[VOTING] Manifesto (First Round)

[Lüc]

Right, there's a lot that needs to be voted on and we're a day late according to the amended schedule. I'm opening the voting process myself so as not to waste more time.

1. From the section "On Micronations" remove the sentence "The government should not abuse its diplomatic powers."2. To the section "On Micronations" add the sentence: "The government should try to increase its visibility in the micronational world."3. From the section "On the Senate" remove the sentence "Party endorsement should not count in any way for Senatorial elections."4. In the section "On the Senate" amend the sentence "Provinces should be in charge of electing Senators" to read "Provinces should be in charge of election Senators, whenever possible."5. From the section "On the Senate" remove the sentence "Use of a preferential voting method for senatorial elections conducted by the Chancery."6. In the section "On the Senate amend the sentence "Introduce a small fee for accepting seats in the Senate." to read: ". A small fee for accepting seats in the Senate might be introduced in the future, but only if neccesary because webhosting consistently costs more than revenue generated by donations and stamp/coin/talossaware sales. "7. To the section "On the Senate" add the sentence "Votes in the Senate should be degressively proportional to the number of citizens of the province a senator represents."8. From the section "On the Cosa" remove the sentence "Introducing mandatory and binding candidate lists for the Cosâ."9. In the section "On the Cosa" add between the words "Cosa" (4th appearance) and "rather" the clause "using a preferential ballot".10. To the section "On the Cosa" add the sentence "The fee for participating in Cosa elections may only be raised if absolutely neccesary for the purpose of webhosting and not before a fee for accepting seats in the Senate has been introduced."11. In the section "On citizenship and privacy" amend both "Immigration Ministry" and "Ministry of Immigration" to read "Interior Ministry"12. In the section "On citizenship and privacy" amend "the committee to monitor secret ballot elections," to read "the Electoral Commission"13. To the section "On citizenship and privacy" add between "... that of the chancery" and "The list of email..." the sentence "Provinces may use the chancery database to maintain their own email database for the purpose of holding elections. "14. Create a new section entitled "On Laws of the Kingdom"
Move the sentence "When a project can be completed without any new legislation, it should generally be completed without any new legislation." from the section "On Culture and
Enterprise" to the new section "On Laws of the Kingdom"
Move the sentence "Many provisions of the Organic Law would be better suited as part of Statutory Law." from the section "On other issues" to the new section "On Laws of the Kingdom"15. Rename the section "On culture and enterprise" to "On culture"16. To the section "On culture" or "On culture and enterprise" after "...language and traditions" add the sentence "The CUG remains the institution responsible for protecting the Talossan language."17. Rename the section "On the Monarchy" to "On the Monarchy and the Royal Household" Additionally, add at the end of the section "On the Monarchy and the Royal Household" the sentence "Officers currently part of the royal household should remain within the royal household."18. In the section "On the Monarchy" or "On the Monarchy and the Royal Household" amend everything from "However..." to "...referendum" to read "However, we also believe in democratic values, which means the Kings political power should be limited. Additionally, there should be democratic way to remove the monarch if there is large public and parliamentary support for such a step."19. Rename the section "On the provinces" to read "On provincial assignment". Additionally, move the section "On provincial assignment" to directly follow "On Citizenship and Privacy".20. From the section "On the provinces" or "On provincial assignment" remove the sentence "Increasing provincial activity".21. In the section "On the provinces or "On provincial assignment" amend the sentence "Moving permanently across provincial assignment borders should result in a change of province." to read "The default option for moving permanently across provincial assignment borders should be a change of province. "22. To the section "On the provinces or "On provincial assignment" add the sentence " The census should be used to identify citizens who are assigned to the "wrong" province and provide them with the option of changing province."23. To the new section "On the laws of the Kingdom" or if amendment 14 did not pass to the section "On other issues" add the sentence " Reform of the orglaw should as much as possible take the form of separate amendments."24. To the new section "On the laws of the Kingdom" or if amendment 14 did not pass to the section "On other issues" add the sentence "Whenever the OrgLaw is reformed in its entirety, a midterm referendum should be held to allow additional legislation during that term."25. Repeal the section "On Judicial reform" in its entirety.26. Create a new section directly after "On culture" or "On culture and enterprise" entitled "On awards and recognition". Additionally, move the clause "Promote the development and expansion of a formal National Honours System for the purposes of providing a mechanism of recognition for civic contributions & service to our nation." from the section "On other issues" to the new section "On awards and recognition".27. In the section "On awards and recognition" or "On other issues" amend the sentence "Promote the development and expansion of a formal National Honours System for the purposes of providing a mechanism of recognition for civic contributions & service to our nation." to read "The MRPT will continue and expand a nationwide dialogue on the creation a formal National Honours System for the purposes of providing a mechanism of recognition for civic contributions & service to our nation and will support the creation of such a system. "28. From the section "On Other issues" remove the sentence "The Talossan government should start paying for its own web presence."29. Create a new section "On Talossan webpresence" except when all of the amendments 31-36 fail.30. If there are no clauses remaining in the section "On other issues" remove the section "On other issues"31. To the new section "On Talossan webpresence" or alternatively the section "On other issues" add the following sentence: "The government should continue paying for Talossa.com and kingdomoftalossa.net. "32. To the new section "On Talossan webpresence" or alternatively the section "On other issues" add the following sentence: "he ministry of STUFF should coordinate with the Talossan Web Registrant to find cheaper hosting options for Talossa.com and Kingdomoftalossa.net. "33. To the new section "On Talossan webpresence" or alternatively the section "On other issues" add the following sentence: "The government should aim to archive the remaining content of Kingdomoftalossa.net and close the site by 2020."34. To the new section "On Talossan webpresence" or alternatively the section "On other issues" add the following sentence: "An MRPT minister of STUFF will continue making talossa.com both up to date and updateproof by removing unneccesary pages and transfering content to the wiki."35. To the new section "On Talossan webpresence" or alternatively the section "On other issues" add the following sentence: "Finalising the nationalisation of the Talossan database should be a priority for the next government. "36. To the new section "On Talossan webpresence" or alternatively the section "On other issues" add the following sentence: "The MRPT is committed to allow both privately run fora and create a government run forum in the form of telecomuna in the future, but might choose to accept a further delay if Talossa is not ready for two separate fora yet."37. At the end of the manifesto add a new section entitled "Financial expectations (start 51st cosa term - start 52nd cosa term)" to which the following content shall be added:

"Election fees 52nd Cosa election: +50$
Sales (Coins/Stamps/Talossaware): +100$
Donations Kingdom: +75$
Donations Talossaid +25$
Talossaid -25$
Webhosting reimbursements 50th Cosa: -91.48$
Webhosting costs 51st Cosa -245.82$
Additional expenses -30$

Total -142.30$"

[Glüc]

1. PER - Because this is obvious anyway
2. PER
3. AUS - Amendment to ensure this will pass this election
4. PER
5. PER - Has been done.
6. PER
7. PER - Still gives a lot of weight to province as a bloc, but it is ridiculous that a province with 200 citizens gets the same vote as a province with 20, potentially allowing a very small minority to veto bills. We should prevent this before we get to such a situation, cause then reform will be impossible.
8. PER - Has been done.
9. PER - Can only work that way.
10. PER
11. PER
12. PER
13. PER
14. PER
15. PER
16. PER
17. PER
18. PER
19. PER
20. PER - is obvious anyway
21. PER
22. PER
23. AUS - I wrote this before Vs proposal. I'm still not a big fan of changing the orglaw as a whole, as such a reform will inevitably include steps back as well as forward, and my theory is that good changes will be able to get enough support in the end anyway. I do believe this reform will come with a whole new set of errors that need to be ducktaped, so we should be very careful about it.
24. PER - Otherwise we lose a term
25. PER
26. PER
27. PER
28. PER - doing that now
29. PER
30. PER
31. PER
32. PER
33. PER
34. PER
35. PER
36. PER - Witt activity has been dropping. We should be careful about this.
37. PER - Professional and honest.

[Alèxandreu]

1. AUS
2. PER
3. PER
4. PER - just correct "election Senators" to "electing Senators"
5. AUS
6. PER - I suggest to reword "if necessary because" into "if necessary in case". I think that was the intention here
7. PER
8. AUS
9. PER
10. PER - makes sense
11. PER
12. PER
13. PER
14. PER
15. PER
16. AUS - is CUG position under any threat? I'm unaware
17. AUS
18. PER
19. PER
20. CON - some things need to be written for all to see in order to stay on the surface of people's attention. No need to take it out, it's important and should be written explicitly.
21. PER
22. PER
23. CON, a Radical part of me says. Sometimes it's important to start from scratch. That's what I think theoretically. I didn't read V's proposal.
24. PER
25. AUS
26. PER
27. PER
28. PER
29. PER
30. PER
31. PER - aren't we moving towards Talossa.com decisively?
32. PER
33. AUS - why 2020, though? I go with by the end of 2018.
34. PEr
35. PER
36. PER - though i think it's too early for separate forums, it's worth trying nevertheless.
37. PER

[Lüc]

1. PER
2. PER
3. From the section "On the Senate" remove the sentence "Party endorsement should not count in any way for Senatorial elections."
4. PER
5. PER
6. PER
7. CON, I still think the Senate is not broken in its current form
8. PER
9. AUS
10. AUS
11. PER
12. PER
13. PER
14. PER
15. PER
16. PER
17. PER
18. PER
19. CON
20. CON
21. CON
22. PER
23. AUS
24. PER
25. PER
26. PER
27. PER
28. PER
29. PER
30. PER
31. PER
32. PER
33. PER, but much earlier ideally
34. PER
35. PER
36. PER
37. AUS, but I am very uneasy about committing to a budget so early

[Iac Marscheir]

Many of these issues probably existed before I even joined Talossa, and I'm unfamiliar with the effects a yes or no would create with most others, so I'll abstain from everything except the following:

16: PER
34: PER

[Ian Plätschisch]

1: PËR - I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean
2: PËR
3: PËR
4: PËR
5: PËR
6: PËR
7: CONTRÂ - Larger provinces already get more representation in the Cosa. The point of the Senate is to provide all provinces with equal representation.
    AUSTANÉU (see below)
8: PËR
9: PËR
10: PËR
11: PËR
12: PËR
13: PËR
14: PËR
15: CONTRÂ - I don't see the point of this change, since there are still things about enterprise in this section even if all of these proposals pass.
16: AUSTANÉU - The CUG seems to me hopelessly inactive, and I don't think it should be enshrined in law (especially Organic Law) as the guardian of the language, but I'm not very well informed on the issue since I'm not big on learning the language
17: PËR
18: PËR
19: PËR
20: AUSTANÉU - Part of me wants to keep it in, since it's a nice goal, but it's so obvious that removing shouldn't be a problem
21: PËR
22: PËR
22: CONTRÂ - If you had asked me this question twelve months ago, I definitely would have voted PËR, since I thought it impractical that any wholesale change of the Organic Law could pass, or even be developed, at one time. However, the Committee's proposal (which is basically my personal proposal since I am the one who wrote the entire thing) feature such extensive changes to format that passing it piecemeal would be impossible, and V's proposal seems to be well received (although I haven't read it yet, I'm still waiting on the next draft). Apparently the key to reforming the OrgLaw was just to let one person at a time work on it.
24: PËR
25: CONTRÂ - I guess we still need this in the manifesto since KJI just vetoed the bill we thought would make this section redundant
26: PËR
27: PËR
28: PËR
29: PËR
30: PËR
31: PËR
32: PËR
33: PËR
34: PËR
35: PËR
36: PËR
37: PËR

[Glüc]

Aug 24, 2017 2:27:00 GMT 1 Ian Plätschisch said:

7: CONTRÂ - Larger provinces already get more representation in the Cosa.

The Cosa isn't meant to represent provinces, but even if it were, this is still a flawed argument. Bills need to pass through both houses. If a bill passes through the Cosa, but then still fails because of the senators of the four smallest provinces, who might represent only a tiny minority, equal representation in the Cosa is completely worthless. It's not summation. If one house is fair and balanced, and the other is unfair and unbalanced the result is not something in between, the result is simply unbalanced.

The point of the Senate is to provide all provinces with equal representation.

Why? Why is that the point? I really don't understand. There are so many senates in the world that represent provincial interests in some way and only one that I can immediatly think of that takes no measures to guarantee at least some level of equality between people. (And to me that system seems horribly flawed. That a citizen in California has so much less representation as someone living in Wyoming is ridiculous. And it's not just an urban v rural thing either. There are more people living in rural areas in California than in Wyoming.) A remember that regressive proportionality is still a long way from true proportionality, it still means that citizens in smaller provinces get a much bigger vote. But that being the main point of the senate? That really doesn't seem to be the case to me. It seems more like one aspect of the current system, but not its inherent raison d'etre. For one thing, the current system isnt the cause of more or less equal represenation for provinces, as the provinces are already relatively equal. But provinces arent inherently equal, so why should they have equal representation in the Senate? Why is the point of the Senate not to represent provincial interests, why is the point not to have mzs who are responsible to constituencies rather than parties, why is it not to have longer terms, why is all of a sudden the equality (or rather inequality) the main point?

It's also wise to remember that most votes in the Senate arent about provincial issues, but rather ideological or partisan. In such cases it doesnt matter for individual voters in what province they live, and still those who happen to live in the larger provinces suddenly have much less of a voter (they would still have less of a vote under degressive proportionality, but it would still be much fairer than the current system.)

Lüc might be right that the current system isn't broken. I would say it's flawed though. But if it isnt broken (and Im not saying it isnt) thats only because we have artificially kept the provinces at roughly the same size for years. As long as we have the current system, there will always be a pressure to change the catchment areas to benefit the smallest provinces, resulting in more people living in the "wrong" province. Is that what we want?

[Alèxandreu]

I wasn't really sure about it, but after further consideration, I think I still side with Gluc on the Senates issue.

[Glüc]

Whats the deadline for voting?

[Lüc]

Whatever the Congress leadership says it is, I have lost track of what schedule we are following.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Aug 24, 2017 17:47:04 GMT 1 Lüc said:

Whatever the Congress leadership says it is, I have lost track of what schedule we are following.

I just posted an "emergency schedule" at the podium, check to see if you like it.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Aug 24, 2017 10:33:29 GMT 1 Glüc said:

Aug 24, 2017 2:27:00 GMT 1 Ian Plätschisch said:

7: CONTRÂ - Larger provinces already get more representation in the Cosa.

The Cosa isn't meant to represent provinces, but even if it were, this is still a flawed argument. Bills need to pass through both houses. If a bill passes through the Cosa, but then still fails because of the senators of the four smallest provinces, who might represent only a tiny minority, equal representation in the Cosa is completely worthless. It's not summation. If one house is fair and balanced, and the other is unfair and unbalanced the result is not something in between, the result is simply unbalanced.

The point of the Senate is to provide all provinces with equal representation.

Why? Why is that the point? I really don't understand. There are so many senates in the world that represent provincial interests in some way and only one that I can immediatly think of that takes no measures to guarantee at least some level of equality between people. (And to me that system seems horribly flawed. That a citizen in California has so much less representation as someone living in Wyoming is ridiculous. And it's not just an urban v rural thing either. There are more people living in rural areas in California than in Wyoming.) A remember that regressive proportionality is still a long way from true proportionality, it still means that citizens in smaller provinces get a much bigger vote. But that being the main point of the senate? That really doesn't seem to be the case to me. It seems more like one aspect of the current system, but not its inherent raison d'etre. For one thing, the current system isnt the cause of more or less equal represenation for provinces, as the provinces are already relatively equal. But provinces arent inherently equal, so why should they have equal representation in the Senate? Why is the point of the Senate not to represent provincial interests, why is the point not to have mzs who are responsible to constituencies rather than parties, why is it not to have longer terms, why is all of a sudden the equality (or rather inequality) the main point?

It's also wise to remember that most votes in the Senate arent about provincial issues, but rather ideological or partisan. In such cases it doesnt matter for individual voters in what province they live, and still those who happen to live in the larger provinces suddenly have much less of a voter (they would still have less of a vote under degressive proportionality, but it would still be much fairer than the current system.)

Lüc might be right that the current system isn't broken. I would say it's flawed though. But if it isnt broken (and Im not saying it isnt) thats only because we have artificially kept the provinces at roughly the same size for years. As long as we have the current system, there will always be a pressure to change the catchment areas to benefit the smallest provinces, resulting in more people living in the "wrong" province. Is that what we want?

Talossa is (or at least attempts to be) a federal system, and in federal systems (at least in my opinion), it is important that there is a body in which all of the provinces are equally represented, since one of the checks on the central government in a federal system is that the majority of the provinces (in addition to the majority of the people) agree with the actions of the central government.  And if, as you say, most bills are not about provincial issues and instead about ideological issues, then it doesn't really matter that the Cosa does not represent provinces, because larger provinces still get a larger say in what ideologies occupy the Cosa.

I can immediately think of another Senate in which all provinces get the same number of Senators: Australia (each province gets 12 Senators).  And I do not even know about very many Senates.

I suppose I misspoke when I made it seem like I believed that equal representation of provinces is the "only" reason why the Senate exists.  Of course all of the other reasons you listed are important reasons for the Senate as well, but I still think equal representation of provinces is one of the important aspects.  Pressure to change catchment areas to benefit smaller provinces would exist regardless of how representation in the Senate worked, since more people means more provincial activity, and all provinces want more of that.

[Glüc]

Aug 24, 2017 18:38:48 GMT 1 Ian Plätschisch said:

Talossa is (or at least attempts to be) a federal system, and in federal systems (at least in my opinion), it is important that there is a body in which all of the provinces are equally represented,

Why? Why do unequal provinces require equal representation? That's not the case in the majority of federal systems. (And I'm not sure Talossa can even be called a federal system.)

since one of the checks on the central government in a federal system is that the majority of the provinces (in addition to the majority of the people) agree with the actions of the central government.

Again, why? This is just phrasing the same point in a different way. It's still not a reason.

And if, as you say, most bills are not about provincial issues and instead about ideological issues, then it doesn't really matter that the Cosa does not represent provinces, because larger provinces still get a larger say in what ideologies occupy the Cosa.

Not provinces get a say. Individual people get a say. An individual living in a large province does not get more of a vote in the cosa, because there are more people in his province. That doesn't matter cause the province doesnt act as a whole, and if it would that persons vote would get thinned out more within the province as well. i.e. someone has a bigger chance of being the decisive vote in a smaller province than in a large province. Provinces dont vote in the Cosa. And in the cosa individuals have an equal say, true, but that doesnt matter if a small minority can still block everything through the senate.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Hmmm...I suppose that my USA-centric view of the role of the Senate is not as applicable to Talossa as I first thought. In the US, where the states make a lot of their own policy, states don't like it when the central government crams down policies on them that they don't like, so bills have to pass the Senate to make sure that enough states approve of them. In Talossa, almost all of the policy (and all of the policy that has any impact) is made at the national level, so provinces don't really have any recourse if other provinces vote against policies that they want (unlike in the US where a state can enact a policy itself if a similar policy failed on the national level).

I think having more autonomous provinces would be really interesting, but current activity levels don't allow for it.

I change my vote on #7 to AUSTANÉU

[Ian Plätschisch]

I'll point out to everyone that voting in favor of #25 seems unwise to me, since the assumption of this change is that judicial reform passed, but it didn't pass because KJI vetoed it.