[Chancery] Results of the September 2019 referendum (prelim)

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial]

The Shoutbox said:

Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial: Quick question: how would switching to MMP dilute or silence anyones voice? Its still proportional
Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial: You can answer me in the Referendum thread if you want
Sir Alexandreu Davinescu: For the very reasons that these referendum results led some folks to say that it meant they needed MMP
Sir Alexandreu Davinescu: The vote came out a way they didn't like because a concentration of voters who disagree with them have local representation, so they want to eliminate that local representation. Voters should pick their politicians, not the other way around.
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN: ... Florencia would still have guaranteed Cosa representation under MMP, you know
Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial: The whole point of MMP is local representation!
Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial: I'd even be willing to give Florencia two constituency seats (like Benito) because of the high population. This way we would also end up with 20 seats.
Sir Alexandreu Davinescu: lol yes but the whole point of this move is to dilute the neighborhood effect! It's literally the aim -- the vote didn't turn out how we like, so we better change the voting system!
Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial: ...what are you talking about?
Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial: I advocated for MMP long before the referendum results were published. I can guarantee you MMP doesnt dilute or silence anything, especially not the provinces' voice.
Eðo Grischun: MMP wouldn't even affect referendum results.

While it would be worrying if the Pro-merger faction wanted to disenfranchise Florencian RUMP voters through the backdoor by adopting an unfair voting system, MMP does nothing of the sort.

I'd argue that provinces directly electing constituency candidates to the Cosa and thus having MCs that represent their province first and their party second would empower the provinces.

Besides, I've been on record for wanting to keep the Senäts if activity levels allow it. I have no Idea what you're on about, Alex.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

1. The referendum occurred, showing a cohort of conservative voters in Florencia, which is represented by a senator.
2. It was proposed to dilute the political power of these voters by switching to unicameral MMP, eliminating the Senats, to dilute the voting power of this cohort.

Yes, referenda like this wouldn't have been affected -- that's not the issue!

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial]

Sept 24, 2019 7:18:35 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

1. The referendum occurred, showing a cohort of conservative voters in Florencia, which is represented by a senator.

Everybody already knew that Florencia has a RUMP majority, it's hardly newsworthy.

2. It was proposed to dilute the political power of these voters by switching to unicameral MMP, eliminating the Senats, to dilute the voting power of this cohort.

You have yet to demonstrate HOW a unicameral MMP Cosa would dilute the voting power of Florencian RUMP voters. The RUMP Senator for Florencia would be replaced by a RUMP MC (possibly even two) for Florencia, what gives?

[Lüc da Schir]

But your point 2 doesn't make any sense, Alex. If anything, since the RUMP's power has been declining in other provinces, it's entirely plausible that they might be reduced to holding only Florencia's seat, which is just 12.5% of the Senate, while still holding 20-25% of the seats in the Cosa. That cohort might soon be underrepresented by a bicameral arrangement, while under MMP you would still have a proportional quota of RUMP MCs that also includes Florencia's seat.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Hm. I see. Thank you, Luc and Marcel. I think I was misunderstanding how it would work! I appreciate you explaining it to me. I was wrong about that one.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Sept 24, 2019 8:36:45 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Hm. I see. Thank you, Luc and Marcel. I think I was misunderstanding how it would work! I appreciate you explaining it to me. I was wrong about that one.

I hope this is also an apology for turning up the rhetorical on me, based on your complete misunderstanding of how MMP would work.

It's fun to start shrieking at your favourite enemy, given even a false reason to do so, I understand that. It's also what makes Talossan politics toxic. I am also amazed to see this

I am aware that you recently decided that you should get to decree what debate is acceptable.

coming from the person who was so keen to shut down Viteu Marcianüs every time he used a cussword. Your rhetorical moves, Sir Alex, are more effective at dragging down debate into insults and recrimination than all the F words in all the languages spoken in Talossa.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Sept 24, 2019 15:28:28 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Sept 24, 2019 8:36:45 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Hm. I see. Thank you, Luc and Marcel. I think I was misunderstanding how it would work! I appreciate you explaining it to me. I was wrong about that one.

I hope this is also an apology for turning up the rhetorical on me, based on your complete misunderstanding of how MMP would work.

Uh... no? That whole tangent was based around your assertions that folks who don't post on Witt needed to have their political power reduced, plus your assertion that RUMP voters were basically unprincipled. Both sentiments are gross.

Sept 24, 2019 15:28:28 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

I am also amazed to see this

I am aware that you recently decided that you should get to decree what debate is acceptable.

coming from the person who was so keen to shut down Viteu Marcianüs every time he used a cussword. Your rhetorical moves, Sir Alex, are more effective at dragging down debate into insults and recrimination than all the F words in all the languages spoken in Talossa.

...surely you're not comparing (a) the process of complaining about a sitting member of Cabinet spasmodically cursing out constituents in direct contradiction of a supposed code of behavior with (b) the Seneschal and most powerful figure deciding which critics have been excessively sarcastic and need censoring?

I mean, those aren't even a little equivalent, except in the sense that they both involve powerful politicians punching down.

Also, I don't understand the cheerful purveyor and defender of "rough music" now claiming that it's out-of-bounds for a citizen to be sarcastic to them.

[E.S. Bornatfiglheu]

So... this thread is going to spin out into your two sniping at one another again? We all know AD's a troll second only to me, not sure it's worth unpacking again.

To return to provinces... these chunks of Derivationist deadwood don't need to be merged. They need to go. They have no meaningful powers, and have no "in corpore" identities that need to be represented. It's simply an American import that I like to call "Mcbicameralism." America has this, and in a lack of imagination, let's have it too.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Sept 24, 2019 16:11:54 GMT -6 E.S. Bornatfiglheu said:

So... this thread is going to spin out into your two sniping at one another again? We all know AD's a troll second only to me, not sure it's worth unpacking again.

Thank you, S:reu Stamford

Personally, I think the Senats has done yeoman service to the country on several occasions, rejecting bills that were hasty or ill-considered. That's basically its purpose.

You really don't take any delight or enjoyment in your province or the idea of provinces, generally? I have always loved being a Maritiimi-Maxhestian... indeed, the first stuff I ever did here was provincial.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial]

It's simply an American import that I like to call "Mcbicameralism." America has this, and in a lack of imagination, let's have it too.

Hey now, as someone from Germany, I cannot let you malign bicameralism like that! Granted, bicameralism has way more justified in Germany than in Talossa but... still!

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Sept 24, 2019 16:11:54 GMT -6 E.S. Bornatfiglheu said:

It's simply an American import that I like to call "Mcbicameralism." America has this, and in a lack of imagination, let's have it too.

Yeah. So you have this weird circular logic, where the existence of the provinces is used to justify the Senäts... and conversely, as Sir Alex has just done, the usefulness of the Senäts is used to justify the existence of the provinces. One can exist without the other, although if we ditched provinces but kept bicameralism I'd want meaningful and fair electoral districts.

Also, as I've kept saying, the Senäts does NOT SERVE as an "upper house/house of review" because it votes at the same time as the Cosa. It just means that the majority party in the Cosa doesn't get its own way over laws all the time. I can see that by giving scope for independents to be elected it performs a good function. But so would MMP.

So I would prefer:
a) a unicameral MMP Cosa, OR
b) Senäts and Cosâ voting separately

to our current McBicameralism.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Sept 24, 2019 16:36:16 GMT -6 Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial said:

]Hey now, as someone from Germany, I cannot let you malign bicameralism like that! Granted, bicameralism has way more justified in Germany than in Talossa but... still!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Bundesrat have quite limited powers, quite similar to the South African Council of Provinces, viz. it can only stop legislation which directly effects the various Länder?

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial]

You are correct. I suppose the Länder are represented multiple times in the German system: an MMP Bundestag thats working with Länder lists, and the aforementioned Bundesrat.

[Lüc da Schir]

Sept 24, 2019 19:10:14 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Sept 24, 2019 16:11:54 GMT -6 E.S. Bornatfiglheu said:

It's simply an American import that I like to call "Mcbicameralism." America has this, and in a lack of imagination, let's have it too.

Yeah. So you have this weird circular logic, where the existence of the provinces is used to justify the Senäts... and conversely, as Sir Alex has just done, the usefulness of the Senäts is used to justify the existence of the provinces. One can exist without the other, although if we ditched provinces but kept bicameralism I'd want meaningful and fair electoral districts.

Also, as I've kept saying, the Senäts does NOT SERVE as an "upper house/house of review" because it votes at the same time as the Cosa. It just means that the majority party in the Cosa doesn't get its own way over laws all the time. I can see that by giving scope for independents to be elected it performs a good function. But so would MMP.

So I would prefer:
a) a unicameral MMP Cosa, OR
b) Senäts and Cosâ voting separately

to our current McBicameralism.

Personally, I think the Senate fully surrendering confidence and supply powers over to the Cosa already was a step in the right direction, but I'm down to discuss b) in the next term, when hopefully we'll have the new OrgLaw in place. In the meantime, it's worth considering that separate voting would present numerous challenges. For instance, separate voting is useless without amendments being allowed, which would need the whole system of the Hopper and the Clark to be rethought.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Sept 24, 2019 19:10:14 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Also, as I've kept saying, the Senäts does NOT SERVE as an "upper house/house of review" because it votes at the same time as the Cosa. It just means that the majority party in the Cosa doesn't get its own way over laws all the time. I can see that by giving scope for independents to be elected it performs a good function. But so would MMP.

So I would prefer:
a) a unicameral MMP Cosa, OR
b) Senäts and Cosâ voting separately

to our current McBicameralism.

Just for sake of discussion, the Federated States of Micronesia has a unicameral parliament that combines members elected for short terms from population-based districts and members elected for long-terms from the component states of the federation in a single body. So it's a little like the US electoral college or the Talossan Gruppengloppen. The Comoros has a similar quasifederal unicameral parliament. Tonga has a unicameral parliament that basically smushes together a house of commons and a house of lords (some members elected by the people at large and some members elected by nobles) into a single body.