Membership churn contingency planning

[Sevastáin Pinátsch]

Azul,

I have not written this up as an amendment because it potentially affects our core beliefs. Instead, I would like your thoughts on how to handle this.

The loss of 3 of members this year was problematic, particularly for the two who held Cosa seats. In the same way that we believe (in the Manifesto) that too many offices should not be held by too few people, I believe that too many seats should not be held by too few members.  The result when one of us misses a vote can be catastrophic.  

For the record, I bear no ill will for the missed vote which resulted in the failed VoC. My own busy life is makes it difficult for me to manage all my own commitments both inside and outside of Talossa. But I think this is an example of consequences we must learn from. In the end, we have as much to fear from our own human error as we do from the opposition.

I want to propose the idea of a mechanism to add to the candidate list in extreme circumstances.  Eight months between elections can be a long time indeed when members are lost early in the term.

Playing Devil's advocate if you must, what are the circumstances under which we could conceivably add one or more members to the candidate list after an election?

- How many Cosa-sitting members would we need to lose?
- Or, how many seats must have been redistributed to remaining members?
- Or, should there be a minimum number of sitting members?

and,

- What percentage of party agreement would be needed to establish that exceptional circumstances necessitate an expansion of the candidate list?
- What percentage of party agreement would be needed to establish that a new MRPT member was exceptional enough to justify being added to the candidate list as a replacement?

[Lüc]

Answering both your last two questions, I think that an usual 2/3 majority should suffice. Each MCs also has veto powers, I remind you, and I think they apply to this as well.

Concerning your first three questions, finding a good answer is far more complicated. There are at least two variables to take into account there, such as number of MRPT MCs and number of MRPT seats, because:
- Many MCs (5) and many seats (50), we have ten seats each, but of course a redistribution of seats following a resignation would mean a lot of seats being distributed. We could expand our candidate list, but it's not really necessary since one's seats are just two/three more than before. Expanding the candidate list is however paramount should another MC drop out.
- Many MCs (5) and fewer seats (20), we have four seats each, and redistributing one's seats would mean that all MCs get one more seat. I don't think that this is a problem even if another MC drops out.
- Few MCs (3) and many seats (50) - this is more or less what happened us during the last term. Expanding the candidates list is vital, because each of us held about 10% of the total Cosa seats. It'd be as if I held 63 of the 630 Italian Chamber of Deputies seats, just four less than Berlusconi's party, or if there was an additional ninth Senator - for Pëngöpäts, e.g. - and I held that seat. This would be very bad for us, and also very unsafe in the remote possibility that I forgot to vote.
- Few MCs (3) and few seats (20) - even helding ten seats each, should a MC drop out, isn't bad. Holding twenty all on your own, instead, is VERY bad.

So, the problem is when we have:
- Many MCs and many seats, with more than a member dropping out.
- Few MCs and many seats, with a member or more dropping out.
- Only one MC and more than fifteen seats.

[Glüc]

I think the only possible reason the party could diverge from its list is if we would otherwise be legally required to leave seats vacant, and we should do everything we can to prevent this from ever happening.

One way of preventing this is suggesting to members who dont really want cosa seats unless we would get in trouble otherwise to apply for unelectable positions on the list, as backup.