|
|
Post by D. N. Vercáriâ on Apr 19, 2013 12:48:55 GMT -5
As it was one of our main planks, what are our actual plans for a "Real Cosâ"?
I would propose something like approximately 20 seats, which may become more or less, depending on rounding errors in the votes to percent to seats calculation, and possible "empty seats".
Whereas the latter might depend on whether there have to be fixed canditate lists or not.
Other related issues: Voting method, counting method (transferable single vote may be one of these).
|
|
|
|
Post by D. N. Vercáriâ on Apr 20, 2013 11:19:23 GMT -5
There are other parties who are interested in similar plans, ZRT and LPR spring to my mind. Yes, I know, not the middle-of-the-road people and not peculiarsm-friendly, but anyway, there needs to be a starting point for some serious "smithing". Just decreasing the number 200 in EM-200 (200-seat-fictitious-Cosâ) will not do the trick, as far as I am concerned.
But of course I may be wrong...
|
|
|
|
Post by Vitxalmour Conductour on Apr 21, 2013 21:07:57 GMT -5
There are other parties who are interested in similar plans, ZRT and LPR spring to my mind. Yes, I know, not the middle-of-the-road people and not peculiarsm-friendly, but anyway, there needs to be a starting point for some serious "smithing". Just decreasing the number 200 in EM-200 (200-seat-fictitious-Cosâ) will not do the trick, as far as I am concerned. But of course I may be wrong... I agree, but that is precisely what the Hopper is for. Someone makes a rough draft of an idea and puts it in the Hopper. Everyone comes and looks at it and says, "I like that." "I don't like that." "How about this?" and the draft evolves in to a communal work. In theory. Too often it is, "Here's my bill, now let's vote!" I think Gluc's draft is a step in the right direction, but I do think it could be better, and I think that for exactly the reasons you have stated. I don't think there's enough support to get a completely real Cosa yet. I think with time, there will be. |
|
|
|
Post by D. N. Vercáriâ on Apr 22, 2013 3:19:33 GMT -5
There are other parties who are interested in similar plans, ZRT and LPR spring to my mind. Yes, I know, not the middle-of-the-road people and not peculiarsm-friendly, but anyway, there needs to be a starting point for some serious "smithing". Just decreasing the number 200 in EM-200 (200-seat-fictitious-Cosâ) will not do the trick, as far as I am concerned. But of course I may be wrong... I agree, but that is precisely what the Hopper is for. Someone makes a rough draft of an idea and puts it in the Hopper. Everyone comes and looks at it and says, "I like that." "I don't like that." "How about this?" and the draft evolves in to a communal work. In theory. Too often it is, "Here's my bill, now let's vote!" Yes, but before someone is throwing his pebbles into the pond, they should approximately know what they are doing. Writing a shorthand draft like Mximo Carbonél did, is only evoking confused noises. One might want to give a beginning debate some direction, if it is really meant to become somewhat serious. Maybe it is so. Looking at Glüc's draft, it might be a step forward if it helps to cut out the option to simply "buy" oneself a seat in the Cosâ. Anyway, I'm still kind of a foreigner to the Kingdom of Talossa. This hoppering is somewhat surprising me... Everything seems about passing bills, as if it was the number of passed bills that makes government effective. In the end that is leading to an obese body of law, only a few strange afficionados will ever be able to remember all the myriads of laws that have been written. IMHO, there should be more debates on ideas, before eventually complete laws are fleshed out. |
|
|
|
Post by Vitxalmour Conductour on Apr 22, 2013 15:26:24 GMT -5
Yes, I agree the Hopper system is a bit faulty, and misuse causes it to be more so. It would be amazing if calm debate occured a bit more often over there. In fact, I agree with everything said in this thread.
I'm not sure quite where I stand regarding actual numbers. I'm certainly fully for a 1:1 MC:Seat ratio. At times I find myself wondering if a variable number might not be better than a fixed number. Something like (Number of voters)/10 (or 12, or something), rounded of course. This I think would get crazy if population numbers soared higher than I can imagine, but would be effective for the foreseeable future. I could support a fixed number too, but I'd have a harder time deciding which fixed number I'd support, though I'd say it would have to be in the 15-25 range.
|
|
|
|
Post by D. N. Vercáriâ on Apr 24, 2013 3:12:56 GMT -5
A little bit off-topic - I loved the old "threaded" discussion boards, where every tangent could turn into a branch of the whole tree of a topic. Nowadays we've got either "spaghetti threads" that are rolling downhill like an avalanche, picking up every topic that gets in its way, or every tangent is making up a new thread of its own, and the order of the threads is rearranged every second because the threads get sorted by their constantly changing timeliness.
All of this is making complex debates chaotic at times, an so it happens to the Hopper.
[ / tangent off ]
|
|
|
|
Post by Vitxalmour Conductour on Apr 24, 2013 5:12:53 GMT -5
A little bit off-topic - I loved the old "threaded" discussion boards, where every tangent could turn into a branch of the whole tree of a topic. Nowadays we've got either "spaghetti threads" that are rolling downhill like an avalanche, picking up every topic that gets in its way, or every tangent is making up a new thread of its own, and the order of the threads is rearranged every second because the threads get sorted by their constantly changing timeliness. All of this is making complex debates chaotic at times, an so it happens to the Hopper. [ / tangent off ] Yes, I always preferred that format for any relatively complex or meandering conversation. I never understood why it seems to have mostly faded away. |
|
|
|
Post by D. N. Vercáriâ on Apr 24, 2013 6:48:53 GMT -5
A little bit off-topic - I loved the old "threaded" discussion boards, where every tangent could turn into a branch of the whole tree of a topic. Nowadays we've got either "spaghetti threads" that are rolling downhill like an avalanche, picking up every topic that gets in its way, or every tangent is making up a new thread of its own, and the order of the threads is rearranged every second because the threads get sorted by their constantly changing timeliness. All of this is making complex debates chaotic at times, an so it happens to the Hopper. [ / tangent off ] Yes, I always preferred that format for any relatively complex or meandering conversation. I never understood why it seems to have mostly faded away. I also could approximately remember *where* I left an interesting debate that I liked to continue - now in these newfangled forums it is impossible to find a thread by its location, as threads are constantly jerking from one position in the screen to the other. |
|
|
|
Post by Vitxalmour Conductour on Apr 25, 2013 0:57:24 GMT -5
Yes, I always preferred that format for any relatively complex or meandering conversation. I never understood why it seems to have mostly faded away. I also could approximately remember *where* I left an interesting debate that I liked to continue - now in these newfangled forums it is impossible to find a thread by its location, as threads are constantly jerking from one position in the screen to the other. And it made it easier to have tangent conversations like this. And it made it easier to skip over tangent conversations you were not interested in. Which made me not feel so guilty about having tangent conversations like this. Forget about real cosâ, let's get a real forum! |
|
|
|
Post by D. N. Vercáriâ on Apr 26, 2013 3:30:17 GMT -5
Forget about real cosâ, let's get a real forum! Yet another chance to be perceived as "peculiar". Unfortunately. (In the Republic, a majority of those who were concerned preferred a forum software that acted much like this proboards forum here, because thus, they said, they could always see at a glance and on top of all other threads what's new.) Anyway, yeah, I would prefer to have a "real forum" as discussed above, too. |
|
