHEREAS This will serve to increase accountability to the voters
THEREFORE A new subsubsection B.2.3 is added to el Lexhatx which reads
B.2.3 The ballot must also include, for each party contesting the election, a list of citizens to whom the party intends to award Cosa seats. B.2.3.1 Within 10 days after the election has concluded, each party leader must submit to the Secretary of State a report containing the distribution of the seats won in the election B.2.3.1.1 The party leader may assign seats to any eligible citizen(s) they see fit, so long as the party's internal procedures are followed, no one who was not named on the list is assigned more seats than anyone who was named on the list, the total number of seats awarded to those not on the list does not exceed 1/3 of all seats won by the party, and no person occupies more than the legal number of seats. Any person assigned a seat as above may decline to take their seats in which case they will be reallocated according to the above constraints. Other subsubsections in B.2 are renumbered accordingly.
FURTHERMORE Org.VIII.3, which currently reads
Each party shall assign its seats to such individuals as it sees fit, provided that each such individual is eligible to serve in the Cosa under this article and is assigned a whole number of seats. The Ziu may by law establish a maximum number of seats that any one Member of the Cosa may hold by law, but the minimum number of Members of the Cosa shall be no less than the number of Senators, and the same limit shall apply to all Members of the Cosa, and any changes to the limit shall take effect no earlier than the distribution of seats after the next General Election.
shall be amended to read
Each party shall assign its seats to such individuals as it sees fit, subject to regulations set forth by law, provided that each such individual is eligible to serve in the Cosa under this article and is assigned a whole number of seats. The Ziu may by law establish a maximum number of seats that any one Member of the Cosa may hold by law, but the minimum number of Members of the Cosa shall be no less than the number of Senators, and the same limit shall apply to all Members of the Cosa, and any changes to the limit shall take effect no earlier than the distribution of seats after the next General Election.
Noi urent q’estadra så: Ian Plätschisch (MC-MRPT) C. Carlüs Xheraltescù (MC-FDA)
Here is the bill with the new changes. Does this seem satisfactory?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 26, 2015 14:18:50 GMT -6
Maybe you could break up your subsubsubsection B.2.3.1.1 into a list? Easier to parse.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Sept 26, 2015 16:26:19 GMT -6
B.2.3.1.1 The party leader may assign seats to any eligible citizen(s) they see fit, so long as the following criteria are met; B.2.3.1.1.1 The party's internal procedures are followed
B.2.3.1.1.2 No one who was not named on the list is assigned more seats than any eligible citizen who was named on the list B.2.3.1.1.3 The total number of seats awarded to those not on the list does not exceed 1/3 of all seats won by the party B.2.3.1.1.4 No person occupies more than the legal number of seats. B.2.3.1.2 Any person assigned a seat as above may decline to take their seats in which case they will be reallocated according to the above constraints. Maybe you could break up your subsubsubsection B.2.3.1.1 into a list? Easier to parse. Done.
I suppose I should ask cosponsor C. Carlüs Xheraltescù whether my changes are good.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 26, 2015 18:09:43 GMT -6
You want a colon at the end of the first clause there, not a semicolon, to indicate it's a list.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Sept 26, 2015 20:07:51 GMT -6
You want a colon at the end of the first clause there, not a semicolon, to indicate it's a list. Thank you for the grammatical corrections (truly), but what do you think of the content? The amendment cant pass without RUMP support.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 26, 2015 20:24:36 GMT -6
I will cautiously say it looks pretty good. I am loathe to restrict parties on this matter at all, but I do understand the other point of view, and I can't think of many plausible scenarios where this would get in the way. I'd recommend we back that ten days out, though, and just say "before the conclusion of the first Clark." Ten days seems like a lot when we're chatting about it now, but we already have a couple of deadlines that hit on the first Clark, so let's just set this one there, too.
We also probably need a clause to say what will happen if these needs aren't met. "5.2.3.2. If no party list is published prior to the start of the election, the party leader shall retain all seats won; any seats which exceed the personal limit on the possession of seats shall be forfeited."
One thought: what if a party didn't want to publish a candidate list at all? I don't think the RUMP would ever be in that situation, but many small or new parties haven't done so. I bring this up more as a point of discussion than an objection. Are we just saying, "tough luck?"
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Sept 26, 2015 20:38:58 GMT -6
I will cautiously say it looks pretty good. I am loathe to restrict parties on this matter at all, but I do understand the other point of view, and I can't think of many plausible scenarios where this would get in the way. I'd recommend we back that ten days out, though, and just say "before the conclusion of the first Clark." Ten days seems like a lot when we're chatting about it now, but we already have a couple of deadlines that hit on the first Clark, so let's just set this one there, too. We also probably need a clause to say what will happen if these needs aren't met. "5.2.3.2. If no party list is published prior to the start of the election, the party leader shall retain all seats won; any seats which exceed the personal limit on the possession of seats shall be forfeited." I changed the bill in these ways, I am glad to see you somewhat agree!
Not wanting to follow the law doesn't make it not the law
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 26, 2015 20:49:02 GMT -6
I'm aware I'm asking if there is any case to be made for people who just don't want to publish a candidate list at all... for their party's freedom to do so. Just because the RUMP or MRPT or FDT don't want to do so, doesn't mean no party will ever disagree -- or that they shouldn't have the freedom to do so. Hmm. A tough one.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Sept 26, 2015 22:12:18 GMT -6
If a party doesn't want to publish a candidate list (assuming this bill is passed), they would either have to give all seats to the party leader or change the law.
|
|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on Sept 27, 2015 9:46:01 GMT -6
I'm supportive of the changes I've read so far
|
|