Building the Talomat for the 54th Cosa

[Lüc da Schir]

The Talossan Democracy Institute is preparing...

The December 2019 Talomat!

Yep, it's that time of the year. As a refresher, the Talomat is a political compass based on Mahlowat, an open-source implementation of the popular Wahlomat, which was made for the German federal elections. The idea is to answer a number of questions (last time, 45) to help you choose which party you should vote for.

I will take care of the hosting and coordination for this year as well, as the new Talomat will be the Talossan Democracy Institute's first project. Once completed, the Talomat will be accessible at democracyinstitute.tk/talomat/; the website uses no cookies whatsoever, serves no ads and logs no personal data. Your results will be private unless you share them manually.

Last time, the quiz was built by me (hosting, coordination, questions) and these other amazing people:

- Marcel Tafial (Talossan translation, original idea, images, questions)
- Glüc da Dhi (questions, descriptions)

- Munditenens Tresplet, Ian Plätschisch, Sir Alexandreu Davinescu and Eðo Grischun (questions)

Additionally, all four parties submitted answers.

[Lüc da Schir]

So how can you help?

- Well, first and foremost, we need to decide the questions! This is by far what I need the most help with. We will use last year's slate of questions as a starting point. We need to determine which questions are still relevant, which ones are outdated/irrelevant and which new issues have popped up. Everyone can help, especially if you have some issues that are dear to you and want them included - those questions will necessarily be seen and answered by party leaders!

This year's Google Doc can be found at docs.google.com/document/d/1KxBNHwN-8Ksgk7EaBrk9RvTdlOG_YS6p0vOeSzr5vfY/edit?usp=sharing.

Later on:

- We will need to write descriptions and make sure all the questions are up to standard. For example, some questions were accused of being a bit leading last time, while some saw broad agreement one way or the other (or even a lot of parties with no opinion). I would generally aim to reduce such questions, especially because the latter will inevitably "pad the scores" of parties and lead to close results.

- A really cool thing we did last time was providing a Talossan language version of Talomat, courtesy of the amazing Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial. If you speak Talossan, you're welcome to help!

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

I have now added a few questions.

[Lüc da Schir]

We've had some interesting contributions in the last few days. Keep 'em coming!

Party leaders, don't forget to pop in and check if we've put in questions that are relevant to your manifesto.

[Eðo Grischun]

Added some stuff.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Just added some stuff.

[Lüc da Schir]

Thank you for your input, I should have addressed all recent proposals.

I've also began taking decisions on some questions that were tagged as not relevant. This means we're down to around 52 proposed questions, which feels like a lot. I think we should aim for 45 like last time. Other questions have already been commented on as "mergeable" or some degree of "not very interesting".

[Lüc da Schir]

The questions have been narrowed down to 47, taking in feedback. If you have any last minute suggestions, this is the time!

I plan on sending out questions to the parties tomorrow.

[Glüc da Dhi]

Thanks for all the work you are doing on this!

Sadly I havent had much time to comment. At a quick glance most of the questions seem fine, with two exceptions:

"The 2017 Organic Law, passed through the Still Into This Amendment and currently pending referendum, has been a positive change to our constitutional framework."
This almost reads like an ad for the referendum. Also its really more a value judgment than actual policy. Also how can something have been a positive change if it hasnt been implemented yet. Also, its irrelevant because its not likely to come up next term. Also, I dont think many people will know what the actual changes are.

"Talossan citizenship should be freely granted to all who want it, following the principles of civic nationalism"
The first part is clear enough I think. Best to scrap the last bit, which doesnt really add anything except suggest there is some coherent ideology behind it, which, whether true or false, is more an answer than a question. Also its confusing because what if someone supports the policy but not the idea behind it, or vice versa.

As for the descriptions, I would reiterate that the safest is to have them be short formal explanations of terms people may be unfamiliar with or the current situation (I mean whether the statement is currently true or false and in the latter case, what alternative is in place, not what facts might be the reason for the proposed change, because that usually is an argument.) Arguments, histories, proposals that are much broader or way more specific than the question itself, alternative proposals, ideological backgrounds, etc all have an enormous potential for being leading or biased.

[Lüc da Schir]

Yeah, the OrgLaw question was a last minute addition and I think it's safe to delete it. I can also agree with the other suggestion.

[Lüc da Schir]

Right, with the OrgLaw and the budget deficit questions taking the axe, we are now down to the customary 45. I'm sending them out.

[Lüc da Schir]

Questions have been sent out. Party leaders, check your inboxes! Talomat will open as soon as we have three or more set of answers.

Please contact me if you need clarification about any questions. I will answer those requests publicly, so other party leaders can access them.

Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN Ian Plätschisch Eðo Grischun E.S. Bornatfiglheu Ieremiac'h Ventrutx Colonel Mximo Carbonèl

[Eðo Grischun]

Replied.

[Lüc da Schir]

I'm issuing a clarification on question #35, "The King should have no veto powers, or at most a suspensory veto". In a party leader's opinion, the King already has a suspensory veto.

My interpretation, upheld by Merriam-Webster, is that a suspensory veto is one where Parliament only has to pass the bill again to override it, with no supermajority requirements. This is what happens in France, India, Italy and Latvia, and what was meant by the question (therefore, our King does NOT have a suspensory veto).

[Lüc da Schir]

I'm issuing a clarification on some of the questions on the Monarchy, 32-35 and 37. I have been asked if a party with republican beliefs should abstain on them.

Please answer those questions by assuming Talossa is remaining a Kingdom.