|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Mar 27, 2019 7:13:57 GMT -6
The answer, to me, lies in the middle ground. Additional member system (AMS parliament) where we directly elect named candidates by constituency to half the parliament and top up the other half with votes for a party. You could take it further and have 1/3 elected by constituency, 1/3 by party list and 1/3 non-list party. The problem is we don't have enough active citizens to make it work. nb: It *might* be possible if the Senate was abolished in favour of a unicameral parliament and if seating was changed from fake200 to realX. This is something I could really get behind, to be honest. A real-seat parliament. Though if it is gone 1/3-1/3-1/3... even that might be too tight. What about 1/2-1/4-1/4*? Essentially, the parliament consists half of the old senate seats and half distributed to party (with the caveat that at least half of those seats must go to the list). That would get us about 16 people. Still a tall order. I think, honestly, that part of our issue is that we're trying to maintain an infrastructure that is just too... big. Like rust belt cities that overbuilt and the wound up hollowed out... a shrinking base doesn't mean there are suddenly fewer miles of road to maintain. At least not without some difficult and radical changes. The 97 orglaw was written in the heyday of Micronationalism, and when Talossa was the apex of that particular burgeoning hobby. Growth was huge and sustained. There was no reason to think that hundreds of citizens was outside the realm of possibility. We point to reduced immigration rates. But we need to keep in mind that this isn't a purely a Talossan thing. It's afflicting the hobby across the board. We need to adjust to this reality. We need a governing document that allows us to do that.
I don't really understand what you're suggesting, to be honest. The current system is incredibly flexible in accommodating different numbers of voters and legislators. If there were ten voters, the Cosa could be approportioned. If there were ten thousand voters, the Cosa could be apportioned. As I understand it, a Real Cosa would necessarily be much less flexible. The number of people it could sit would be the same, unless changed regularly through legislation. Plus, it's much less granular. Each seat would be an inflexibly large chunk of political power, so parties which received a small fraction of the vote would be entirely locked out, and each party's share of power would poorly correspond to their actual vote. The argument over the Real Cosa is an old one, but I have just never understood the appeal, outside of aesthetics. EDIT: Also, as a side note, 1997 Talossa had less than a quarter of our current population, and less than half our voters and active citizens. It was written for a much smaller Talossa, not the current large one.
|
|
King John
King of Talossa
Posts: 2,415
Talossan Since: 5-7-2005
Knight Since: 11-30-2005
Motto: COR UNUM
King Since: 3-14-2007
|
Post by King John on Mar 27, 2019 9:12:23 GMT -6
I just now read through this thread, and I have a couple of comments.
First, I *never* in the slightest way viewed Reunision as the defeat of the Republic. I saw it as a really good thing for Talossa, for all Talossans.
Second, it seems to me that one of the biggest effects of the "real" Cosa would be that a very small party, with only one or two (or maybe three) votes, wouldn't get any seats at all. And I think it should. It can only help the nation to have more people interested and participating in legislation.
— John R
|
|
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 Mar 27, 2019 15:15:35 GMT -6
It *might* be possible if the Senate was abolished in favour of a unicameral parliament and if seating was changed from fake200 to realX. Luc and I raised this in the OrgLaw Convocation but got no support.
|
|
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 Mar 27, 2019 15:17:31 GMT -6
Second, it seems to me that one of the biggest effects of the "real" Cosa would be that a very small party, with only one or two (or maybe three) votes, wouldn't get any seats at all. And I think it should. It can only help the nation to have more people interested and participating in legislation. This argument is always disingenuous when it comes from someone who doesn't support a Direct Democracy Cosa. If it's so vital that "everyone be in the Cosa", why elections - except to boost the ego of the winning party?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Mar 27, 2019 15:21:32 GMT -6
A good point, but the answer is that no one should be forced to choose between either sitting in the Cosa or losing their political voice. The vast majority of Talossans do not wish to sit in the Cosa, but I think it would be dangerous if their interests were not represented in our government. "Sit in the Cosa or lose your right to representation" seems like a dangerous principle to put into law.
|
|
|
Post by E.S. Bornatfiglheu on Mar 27, 2019 15:40:28 GMT -6
That seems inconsistent. The vast majority don't want to do it... but you'll bung everyone with a pulse onto your party list with nary a by-your-leave?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Mar 27, 2019 16:01:13 GMT -6
The principle is pretty simple. Everyone should be able to participate in the cosa if they wish, But no one should be forced to do so at risk of losing their political power as a voting member of the citizenry.
I am not sure how closely you have been following this discussion, so perhaps you didn't see that my attempt to put as many people as possible on my party list was very short lived, since after Sev pointed out that it could be misconstrued as an endorsement, I reversed it. So that version of the party list only lasted a few hours. I have mentioned this several times.
|
|
Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial
Batetz las maes, perf. —— Freelance glheþineir (I only accept Worthless Internet Points™ as payment)
Posts: 448
Talossan Since: May 12, 2014
|
Post by Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on Mar 27, 2019 16:04:03 GMT -6
A good point, but the answer is that no one should be forced to choose between either sitting in the Cosa or losing their political voice. The vast majority of Talossans do not wish to sit in the Cosa, but I think it would be dangerous if their interests were not represented in our government. "Sit in the Cosa or lose your right to representation" seems like a dangerous principle to put into law. How about something like Liquid Democracy? Everyone who wants to be in the Cosa gets to do so, and everyone who doesnt can delegate their vote to someone who does.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Mar 27, 2019 16:17:31 GMT -6
A good point, but the answer is that no one should be forced to choose between either sitting in the Cosa or losing their political voice. The vast majority of Talossans do not wish to sit in the Cosa, but I think it would be dangerous if their interests were not represented in our government. "Sit in the Cosa or lose your right to representation" seems like a dangerous principle to put into law. How about something like Liquid Democracy? Everyone who wants to be in the Cosa gets to do so, and everyone who doesnt can delegate their vote to someone who does. This is very interesting. I'll have to take a close look at it. If you know good bit about it, why it would be better than our current system?
|
|
Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial
Batetz las maes, perf. —— Freelance glheþineir (I only accept Worthless Internet Points™ as payment)
Posts: 448
Talossan Since: May 12, 2014
|
Post by Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on Mar 27, 2019 16:21:04 GMT -6
If you know good bit about it, why it would be better than our current system? Well, I'm not sure if it's necessarily better than the current system, but it would match what you said you wanted pretty closely.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Mar 27, 2019 16:38:40 GMT -6
It seems to be in pretty much like our current system, actually, except that we nudge people towards delegating to a party, by requiring registration and a party fee, whereas this liquid democracy would tend to nudge people towards representing themselves. Interesting. If we were to switch towards nudging people towards representing themselves in this manner, it seems like it might be okay, but we would need to find an alternative source of revenue. We wouldn't want to keep the current registration fee if we were expecting most people to pay it in order to participate in the default form of our government.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Mar 27, 2019 17:44:09 GMT -6
If I'm skimming this thread correctly, there's one idea for direct democracy of a "everyone sits in the cosa and can propose/vote on legislation" or even just vote on every legislation. Is this under a set government scheme or a town hall style? Do we just show up whenever and vote or do we have requirements that we need to meet X to submit consistent referendum to the citizenry? Is it voted on through regular referendum? Etc.
The other concept is a "liquid democracy." I have the same questions--are we setting periods when we can delegate our vote to another (and this requires that person to have claimed their seat in the Cosa)? Can that person, prior to that next open period, change their delegate if suddenly they switch all positions? If it's not set (i.e., you can't switch between "elections"), are we setting it up that people will be endlessly harassed by individuals during that period? If, however, it can be switched all of the time, are we not setting up a system where people will be harassed to change their delegate on a never ending basis?
Notwithstanding the "affirmative delegation," we practice this system to some degree in Vuode (or "United Provinces" for those who hear my voice in their head). Each election cycle, every citizen can claim their seat in the E-X. When they do, they get a seat in the Grand Session. Their failure to do so deprives them of a seat until the next election. One can view this as tacit delegation to the body. To the extent there isn't an affirmative "I delegate my seat in the E-X to this person" statement permitted in Vuode, then one could label us an "affirmative direct democracy." That is, everyone can vote and propose if they claim their right to do so at regularly set intervals.
I am not in favor, as Etho offered, of an AMS parliament for reasons previously stated. I'm not in favor of constituency-based parliaments. I like how the Cosa is set up as is. But a lot of what we're talking about is theoretical. While I would support abolishing the Senate tomorrow, the other proposals I'd like to see first play out on a provincial level to see how they pan out in Talossa. Adopting a US view, the provinces can be a laboratory of democracy/governance.
In any event, I'm in favor of a unicameral parliament generally under the system we have now, but I have concerns with parliamentary supremacy, a la the UK, becoming a thing in Talossa. We would need an active and established judiciary to check parliamentary supremacy from dominating. And with that, we'd need more respect for the rule of law. But still, perhaps a unicameral Ziu is not the answer, but a quasi-unicameral Ziu. Soemthing akin to a "light senate" as it were. That is, say, a Council of Talossa, made up of a representative appointed by each province. A piece of legislation that passes the Cosa could be referred by a majority of the Council to the provincial governments for adoption. This would require an affirmative step by the Council (i.e., not every piece of legislation is considered). The provinces can then soft-veto the proposal, if, in one clark, a majority of provincial governments, made an affirmative statement against adoption. A subsequent Cosa, being aware of these concerns, could still override the soft veto in a subsequent Clark by simple majority.
|
|
|
Post by E.S. Bornatfiglheu on Mar 27, 2019 18:51:01 GMT -6
The principle is pretty simple. Everyone should be able to participate in the cosa if they wish, But no one should be forced to do so at risk of losing their political power as a voting member of the citizenry. I am not sure how closely you have been following this discussion, so perhaps you didn't see that my attempt to put as many people as possible on my party list was very short lived, since after Sev pointed out that it could be misconstrued as an endorsement, I reversed it. So that version of the party list only lasted a few hours. I have mentioned this several times. I'll thank you to remember that I have been following this, and that there is nothing wrong with my reading comprehension.
Short-lived or not, you did it. And your reasoning for doing it was crystal clear. And that reasoning is inconsistent with your later assertions.
The thing is, people who opt not to participate in a direct democracy Cosa don't "risk losing their political power." They opt not to exercise it. They decide that not engaging is more important than having their voice heard in this case (or in any case). It is similar to those who opt not to vote in Cosa elections.
Many direct democracy organizations allow proxy assignment (my own professional organization, ATI, is an example), where a person could sign over their vote to another person for a limited period of time (and proxies can only hold a limited number of them. 2-3 each or somesuch, depending on system). Often this is coupled with a formal consensus system of governance.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Mar 27, 2019 19:28:26 GMT -6
The principle is pretty simple. Everyone should be able to participate in the cosa if they wish, But no one should be forced to do so at risk of losing their political power as a voting member of the citizenry. I am not sure how closely you have been following this discussion, so perhaps you didn't see that my attempt to put as many people as possible on my party list was very short lived, since after Sev pointed out that it could be misconstrued as an endorsement, I reversed it. So that version of the party list only lasted a few hours. I have mentioned this several times. I'll thank you to remember that I have been following this, and that there is nothing wrong with my reading comprehension. No offense was meant. Like I said, I wasn't sure how closely you have been following that discussion. I didn't recall whether or not you had contributed, so I explained again my reasoning. Short-lived or not, you did it. And your reasoning for doing it was crystal clear. And that reasoning is inconsistent with your later assertions. The thing is, people who opt not to participate in a direct democracy Cosa don't "risk losing their political power." They opt not to exercise it. They decide that not engaging is more important than having their voice heard in this case (or in any case). It is similar to those who opt not to vote in Cosa elections. Many direct democracy organizations allow proxy assignment (my own professional organization, ATI, is an example), where a person could sign over their vote to another person for a limited period of time (and proxies can only hold a limited number of them. 2-3 each or somesuch, depending on system). Often this is coupled with a formal consensus system of governance.
Well, this just seems a semantic disagreement around labels. We agree on the basic facts: in a direct democracy, people may either participate personally in the legislature, or else they do not have any influence over the political decisions of their country. Yes, people may assign proxies in many systems. That is what was just being discussed a few moments ago -- the liquid democracy? That would just be the same system at a larger scale, right? Honestly not sure about the perceived disagreement, here. Maybe you can tell me if you disagree with any of these statements? - In a pure direct democracy, citizens must either personally participate, or else they lose their political voice. - Pure direct democracy is not a good idea in Talossa, because it would force citizens to either be engaged with the legislature (even if they weren't interested) or deprive them of their political power (which would lead to bad decisions by government). - In a liquid democracy (a lot of different names for it, apparently), citizens may either participate or assign their political power to another party by way of a proxy or vote. - Talossan democracy is somewhere between a liquid democracy and traditional parliamentary democracy, because we are a small enough country that a single vote is almost always enough to elect someone to some degree of political power in the legislature. - It is good that Talossan democracy permits these different approaches, since it is flexible and allows people to get involved on their own terms, as might be fun for them. - It is a bad idea to try to artificially restrict participation in the Cosa to try to force people to be more active elsewhere, since it is more likely folks will just lose interest. I think that sums up my main points so far in this discussion. There are probably different names for some of these ideas, including more technically correct ones (I don't know much about political science, alas). I'd also add this one: - Our first priority for fixing things is to make Talossa more fun, since even some of our most prominent Talossans don't think it's fun in Talossa anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Mar 28, 2019 8:04:12 GMT -6
AD: I mostly agree with those statements, I think it's a little more semantically nuanced than the way your describing direct democracy.
I don't agree that by not participating in a direct democracy that you lose your political voice. You wouldn't be considered to be disenfranchised much in the same way that an apethetic citizen wouldn't be considered disenfranchised by choosing not to vote.
Instead of losing your political voice I would put it that you have simply chosen not to use your political voice *at this time*.
I agree that Talossa sits somewhere in the middle of direct democracy and a Westminster style of representative democracy. And then, we also sit somewhere in the middle of a UK style parliament and a US style Congress. It's been noted before that our systems have some strange quirks and utilize a bit of a mish-mash of systems. I think that is a good thing, overall and generally. It's probably an effect of the mixture of influences that we all bring to Talossa from our mix of individual places around the world.
I don't particularly disagree with the sentiment that everybody should be able to participate in the Cosa if they want to. I also fully appreciate the reasons why we would want it that way and why we wouldn't want to put new citizens on ice for several months in the wait for a fresh election. However, I also recognise the other arguments made against this view.
First, what is the point in elections if there are never any losers? Our elections don't necessarily hold anyone to account. A legislator can do a bad job in Talossa but not ever need to worry about deselection or losing an election as a result of their poor performance.
My own personal dislike of our system is that there isn't really a place for independent candidates in the Cosa. To be independent you must form a party and intend for it to be a party of one, but that itself could be considered as a form of gaming the system as the system wasn't intended for the independent candidate to stand in the first place.
We are supposed to elect parties to the Cosa, leaving independent candidates to run for the senate. But, the Senators are only supposed to represent their provinces. Can a candidate for the senate really run a campaign with a manifesto? Can they run on ideological grounds? I mean, yes, they could, but they aren't really supposed to. 'Protectors of the provinces' doesn't leave much room for independent ideological thought.
To further muddy those waters, too often are Senators affiliated with and allegiant to a party anyway.
Apart from the argument that Senators represent and protect the provinces, I see no relevance to the Senate in today's Talossa. It also holds a tremendous weight of power over the Cosa, which is sometimes a little unfair in practice. But, I digress.
There isn't a definite place for independent legislators. It's because we don't field candidates as individuals against each other (constituency based representative democracy). I don't think we should move towards direct democracy (even though it could theoretically work in Talossa) and I don't think constituency based representative democracy is right either. In fact, I think that system would fail due to lack of candidates.
Our mish-mash, middle of the road system is probably near perfect for our requirements. I just wish it was easier for the independent candidate to exist without the 'one man band' stigma.
|
|