[Chancery] Cosa results July 2018

[Glüc da Dhi]

Also treat with caution:

Votes (preliminary):

MRPT - 40
FREEDEMS/FREEDEMD* - 36
RUMP - 35
MTGA - 4
PRESENT/BACK TO THE ROOTS/PARTIES ARE WRONG*** - 11


* Lex. B.8.1. If, during an election to the Cosâ, an elector makes a mistake when writing or typing the name or abbreviation of the party he intends to vote for, and in the opinion of the Secretary of State the intention of the voter was clear, the Secretary of State may appropriately correct the vote. Any electors may contest this in Cort.

*** Unregistered parties, parties cannot file an application after balloting day.

Seats (preliminary:

MRPT - 69**
FREEDEMS - 63
RUMP - 61
MTGA - 7

**due to rounding

Edit: Results have been certified.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

[Lüc da Schir]

So yeah, this is apparently the first time in recent history that three parties got >30% of the vote each.

[Lüc da Schir]

Also, it's always a good time to talk about a Real Cosa, so FYI - this is an hypothetical seat allocation in a 20-seats Cosa:

MRPT	7
FreeDem	6
RUMP	6
MTGA	1

If each MC was permitted to hold multiple seats (not really the point though) the limit would be 20*10/126 rounded up = 2 seats.

And in a 59-seats Cosa, which is close to the old MRPT compromise proposal of 60 and has the benefit of using a very Talossan number:

MRPT	20
FreeDem	18
RUMP	18
MTGA	2
Other	1

It would appear that in a 59 seats Cosa, using existing law, each MC would be able to hold up to 59*10/126 rounded up = 5 seats.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Both look like they have good aspects.

A 20 seat Cosa would mean One Person One Seat, which makes us much more "real" and was the status quo 1997-2003.
A 59 seat Cosa would have an effective "threshold" for representation of 2% i.e. 2 votes, which would be less exclusive of minor parties.

[Danihél Roðgarüt]

I must admit that I prefer the 20 person Cosa.

[Alèx Soleighlfred]

Real Cosa is nice. makes cosa seats really sought for, harder to earn. and is more derivativist, too.

[Glüc da Dhi]

A 20 seat Cosa would not neccesarily be a real Cosa, as the maximum number of seats would still be 2. With the current turnout and calculation you would need a 12 seat Cosa.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Jul 3, 2018 19:28:44 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

A 20 seat Cosa would not neccesarily be a real Cosa, as the maximum number of seats would still be 2. With the current turnout and calculation you would need a 12 seat Cosa.

In the current circumstances, I would only support moving to a Real Cosa if it went along with the abolition of the Senäts; simply because finding 15-20 active and competent legislators is hard enough, let alone 23-28.

The other issue is that even a 20 seat Real Cosa would have an effective threshold of 5 votes to get a seat, which would be extremely exclusionary. I am increasingly fond of the ModRad suggestion of a 59-seat Cosa (effective threshold of 2 votes) as a good compromise.

[Colonel Mximo Carbonèl]

I should name my party with my name...
Love your graph...

But sad... again the same old triple crown party...

Mximo

[Danihél Roðgarüt]

Jul 3, 2018 19:57:36 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Jul 3, 2018 19:28:44 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

A 20 seat Cosa would not neccesarily be a real Cosa, as the maximum number of seats would still be 2. With the current turnout and calculation you would need a 12 seat Cosa.

The other issue is that even a 20 seat Real Cosa would have an effective threshold of 5 votes to get a seat, which would be extremely exclusionary. I am increasingly fond of the ModRad suggestion of a 59-seat Cosa (effective threshold of 2 votes) as a good compromise.

What do you mean by exclusionary?

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Jul 4, 2018 8:03:46 GMT -6 Danihél Roðgarüt said:

Jul 3, 2018 19:57:36 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

The other issue is that even a 20 seat Real Cosa would have an effective threshold of 5 votes to get a seat, which would be extremely exclusionary. I am increasingly fond of the ModRad suggestion of a 59-seat Cosa (effective threshold of 2 votes) as a good compromise.

What do you mean by exclusionary?

You would be fine about a party which got 4 votes - like Mximo's - not getting a Cosâ seat?

[Danihél Roðgarüt]

Yes

[Eðo Grischun]

Jul 7, 2018 2:50:24 GMT -6 Danihél Roðgarüt said:

Yes

I disagree. I think we should want the accessibility threshold set very, very low. An open and inclusive Cosa helps give the minority opinions a voice, helps create a wider choice of parties on the political spectrum and allows a small and new party, over a period of time, to grow into something formidable instead of just disappearing after one election cycle and a single defeat.

For the sake of discussion and out of curiosity, where would your ideal threshold be? Be it a minimum share of the vote in percentile points or what-have-you.

[Danihél Roðgarüt]

If a party only secures a couple of votes and then, instead of learning from that process, winds itself up, then it’s demise is probably not too much of a loss. If they try again (and let’s be honest it’s more likely to be he or she than they) perhaps they’ll cross the threshold next time.

For me, 20 was small enough to make it competitive , but large enough to give room for greater diversity of opinion. It leaves enough active politicians to fill the Senats.

Elections come around pretty quickly too.

D