General Assembly
Security Council
Governor: 
The United Kingdom of Western Weassey
WA Delegate (non-executive): 
The Democratic Socialist State of Cachard Calia (elected )
Last WA Update:
Embassies: The Transgender Region, Bisexual, Lesbian, LGBT University, Gay Equality, The North Pacific, Lazarus, the South Pacific, the West Pacific, the Rejected Realms, Hippy Haven, The Skeleton Army, Texas, Nudist Dreamland, Philosophy 115, Esquarium, and 110 others.Haiku, Krillin, Nasicournia, The Bar on the corner of every region, Queens Coming Into Our Own, The Greatest Freak Show on Earth, Renegade Islands Alliance, The Peaceful Coffee Shop In Chicago, Eientei Gensokyo, Antarctic Oasis, Christmas, The Leftist Assembly, Atlantis, International Northwestern Union, New York, Anarchy, The Union of Democratic States, Hartfelden, Old Zealand, The Slide Countries, India, Russia, The Region Of Gargery, Organization of United Sovereign States, The Region That Has No Big Banks, Libertarium, Lily, The Great Universe, The Agents of SHIELD, Alcris, Zombie Research Institute, Philosophers, The Minecraft Kingdom, Non Binary Safe Space, The Three Isles, The Labyrinth, The Finntopian Region of DOOM, New Alvarez Union, The Community, Pax Britannia, POLATION, Port Elizabeth, Canguta Nations, Valaryia, Auroran, Mindoorian Federation, PollRegionia, Truman, That One Place, Equestria, Talonia, Esvanovia, Train Station, LGBT Nations, The Empires And Republics Of Power, Poschomenia, Hurricane 12, OrangeJuice, nasunia, Regionless, Reqau and Salasia, The University of NationStates, Interregional Court of Justice, Union of Christian Nations, Playboy, The Sewers on the Corner of Every Region, Lair of the Dragon, Modorra, World War in 1800, Land of Europa, Holy Land, Olympia Archipelago, Transgender, MJT, Sacrum Romanum Imperium, The Grim Reaper Region, Pecan Sandies, The Bakery Across the Street, The Land Of Anarchy, Albastru, The Dirt Alliance, Republic of Nova Tero, Freelands, Hells Lounge, Fullworthia, The Democratika, Coven of Witches, Amalgamated Federation, DOMINANT, Britannia, The Rough Caribbean, Gospels, The Crowned Alliance of Hispania, The Villainous Badlands, The All People Union, Moonveil, A Slice of Surreality, Antisipation Refounded, The Great Storm, The Alliance of Eros, Rosenbergian Empire, The Soppo Pacific, Timoria, Goldshade, AppleJuice, Paladin Astralblitz, The Sacred Elite, The Great Sound, Love Duchy, and Cracker Barrel.
The embassy with Cracker Barrel is being withdrawn. Closure expected .
Tags: Anti-Capitalist, Anti-Fascist, Casual, Commended, Democratic, Eco-Friendly, Egalitarian, Featured, Feminist, Game Player, Issues Player, LGBT, and 13 others.Large, Liberal, Magical, Map, Neutral, Offsite Chat, Offsite Forums, Pacifist, Regional Government, Role Player, Social, Socialist, and World Assembly.
Regional Power: Very High
Gay contains 76 nations, the 372nd most in the world.
Today's World Census Report
The Fattest Citizens in Gay
World Census takers tracked the sale of Cheetos and Twinkies to ascertain which nations most enjoyed the "kind bud."
As a region, Gay is ranked 29,767th in the world for Fattest Citizens.
 | Nation | WA Category | Motto | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. |  The Allied States of Hijjma | Inoffensive Centrist Democracy Fascists | “Sic Semper Tyrannis” | |
| 2. |  The Queer Pink Pansexual Nation of Sitethief of Vylixan | Inoffensive Centrist Democracy Fascists | “Faith is good, but it is better to check.” | |
| 3. |  The Pink Holy Winter Wonderland of Hurricane IV | Father Knows Best State Suspiciously Conservative Democracy | “Moon, friendship, NationStates, brains, lucky” | |
| 4. |  The United States of Gravonland | Anarchy Post-Revolution Embryonic Society | “Lawyers, Guns, and Money” | |
| 5. |  The Free Land of Lesbian | Anarchy Post-Revolution Embryonic Society | “We Will Endure” | |
| 6. |  The Queerdom of The Succubus | Anarchy Post-Revolution Embryonic Society | “Stay away!” | |
| 7. |  The Shadow of Your Smile | Right-wing Utopia Corrupt Thieving Uneducated Fascist Fundamentalists | “Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes” | |
| 8. |  The Kingdom of The Horkeethottopia | Inoffensive Centrist Democracy Fascists | “Hummanty is at risk we must FIGHT” | |
| 9. |  The Republic of Dagger Forge | Inoffensive Centrist Democracy Fascists | “Hummanty is at risk we must FIGHT” | |
| 10. |  The Allied States of The Gaylands | New York Times Democracy Corporate-Dominated Sham Democracy | “Gay by birth, fabulous by choice” |
1234. . .78»
Regional Happenings
- :
The Big Purple COUNTRYball of The Chezburger of the region Cracker Barrel ordered the closure of its embassy in Gay.
- : Embassy established between Gay and Cracker Barrel.
- : Embassy established between Gay and Love Duchy.
- : Embassy cancelled between Autism Spectrum and Gay.
- :
The Colony of Cheesestick Planet of the region Newleaf proposed constructing embassies.
- :
The United Kingdom of Western Weassey agreed to construct embassies with Love Duchy.
- : The United Kingdom of Western Weassey agreed to construct embassies with Cracker Barrel.
- :
The Empire of Cracker Barrel Enthusiast of the region Cracker Barrel proposed constructing embassies.
- :
The Republic of Cissie of the region Cracker Barrel withdrew an invitation to construct embassies.
- : The Colony of Cheesestick Planet of the region Cracker Barrel proposed constructing embassies.
Gay Regional Message Board
Loading...
As Tosler’s Parliamentarians rush to enact a Constitutional Amendment to change the very size of the Congress they occupy, the Governing Lib Dem-Labour Coalition’s Legislative Tactics may prove costly
The Lexington Leader | Tuesday, September 8, 2026 | Late edition | By: Katie Smithsonian, Chantal LaCroix, and Elio Antonetti
LEXINGTON — At 10 a.m. on Friday, members of both houses of Congress took their seats to settle the outstanding details of President Liam Ossoff’s constitutional reform.
By Tuesday afternoon, they had considered seven further versions of the legislation, exhausted the parliamentary catering service’s emergency coffee reserve and provoked a formal objection to the description of one senator as “a rounding error in a waistcoat.”
The objection was upheld. The senator’s subsequent demand that the remark be apportioned proportionally among the parties was not.
Then the government disclosed that it had been keeping something back.
Fifteen minutes before the scheduled 2 p.m. tabling of what ministers hoped would be the final constitutional draft, opposition leaders were summoned to separate rooms off the main chamber. There, coalition representatives explained that the Liberal Democrats and Labour intended to introduce a special procedure allowing future changes to parliamentary seat counts, electoral regions and related arrangements without reopening the full constitutional process now consuming Congress.
The coalition had agreed on the concept long before the weekend. Other parties were hearing about it for the first time.
By the time the afternoon was over, the opposition had responded with undisclosed amendments of its own, the government had suspended debate on the resulting procedural dispute, and legislators were progressing through an election reform bill whose constitutional foundations remained under negotiation.
Tosler’s latest constitutional reckoning has passed the hundred-hour mark. Both the House and the Senate remain in an extended sitting, moving between separate proceedings, joint deliberations and negotiations in rooms whose occupants increasingly resemble passengers awaiting compensation for a cancelled international flight.
The country, meanwhile, is watching.
In Milani, bars have kept parliamentary coverage on beside the financial news. Members of the Bolognati Culinary Institute Student Political Club travelled five hours by school bus from Bologniati to attend a public reading of successive drafts in Lexington, applauding substantive amendments and groaning whenever provisions reappeared under different article numbers.
In Sorentino, a waterfront café advertises a “confidence-and-supply breakfast”: coffee arrives immediately; everything else is subject to negotiation.
For a nation famous for being the most politically obsessed on earth, this is an unusually generous programme.
It is also a negotiation with a deadline that appears, inconveniently, to mean what it says.
Tosler’s Elections Commission said September 10 and it meant September 10
One month ago, the Toslerian Elections Commission informed Parliament that changes intended to govern the November 3 election would have to be passed and receive presidential assent no later than September 10, 2026.
Not substantially agreed. Not approved in principle. Not announced from the steps of Congress while negotiators continued arguing over an annex — Passed. Assented to.
The Minister of Justice subsequently wrote to the commission seeking an extension to September 15, arguing that five additional days would allow Parliament to resolve outstanding questions without sacrificing the November implementation timetable.
The Commission refused.
Its response explained that election administration requires settled instructions: how many constituencies to prepare, which lists parties must submit, how ballots will present those lists and how votes will become seats.
Commission Chief John Oliver VII has acquired the rare distinction of being the most discussed public official in Tosler without offering anyone a compromise.
“Parliament may determine the electoral system,” he said in a statement reaffirming the timetable. “The Elections Commission must then conduct an election under it.”
One Labour legislator called the refusal “administratively inflexible.” A Conservative Republican replied that administration was precisely the service Parliament had requested.
If the package misses Thursday’s deadline, the commission’s position is that the November election must proceed under the existing rules. Parliament could still enact reform for a later election. It could not assume that a presidential signature on September 15 would conjure five lost days back into existence.
Twenty-three versions, and counting
Since Ossoff’s initial announcement in April, Parliament has considered 23 identifiable versions of the package, according to a Leader reconstruction of the principal texts exchanged between committees, parliamentary leaders and the government.
That count includes consolidated negotiating drafts and formally circulated substitutes. It excludes individual amendments, handwritten bargains and a document briefly described on Sunday as “the final final political text,” which survived for 41 minutes.
Seven versions have been considered since Friday morning.
The first attempted to carry the broad April agreement into an executable statute. The second reworked the representation guarantees. The third adjusted census provisions. The fourth reopened the regional-list question. The fifth attempted to close it. The sixth demonstrated that it remained open.
The seventh, circulated late Monday night and tabled at 2 p.m. today, was supposed to end the exercise. Final amendments from the parties would be considered, the chambers would vote, and Ossoff would sign tomorrow, September 9.
At 1:45 p.m., the government introduced a complication that had been entirely avoidable until it became entirely unavoidable.
A larger Parliament, an unfinished bargain
The central architecture remains recognisable from Ossoff’s original proposal.
The House would expand to 3,000 members, comprising 2,000 district representatives and 1,000 compensatory list members. The Senate would grow to 500, with 300 state seats and 200 regional proportional seats.
The package also seeks stronger representation for younger Toslerians, Indigenous communities and other underrepresented groups through the proportional component.
The President now insists that those chamber sizes should remain fixed unless subsequently changed through an expressly authorised process. Population growth would not automatically produce additional legislators after every census.
Regional boundaries and the distribution of seats could still be revisited. How far a special procedure should extend beyond those adjustments has become the latest—and potentially most consequential—argument.
The political case for expansion is that a country of Tosler’s scale requires more accessible representation and a legislature that better reflects the people it governs.
The political difficulty is that every improvement in representation has an address.
A seat can belong to a party, a region, a constituency or a candidate selected by voters. Sometimes it can satisfy several of those claims. When it cannot, Tosler’s parties possess exceptionally developed views about which claim should prevail.
Prime Minister Richi’s government retains the strongest incentive to secure the package. Ossoff has invested presidential authority in it. Labour wants enforceable representation commitments. The Liberal Democrats want reform delivered without dismantling their territorial organisation.
The Social Democrats support expansion but want regional protections. Conservative Republicans seek limits on future growth and firmer safeguards. Smaller parties want the promise of proportionality to survive contact with qualification rules and geographical boundaries.
Until this afternoon, those were the principal arguments.
Now there is also an argument about who knew there would be another argument.
The arithmetic everyone suddenly has an opinion about
Tosler already uses compensatory mixed-member proportional representation. Under the arrangements introduced by the 2023 Act, the House comprises 700 district seats and 300 top-up seats.
The top-ups bring a party’s overall representation towards its entitlement under the party vote, taking account of the district seats it has already won.
The 2023 result makes the point neatly. The Liberal Democrats won 238 district seats and received only one list seat. Greens won 38 districts and received 52 list seats. Compensation addressed the difference.
The new draft proposes the Sainte-Laguë method for calculating parties’ whole-seat entitlements. It uses a sequence of divisors to allocate seats according to comparative vote totals. District victories would count towards the resulting entitlement, with list seats filling the remaining gap.
In the 2023 and 2024 elections, the allocation of top-up seats was entrusted to the Chief of the Toslerian Elections Commission. The approach was bespoke but recognisably compensatory: calculate each party’s target from its share of the total national party vote—including votes for parties below the qualifying threshold—then subtract its district victories and distribute the available top-ups among eligible parties with unmet claims. The chief reconciled competing claims within the fixed-size House and used largest-remainder rounding to settle fractional seats. Tosler had an allocation practice; Parliament is now debating how precisely to bind its successors to the arithmetic.
An alternative to Sainte-Laguë would expressly codify that approach. Under the proposed 3,000-seat House, eligible parties’ positive unmet claims would all be multiplied by the same adjustment factor so that they collectively accounted for exactly 1,000 top-ups. Claims would shrink proportionally when compensation was insufficient and expand proportionally when seats remained available. Whole-number allocations would be awarded first, with the remaining seats going to the largest fractional remainders. District winners would retain their seats, and parties already at or above their targets would receive no top-ups. The method would preserve the chamber’s size while accepting that some elections cannot deliver exact proportionality. Its attraction is continuity: Parliament would be writing down what the Elections Chief had previously worked out and documented in, “The Guidelines on Top-up Seat Distribution Procedure” (2023), thereby allowing several thousand Toslerians to insist they had understood it all along. In reality, the Joint Committee for Democratic Accountability and Reform studied the Elections Commission’s Guidelines, some 100 pages, for nearly three months before producing and tabling the Committee’s own 500 page Report on the topic.
Supporters call the proposal to codify the Elections Chief’s Guidelines into law presents a clear, reproducible rule that allows parties, voters and officials to calculate the same answer. Critics ask why a constitutional deadline should become the occasion for specifying a formula whose interaction with every other provision has not yet been settled.
Neither argument is inherently frivolous. Both have nevertheless been delivered frivolously.
On Sunday, a Democratic Socialist legislator arrived carrying a metre-long cardboard calculator. A Conservative Republican demanded to know whether its batteries had been included in the fiscal estimate. A Liberal Democrat pointed out that the display could not accommodate Tosler’s electorate.
By Monday morning, television panels were arguing about divisors.
By Monday evening, viewers were correcting them.
The seats that do not fit
The 2024 election illustrates the harder issue.
The Social Democrats won 91 district seats on approximately 8.19 per cent of the party vote—above a simple proportional benchmark of roughly 82 seats in a thousand-member House. They received no top-ups but retained their district victories.
The published results separately recorded seats that would have been needed to improve proportionality beyond the chamber’s cap.
If district winners are protected and the House has a fixed size, some results will prevent exact proportionality. Additional balancing seats can reduce that distortion, but they also enlarge the chamber beyond its advertised total.
One camp wants the new 3,000-seat ceiling held firmly, consistent with Ossoff’s position. Another wants limited balancing seats. A third wants a bounded adjustment mechanism.
The Social Democrats reject any suggestion that a district winner should lose their seat because the party performed too well locally. Other parties reply that protecting those victories must not become an unexplained discount on everyone else’s party vote.
“Three thousand seats should be sufficient to contain an answer,” one exhausted negotiator observed.
It has proved sufficient to contain several.
Whose Region is it anyway?
The existing House system uses ten electoral regions for its preferential party lists. Party entitlements are determined nationally, while list members are drawn through regional arrangements, including the prescribed ordering of regions.
Ossoff’s April Joint Address proposed an open national list: a single national pool of proportional candidates, without a further regional tier determining where list members came from.
That starting point has not survived contact with the governing coalition’s own political machinery.
Liberal Democrat organisers argue that a national pool would make representation too dependent on party headquarters, media visibility and the political gravity of Lexington and Milani. A party built through local associations does not necessarily want its list candidates chosen in a national contest dominated by the best-known names.
Labour supports national calculation of proportional entitlement but wants guarantees that industrial communities, smaller urban centres and underrepresented regions will not disappear inside a single national list.
The President’s own party has consequently become one of the principal advocates for retaining regional lists. Ossoff has now accepted the argument.
In a statement circulated to negotiators, he said:
“It has come to my attention that, while my initial proposal was intended to streamline our list system, it has led to legitimate concern among hardworking organisers in all parties that it could result in excessive centralisation at party headquarters. I support my party’s position on regional lists, and I acknowledge that I had not sufficiently considered this consequence. I have been convinced by the hardworking organisers who worked so tirelessly to elect me and to return the Liberal Democratic Party to power after eight years in the political wilderness.”
Local organisers from every Parliamentary party, except Tosler First, have raised concerns about a fully centralised national list. That does not mean their parliamentary leaderships agree on the remedy.
Greens fear that dividing proportional allocation among too many small regions could penalise support that is substantial nationwide but thinly spread. They are more receptive to regional candidate selection if national compensation remains intact.
Democratic Socialists want protection against metropolitan dominance but also warn that regional lists can entrench local party gatekeepers.
Conservative Republicans are divided. Some favour district representatives for local accountability and national list members for proportional correction, arguing that territorial representation already has a home in the Senate. Others support regions precisely because they distrust national headquarters.
The Social Democrats favour a stronger regional structure, with some advocating more regions as the House grows. Their district strength gives the argument a strategic advantage, but their concern about communities disappearing behind national campaigns is not imaginary.
The emerging compromise would preserve national calculation of party entitlements and use regions to determine where the resulting list seats are filled.
Tosler First has condemned regional lists as an attack on national unity and national lists as an attack on local communities. Its sole House member insists these positions are complementary.
The Democratic Republic performs itself
Outside the allocation argument, the weekend has produced a respectable programme of constitutional theatre.
A Conservative Republican group unveiled 3,000 miniature cardboard chairs outside Congress to illustrate the House expansion. Parliamentary security required a walkway to be cleared. A Socialist member described the missing chairs as “the first austerity amendment.”
Young activists installed an enormous alarm clock opposite the entrance, counting down to September 10. Legislators posing beside it were asked to disclose whether they supported enforceable youth-representation provisions before photographs were taken.
The Bolognati Culinary Institute students travelled five-hours to Lexington to deliver a tray of pastries to LDP and Labour Parliamentary leadership. The pastries were divided into conspicuously unequal portion. An accompanying note read: “We were told the remaining slices would compensate.”
A Milani fashion commentator ranked parliamentary overnight attire, awarding high marks to a Labour senator for “credible exhaustion” and criticising an LDP negotiator whose rolled sleeves appeared “constitutionally staged.”
Late Monday, an SDP member accused the government of treating regional representation as “a decorative inconvenience.”
An LDP negotiator replied that the Social Democrats were defending every region in which they already possessed an office.
“And you,” came the response, “are defending every office from which you can telephone a region.”
By Tuesday evening, several of those offices were no longer taking one another’s calls.
The constitutional mille-feuille
Earlier today, the Ossoff Administration Press Secretary sought to distinguish the number of electoral regions from the number of parliamentary seats.
Ossoff would leave Congress to decide whether to retain the ten regions or increase their number, including whether future censuses should trigger regional restructuring.
On chamber size, she reiterated his position: 3,000 House seats and 500 Senate seats, with no automatic demographic escalation. Future expansion would require Parliament to amend the constitutional settlement.
That prompted one political scientist, James Smith, to describe the emerging arrangement as “constitutional mille-feuille: an amendment containing a special recipe for amending the amendment, with the most delicate layer reserved for the people counting the chairs.”
His sarcasm contained a substantive question: were Ossoff and Richi proposing a dedicated constitutional revision procedure for electoral architecture—seat counts, region numbers and closely related matters—so that every future adjustment would not require a repetition of this week’s full constitutional ordeal?
At deadline for print, a senior parliamentary source supplied the answer.
“There has always been an understanding between the Liberal Democrats and Labour that a streamlined process would be part of this amendment,” the source said. “The decision was to keep both the concept and the detail within the coalition until the final voting day. That was tactical. They did not want a second constitutional debate running alongside the first.”
The plan, according to the source, was to unveil the provision among the dozens of last-minute amendments ministers expected before the final votes.
The coalition intended to avoid delay by withholding an issue likely to cause delay. It has now conducted an unusually expensive test of that theory.
The fifteen minutes before two
The decisive disclosure began at approximately 1:45 p.m.
Coalition representatives met the other parties’ leadership teams separately, behind closed doors in rooms just off the main chamber. The meetings ran in parallel so that each party could be briefed before the 2 p.m. tabling.
Leaders were told that the government intended to seek permission to introduce an additional amendment establishing the special revision procedure.
The broad subject was disclosed privately. The full operative text was not circulated to the chambers before the government sought to alter the order paper.
Several participants initially assumed they were being advised of a technical provision already buried in an annex.
They were not.
“One of our people asked which draft it had appeared in,” a person briefed on the meetings said. “The answer was, effectively, the one they had not shown us.”
The parties were stunned. In more than one meeting, leaders discussed abandoning negotiations altogether.
What kept them in the building was the reform itself. Nearly all supported some expansion of proportional representation. Walking away would risk sacrificing changes they had spent months demanding—and allow the government to accuse them of doing so over a procedural grievance.
They swallowed their pride. They did not swallow the amendment.
When the government moved to alter the order paper to permit an additional, publicly unspecified amendment, the parties voted in unison to suspend debate pending internal discussions.
For thirty minutes, Congress’s most productive constitutional activity took place behind caucus-room doors.
When debate resumed, the Social Democrats, Greens, Democratic Socialists and Conservative Republicans announced that they, too, had additional unspecified amendments requiring changes to the order paper.
They requested the same procedural accommodation the government had sought for itself.
An SDP negotiator called this “equal access to legislative spontaneity.”
The LDP Government Leader described it as unhelpful.
A Green member asked whether that description applied retrospectively.
The Government Leader then secured a further suspension of debate on the order-paper dispute. Other scheduled House business continued, including consideration of the accompanying Election Reform Act, which would supply the detailed framework for the constitutional changes.
Members proceeded through provisions on list submissions, ballot administration and the commission’s implementation responsibilities while leaders negotiated over the authority underpinning them.
No provision dependent on the constitutional amendment could take effect merely because the ordinary legislation advanced. But continuing work preserved some of the timetable—and allowed ministers to say, accurately if incompletely, that Parliament was making progress.
The LDP’s second move
The Liberal Democrats initially tried to recover control by approaching the four parties separately.
That lasted less than an hour.
Opposition leaders compared accounts and insisted on a single negotiating table. Having just discovered a coalition agreement they had not been shown, they were disinclined to participate in four more.
Richi then authorised a different offer.
The LDP would circulate the full proposed revision clause to every parliamentary party at the same time, provide a written explanation of its intended reach and accept a separately recorded vote on the provision. It would no longer be treated as an incidental addition to the final batch.
In exchange, the government asked the other parties to identify their reserved amendments by an agreed evening deadline, permit related proposals to be debated together and keep work on the implementation legislation moving.
Labour negotiators helped carry the offer, privately acknowledging that the manner of disclosure had made a potentially defensible provision look deliberately evasive.
The government also offered to negotiate an explicit boundary around the new procedure. Its opening position was that any accelerated route must be confined to enumerated electoral arrangements, involve both chambers and require presidential assent. Fundamental voting rights and unrelated constitutional provisions would remain outside its reach.
Those were negotiating assurances, not an agreed settlement. The voting threshold, notice requirements, treatment of party qualification rules and precise meaning of “related electoral matters” remained contested at press time.
The four parties accepted the common negotiating table. They did not withdraw their procedural reservations.
The Liberal Democrats had recovered a room in which to bargain.
They had not recovered the afternoon.
What was known, and when
The background to today’s stalled passage was initially unclear. Public proceedings showed suspensions, new procedural demands and renewed arguments over provisions that LDP-Labour negotiators had previously described as close to settled.
The account of the coalition’s prior agreement, the 1:45 p.m. briefings and the opposition’s coordinated response has now been corroborated by two additional sources working within Parliament, independently of the source who first approached the Leader at print deadline.
The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because the leadership meetings were private and negotiations remained active.
Their accounts establish that the delayed disclosure was deliberate and that its stated purpose was to avoid opening a prolonged debate before the final voting day.
They do not establish who first proposed the tactic, or whether President Ossoff personally approved the fifteen-minute notice. The President’s support for a streamlined mechanism and the coalition leadership’s handling of its disclosure are separate questions.
The Prime Minister’s office defended the search for a more workable future revision process but did not answer questions before publication about why the concept had been withheld or whether Prime Minister Richi was responsible for the 15-minute notice.
An LDP official described the episode as “a sequencing misjudgment.” In a building that has spent four days discussing how numbers should be ordered, this was an adventurous choice of defence.
A shortcut to what?
Professor Elena Vareschi, a political scientist in Bologniati, said a dedicated amendment route for narrowly defined electoral provisions could be coherent.
“There is a serious argument for allowing a constitution to adjust its electoral machinery without reopening every foundational bargain,” she said. “But seat numbers and regional structures distribute political power. Calling them machinery does not make them politically neutral.”
The decisive issues would be scope and safeguards.
Could a future majority enlarge the House to its advantage? Could it redraw the regional structure while claiming merely to update it? Would the special process cover only specified provisions, or could “related matters” become an invitation to move the boundaries?
And could the streamlined procedure be used to weaken its own safeguards?
“An amendment that contains a procedure for amending itself needs a very clear answer to who holds the pen,” Vareschi said. “Otherwise constitutional mille-feuille becomes government by pastry knife.”
She was less forgiving of the tactics.
“They wanted to avoid a lengthy debate about the power to avoid lengthy debates. That is an excellent seminar topic. It is a poor way to reassure the people whose agreement you need.”
John Queen’s newest electoral districts
On TNN, election analyst John Queen approached his magic map with a cup of coffee and the expression of a man whose planned programme had just been replaced by a constitutional incident.
He reduced the map of Tosler to one corner of the screen and drew four rectangles beside the chamber.
“These are the most important electoral regions in the country this afternoon,” he said. “They are the rooms where the government told the other parties what it had decided not to tell them.”
Queen’s assessment was that the coalition had mistaken support for electoral reform for consent to its management.
“Look at the parties involved. The SDP wants regional guarantees. Greens want the national vote to count properly. Democratic Socialists want access. Conservative Republicans want limits. Those are different demands.
“At 1:45, the government gave them a common one: show us the paper.”
He circled the four rectangles.
“That is coalition-building. Unfortunately for Richi, it is somebody else’s coalition.”
Queen cautioned against treating the confrontation as the collapse of reform.
Most parties still want a deal. The opposition’s response had been to reserve amendments and demand equal treatment, rather than abandon the process. The LDP’s decision to circulate the clause and permit a separate vote created a route back.
But the surprise had changed the price.
“Yesterday, they were negotiating seats. Tonight, they are negotiating seats and trust. Only one of those can be allocated by Sainte-Laguë.”
Asked whether the special procedure would survive, Queen returned the national map to the centre of the screen.
“Possibly. A carefully limited process may make sense. But if the government wanted Parliament to spend less time on constitutional amendments, announcing a secret constitutional amendment to amend constitutional amendments was a remarkably Toslerian opening bid.”
Will it pass?
The strongest argument for passage remains that the principal participants have invested heavily in achieving it—and the commission has removed their preferred escape route.
There is no September 15 extension around which to construct another five days of brinkmanship.
Missing Thursday would leave politicians explaining why reform debated since April could not be completed in time for an election whose date was already known.
The likely electoral settlement remains visible: national calculation of compensatory entitlement, regional mechanisms for selecting and distributing list members, a clear rule for district overrepresentation, and chamber sizes set at 3,000 House seats and 500 Senate seats without automatic growth.
The special revision procedure now adds another condition. To survive, it will probably need a tightly defined scope, explicit safeguards and a vote that allows legislators to assess it on its own merits. If that cannot be agreed in time, separating or removing it remains a practical route to saving the immediate reform.
The coalition’s willingness to accept that outcome is not yet clear.
The Leader now assesses the chance of passage and presidential assent by September 10 at approximately 75 per cent, down from the 85 per cent judgment prepared before the circumstances of today’s breakdown were established.
That is a political assessment, not a measured probability. Support for the underlying reform remains broad. Confidence in the government’s handling of the final negotiations has weakened.
Our best prediction is final passage late Wednesday, September 9, or in the early hours of Thursday, followed by presidential assent on September 10.
A Wednesday signing remains possible. An orderly Wednesday ceremony is becoming an aesthetic preference.
The greatest danger is no longer simply that the parties cannot agree on seat allocation. It is that each now feels obliged to demonstrate that it cannot be hurried into agreement by somebody else’s concealed timetable.
Outside Congress, the youth activists’ clock continues counting down and Toslerians continue watching, arguing, recalculating and explaining to strangers why their preferred electoral arrangement is an affront to republican civilization.
Back in the Sotentink café, its breakfast offer has changed: The coffee still arrives immediately. The food soon after. But, the bill now contains a procedure for revising the bill.
The country may yet obtain its constitutional amendment this week. It has already obtained three new national experts in every café.
The Lexington Leader will have full coverage of all breaking developments as Parliamentarians debate into Tuesday morning on the latest Electoral Reform Constitutional Amendment Package.
Hello ✨ Gay ✨, it's dazzling queer WA Secretary 
Islandwalk here. I've been going around doing a little survey of my time on the Secretariat to see if there's anything people think I could improve. Got any questions, comments, concerns? I'm all ears!
Hijjma and Cachard Calia
:3
UwU
Tosler passes Constitutional Amendment to enact largest electoral reform in nation’s 99 year history in time for November 2026 election:
Parliament to be comprised of 3000 Members of the House of Representatives, with 1000 being proportionally allocated; 500 Senators, 200 being proportionally allocated.
The Lexington Leader | Friday, September 11, 2026 | Early edition
LEXINGTON — At 11:55 p.m. on Thursday, September 10, 2026, the Minister of Justice transmitted two certified documents to the Tosler Elections Commission.
The first was the Election Reform Implementation Act (2026), bearing President Liam Ossoff’s signature and presidential assent.
The second was the constitutional amendment adopted by Congress less than an hour earlier, ceremonially signed by the President and now operative for the November 3 election because the legislation required to implement it had become law.
Five minutes remained before the Commission’s deadline.
After five months of public argument, 27 drafts, more than one hundred hours of extended parliamentary sitting and a final twelve-hour debate, Tosler had completed the largest transformation of its national electoral system in its history.
The House of Representatives will grow from 1,000 to 3,000 members. The Senate will expand from 300 to 500. Fifty House electoral regions will replace the existing ten. The Senate will acquire a separate nationally proportional tier while preserving two directly elected senators for every state.
The Class B state senators elected in 2024 will remain in office until 2028, ending the prospect that constitutional reform might lawfully—and politically disastrously—require them to seek re-election after serving only half their mandates.
Voters will receive more ballots, parties will require more candidates, and the Tosler Elections Commission will now attempt to perform in seven weeks what Congress required five months and several metric tonnes of coffee, thousands of ounces of marijuana, and at least a few hundred litres of alcohol to proscribe.
With the Commission Chief, John Oliver IV’s hand at the helm, Toslerians can feel confident the job will be done in time. Just after midnight this morning, Mr. Oliver confirmed receipt of the package.
“The constitutional amendment and implementing legislation were received at 11:55 p.m. Lexington civil time,” his statement said. “The statutory and constitutional conditions for application to the November 3 election have been satisfied. The Tosler Elections Committee will ensure that it delivers Toslerians an election event that adheres with the new Constitutional Amendment and the the Election Reform Implementation Act.”
After refusing Parliament’s request to extend the deadline to September 15, Mr. Oliver had spent the week being praised for administrative independence by people who did not require five additional days and denounced for administrative inflexibility by people who did.
At 11:55, he offered neither group the satisfaction of an adjective.
The final day
The consolidated amendment and accompanying Act were tabled at 10 a.m. Thursday. Unlike the surprise constitutional-revision proposal disclosed on Tuesday with fifteen minutes’ notice, the final package was circulated simultaneously to every parliamentary party. It included a written explanation, allocation rules, and a detailed account of the transitional Senate arrangements.
Debate continued for twelve hours.
The House and Senate sat separately for portions of the day, reconvened for constitutionally required proceedings and repeatedly suspended so that party leaders could confirm that language negotiated in one room had not acquired an unexpected subordinate clause in another.
The atmosphere was less chaotic than earlier in the week, although this was partly because exhaustion had reduced the number of people capable of objecting at full volume. Caffeine no longer helped.
The government defended the package as a settlement between national proportionality and territorial representation. Labour emphasized its binding inclusion requirements. Liberal Democrats pointed to the survival—and expansion—of regional candidate selection. Social Democrats claimed credit for preserving the mandates of Class B senators and securing geographical safeguards. And Conservatives claimed to have “participated fully in Tosler’s Parliamentary process”, according to a press release issued by its caucus communications’ office at 12:01 am this morning.
Greens welcomed the use of national votes to determine party entitlements but warned that implementation must not allow regional administration to become a hidden electoral threshold. Somd Conservatives said their support had depended on fixed chamber sizes, protection for direct state representation, and strict limits on the new constitutional revision procedure.
The Democratic Socialists called the package “imperfect, over-engineered, but substantially better than the system it replaced”.
Tosler First condemned it as simultaneously too national, too regional, too proportional, and insufficiently attentive to the constitutional importance of Tosler First.
After several delays, each sought by the caucus Whip of a different party, in seemingly pre-arranged succession, in order to provide each party an opportunity to confirm how its caucus members intended to vote and to ensure their members were actually in the Chanber, voting finally began shortly after 10 p.m.
Both chambers approved the accompanying Act and gave the constitutional amendment the majorities required for adoption before 11 p.m. The special clause permitting certain future electoral adjustments through a confined three-fifths procedure survived, but only after its scope was sharply narrowed.
The final version cannot be used to reduce the size of either Chamber, abolish district representation, alter the two-senator guarantee entrusted to each state, change voting rights or terms of office, weaken recall rights, or amend the special procedure itself.
It may be used for specified structural adjustments, including increasing seat numbers, changing the balance between district and proportional House seats, or revising the number of electoral regions. Any proposal must be published at least 30 days before a vote and cannot govern an election held within six months of its adoption.
The government began the week seeking a constitutional shortcut.
It ended it obtaining a marked path surrounded by fencing, warning signs and a requirement to notify the Elections Commission before entering.
Mr. Ossoff comes to Parliament
President Ossoff had not planned to sign the legislation at the Parliament buildings.
The original programme contemplated a formal ceremony at the Presidential Palace, with parliamentary leaders, party representatives, constitutional advisers, invited activists, and sufficient staging to suggest that the Republic had completed the process in an orderly fashion.
By Thursday evening, order had become a scheduling luxury.
As voting continued, Mr. Ossoff travelled to Parliament with a small presidential party. The Palace press office described the replacement event as a “streamlined ceremony.” One parliamentary official called it “the ceremony that remained mathematically possible.”
At 11:30 p.m., in a reception room adjoining the chambers, Ossoff signed the Election Reform Implementation Act and gave it presidential assent. He also ceremonially signed the certified constitutional amendment adopted by Congress.
The legal distinction mattered.
The constitutional amendment became part of the Constitution when Congress completed the required adoption process. Presidential approval was not a legal requirement. Mr. Ossoff’s signature on that instrument recorded and proclaimed the constitutional event, and of course marked a significant political win for Mr. Ossoff himself, who had birthed the concept in a joint Congressional session just months earlier (in April).
The accompanying Act, however, required presidential assent to become law. The amendment provided that the new arrangements would govern this November’s election only if both constitutional adoption and implementing legislation were completed by the end of September 10.
When Ossoff signed the Act at 11:30, the final legal condition was satisfied.
“This reform belongs to every legislator who went sleepless to improve it, every organizer who insisted that representation have a place as well as a number, and every Toslerian who expects a vote to mean what the Constitution says it means,” Ossoff said.
He acknowledged the hour, the abbreviated ceremony and the institutional drama that preceded it.
“Democracy is not made less democratic because it is difficult,” he said. “But future Congresses may wish to begin slightly earlier.”
Prime Minister Richi, standing beside Mr. Ossoff laughed. “We tried” she said, capriciously.
The Minister of Labour, and Labour leader, John Reynolds looked on. He told the Lexington Leader following the ceremony, “You know, it’s just remarkable. Our Parliament, we made history together. And our elections, our country, it’s better for it. I’m sure proud to be Toslerian today. I hope you are too”
As President Ossoff sat at the table, while the Speaker of the House and Senate Speaker walked in unison, each carrying one of the two documents the President was to sign, the Minister of Justice, Constitutional Affairs and Attorney General of Tosler, Michael McDowell, watched the proceeding with the concentration of a person responsible for moving them across Lexington before midnight. At one point, he produced a pocket watch glance at Mr. Ossoff’s Chief of Staff, mouthed the word “hurry”, and wiped his brow with a handkerchief.
There was no formal reception. The President used one pen—not eleven as usual. Still, he handed the pen to his Minister of Justice, Mr. McDowell, who is known to have personally drafted much of the Constitutional Amendment. “Thank you Michael”, Mr. Ossoff said, before posing for a photo with Mr. McDowell.
It was then that Mr. McDowell dashed off with the two signed documents in hand, and yes, he did actually run.
The 25-minute republic
Once assent was complete, officials authenticated the final texts and prepared the formal transmission to the Elections Commission. Electronic certified copies and the accompanying legal notice were transmitted at 11:55, with physical true copies scheduled for delivery this morning.
The Commission’s receipt was not itself what made the amendment or Act legally valid. Congress had adopted the amendment, and Ossoff’s assent had made the Act law, by 11:30. But the transmission supplied formal proof that the conditions had been met and gave the commission the operative texts under which it must now conduct the election.
It also prevented what would otherwise have been Tosler’s most consequential argument about an email timestamp.
Activists, gathered outside Parliament, watched the deadline clock count through its final minutes. When confirmation of transmission reached the crowd, the display was stopped at 11:55. Some cheered. Some cried. Several immediately began arguing about whether the Senate candidate-matching rules could be expressed more elegantly as a flow chart.
The enormous alarm clock installed earlier in the week was draped with a banner reading: “DELIVERED, WITH FIVE MINUTES’ REPRESENTATION TO SPARE.”
What Happens in November?
The House of Representatives
Parliament’s House of Representatives will contain 2,000 district representatives and 1,000 proportional members.
District representatives will continue to be elected in single-member constituencies by ranked alternative vote. Each voter will also continue casting a separate House party vote ballot and may, but need not, rank candidates from the selected party’s regional list. This is unchanged from it’s 2023 introduction.
Party entitlement will be calculated nationally. District seats already won will count toward that entitlement, and the proportional seats will fill as much of the remaining gap as the fixed 3,000-seat chamber permits.
There will be no automatic overhang or balancing seats beyond the constitutional total.
The proportional representatives will be selected through 50 House electoral regions, replacing the existing ten. The regions determine where candidates are drawn from; they do not divide the national proportional calculation into fifty separate contests.
The Senate
The most politically sensitive transitional question concerned the 150 Class B state senators elected in 2024.
An earlier proposal would have required every state Senate seat to be contested in 2026 as the new 500-member chamber came into being. That approach may have been constitutionally possible, but it would have shortened existing democratic mandates and forced Class B senators to campaign again after two years of four-year terms.
The final settlement avoids that result.
At the November election, voters will elect 150 Class A state senators and 100 Class A proportional senators, all serving until 2030.
The existing Class B state senators will remain in office until 2028. Their seats will not appear on the 2026 ballot.
Voters will nevertheless cast a separate Class B party vote to elect the first 100 Class B proportional senators, who will serve initial two-year terms ending in 2028.
Beginning in 2028, the Class B state and proportional components will be elected together for four years. Class A will follow in 2030, preserving the alternating cycle.
The arrangement enlarges the Senate immediately without treating constitutional modernization as permission to revoke the result of the 2024 state elections.
The Senate will contain 300 state senators and 200 proportional senators.
Every state retains two directly elected senators—one in Class A and one in Class B. The classes continue to serve staggered four-year terms, with one class ordinarily elected every two years.
The 200 new proportional senators are divided equally between the classes. At each regular Senate election, voters will cast one ballot for their state senator and a separate party ballot for the 100 proportional seats belonging to that Class.
Senate party entitlement will be determined nationally and independently of state Senate results. Winning a state seat will neither reduce nor increase a party’s proportional allocation.
Candidates will be organized through 15 Senate candidate-list regions, each containing ten states. Voters may optionally rank their selected party’s candidates.
The system then imposes its central geographical protection: no state may supply more than one proportional senator in the same class across all parties.
At each Class election, 100 states will be designated to supply proportional senators. When that class next faces election four years later, the 50 states omitted previously receive priority, while the remaining 50 are selected by public draw from the states represented at the previous election.
The commission must reconcile national party entitlements, regional voting patterns, candidate rankings, representation requirements and the one-state-per-class rule through a published provisional matching process.
Candidates may be skipped, regional assignments reconsidered and selected states substituted where necessary to complete a lawful allocation. The commission must publish reasons whenever it passes over a higher-ranked candidate or departs from an initial regional assignment.
Tosler has therefore answered the question of how to prevent large states from dominating the proportional Senate tier.
It has answered it with national arithmetic, regional lists, state rotation, public draws, reserve candidates and a matching process whose source code must be published.
Nobody can accuse Congress of leaving the noun undefined.
The Class B solution
One Class B senator described the provision as “a welcome constitutional recognition that four is a different number from two.”
Parties now need people
The new proportional Senate system imposes substantial nomination requirements before polling begins.
A party seeking placement on the national Senate party ballot must nominate candidates connected to at least 25 states across at least 10 of the 15 Senate regions.
For every state it claims as covered, the party must nominate a principal candidate and at least one reserve. A second reserve is permitted. All must be publicly disclosed before polling and available for voters to rank.
The Commission will review each party’s nomination coverage and test whether the overall candidate-state matrix can support a lawful allocation. Parties will receive at least 72 hours to correct curable defects before ballots are finalized.
Once polling begins, no new candidate may be added.
A party’s maximum possible allocation cannot exceed the number of distinct states it has validly covered. The rule is designed to prevent a party from winning a substantial national entitlement while supplying too few candidates—or supplying twenty candidates from Lexington and expecting geography to become somebody else’s problem.
The Act also establishes minimum representation requirements in both proportional components. At least 334 House proportional members and 67 proportional senators must collectively come from people under 35, Indigenous people and communities historically underrepresented in the National Assembly.
Those requirements operate within each party’s electoral entitlement. They cannot be used to displace a directly elected district representative or state senator.
The Commission’s morning after
The Elections Commission must now publish a complete administrative calendar within 24 hours.
Its immediate responsibilities include drawing 2,000 House districts, establishing 50 House regions, grouping 150 states into 15 Senate candidate-list regions, conducting separate Class A and Class B state-selection draws, issuing nomination requirements, preparing the new ballots and explaining the system to an electorate that has spent the past week receiving informal instruction from cafés.
The Commission may shorten procedural periods where strictly necessary for the 2026 transition, but it must preserve meaningful participation and publish reasons for every shortened deadline.
Allocation rules, calculations and source code must also be released in a form permitting parties and independent experts to reproduce the result.
At a brief post-midnight appearance, Oliver was asked whether the commission could be ready by November 3.
“The National Assembly has enacted the instructions,” he said. “The Commission will conduct the election.”
Asked whether receiving them at 11:55 created difficulties, he paused.
“It did not create additional September 10.”
Congress goes home
Members began leaving Parliament shortly after midnight.
Some had been in extended sittings since the previous Friday. Staff removed abandoned papers, empty coffee cups and several versions of provisions that no longer existed.
The Bolognati Culinary Institute students distributed the last of their pastries in equal portions. The Sorentino café announced that its confidence-and-supply breakfast would return to an ordinary menu, subject to successful implementation.
In Milani, parliamentary coverage finally gave way to overnight financial news. Commentators immediately began discussing which parties were organizationally capable of nominating candidates in 25 states and ten Senate regions before the commission’s accelerated deadline.
Ossoff returned to the Presidential Palace after midnight. Richi remained at Parliament for meetings on implementation. The Minister of Justice confirmed that the transmission receipt had been archived in three locations.
The constitutional marathon ended without the formal ceremony its authors imagined, the timetable ministers requested or the simplicity Ossoff originally proposed.
But it ended in time.
At 10 a.m., Congress received a final package.
At 11 p.m., it had approved it.
At 11:30, the Act became law.
At 11:55, the Elections Commission received the instructions.
Five minutes later, September 10 was over.
Congress, at last, went home.
The arithmetic did not.
Read the text of the amendment here:
As adopted and promulgated by the Parliament/National Assembly of the Democratic Republic of Tosler on 10 September 2026
The National Assembly adopts the following amendment to the Constitution of the Democratic Republic of Tosler.
PART 1: Preliminary Provisions
1. Purposes
This Amendment enlarges and modernizes the National Assembly, preserves direct representation of every state in the Senate, establishes proportional representation in both chambers, protects the staggered Senate cycle, strengthens representative inclusion, and provides a confined procedure for specified future adjustments to electoral architecture.
2. Definitions
(1) In this Amendment:
(a) “Commission” means the Tosler Elections Commission established by section 11 of the Constitution;
(b) “district member” means a Member of the House of Representatives elected for a single-member district;
(c) “full membership” means the total number of elected seats constitutionally prescribed for the chamber or chambers concerned, including vacant seats and excluding the President, the Vice-President and any other person who may participate or vote only by virtue of holding another office;
(d) “House proportional member” means a Member of the House of Representatives elected from a regional party list to correct the national relationship between party votes and seats;
(e) “proportional senator” means a Senator elected from a party list as part of a separate proportional tier and not as compensation for state Senate results;
(f) “Senate class” means Class A or Class B; and
(g) “state senator” means a Senator directly elected to represent a state.
(2) Where a fraction results in calculating a constitutional majority or supermajority, the number required is the next whole number.
PART 2: The House of Representatives
3. Composition and election of the House
3.1 Sections 18 and 19 of the Constitution are replaced by the following:
"18(1) The House of Representatives consists of 3,000 elected members.
(2) Of those members, 2,000 are district members and 1,000 are House proportional members."
(3) The Speaker and other officers of the House shall be chosen as otherwise provided by this Constitution and by law.”
“19(1) The House is elected for a term of two years, subject to this Constitution.”
(2) District members are elected in single-member districts by ranked alternative vote.”
(3) House proportional members are allocated among political parties by reference to the national party vote, taking account of district seats already won, so far as possible within the fixed total of 3,000 seats.”
(4) Every district winner retains the seat won. No balancing or overhang seat may be added beyond the fixed membership of the House.”
(5) House proportional members are selected from open preferential lists established for House electoral regions. A voter may vote for a party without ranking candidates, or may rank candidates of the party selected.”
(6) The qualifications, allocation formula and administration of elections under this section shall be prescribed by law consistently with this Constitution.”
4. House Electoral Regions
(1) Tosler shall be divided into 50 House electoral regions for the selection and distribution of House proportional members.
(2) The regions shall contain whole states so far as reasonably practicable, but the District of Lexington may be included in a House electoral region and its population and electors shall be included in the apportionment of House districts and proportional representation.
(3) The Commission shall establish and review the regions independently, having regard to population equality, communities of interest, geographic coherence, accessibility and effective representation.
(4) The national entitlement of a political party to House seats shall not be divided into separate regional entitlements or diminished by the regional distribution of its candidates.
PART 3: The Senate
5. Composition of the Senate
5.1 Sections 20 and 21 of the Constitution are replaced by the following:
“20(1) The Senate consists of 500 elected Senators.”
(2) Three hundred are state senators. Each state is represented by two state senators, one assigned to Class A and one assigned to Class B.”
(3) Two hundred are proportional senators. One hundred are assigned to Class A and one hundred to Class B.”
(4) The District of Lexington is not a state and does not elect state senators, but its electors vote in elections for proportional senators.”
“21(1) Senators ordinarily serve four-year terms.”
(2) Class A and Class B are elected at alternating general elections held two years apart.”
(3) At a regular election for a Senate class, the electors of every state elect the state senator of that class, and all electors vote separately for a political party for the 100 proportional Senate seats of that class.”
(4) State senators are elected by ranked alternative vote.”
(5) The 100 proportional seats of a class are allocated among qualifying political parties according to their shares of the national party vote cast for that class. State Senate results do not reduce or otherwise affect that allocation.”
(6) A voter may vote for a party without ranking candidates, or may rank candidates of the party selected on the applicable regional list.”
(7) A general or extraordinary election shall not alter the established Class A and Class B cycle except by an amendment made through the ordinary constitutional amendment procedure.”
6. Senate candidate list regions and state distribution
(1) Tosler shall be divided into 15 Senate candidate-list regions, each composed of 10 states. The District of Lexington shall be assigned to one such region for voting purposes without thereby becoming a state.
(2) National votes determine each party’s entitlement to proportional Senate seats. Senate candidate-list regions organize ballots, candidate preference and the regional drawing of candidates; they do not create separate regional party entitlements.
(3) No more than one proportional senator in the same Senate class may be drawn from the same state, across all political parties.
(4) At each regular election for a Senate class, 100 states shall be designated to supply its proportional senators. At the next election of that class, the 50 states that were not finally designated at the preceding election have priority, and 50 further states shall be chosen by an independently administered public draw from the remaining 100 states.
(5) The law shall establish a transparent provisional allocation and matching process that:
(a) preserves national party entitlements so far as mathematically possible;
(b) applies the state limit and rotation in subsections (3) and (4);
(c) gives effect to voter preferences within party lists;
(d) permits a provisional candidate or regional assignment to be skipped, moved or reconsidered where necessary to complete the allocation; and
(e) publishes the reason for every displacement of a higher-ranked candidate or departure from an initial regional allocation.
PART 4: Representative Inclusion
7. Representation in proportional components
(1) Electoral law shall ensure that persons who are under 35 years of age, Indigenous persons, 2SLGBTQIA+ persons, and members of other equity-deserving communities who are historically underrepresented in the National Assembly / Parliament of Tosler, to be prescribed in Regulations made by Order in Council of the Cabinet, collectively hold not fewer than one third of the seats in each proportional component, subject to subsection (2).
(2) A person belonging to more than one listed group counts once toward the collective minimum. Candidates shall be elected by voters, and the implementation of this section shall operate within each party’s electoral entitlement.
(3) The House minimum is 334 of the 1,000 House proportional seats.
(4) The Senate minimum is 67 of the 200 proportional Senate seats. Electoral law shall distribute the requirement between the two classes so that the continuing and newly elected proportional senators collectively satisfy the minimum after each election.
(5) No provision of this section authorizes a political party, the Commission or another authority to displace a district member or state senator elected directly by voters.
PART 5: Constitutional Procedure
8. Ordinary constitutional amendment procedure
8.1 Section 58 of the Constitution is replaced by the following:
“58(1) A proposed constitutional amendment may be introduced in either chamber.”
(2) The proposal must first be approved by not fewer than two thirds of the full membership of the House and two thirds of the full membership of the Senate.”
(3) Following that approval, the proposal shall be referred to a Joint Special Committee on the Constitution. The Committee shall receive public submissions and testimony, may recommend amendments, and shall report a final text to both chambers.”
(4) If the Committee recommends a substantive alteration, the altered text must be approved by not fewer than two thirds of the full membership of each chamber before it proceeds.”
(5) An Extraordinary Joint Session of the National Assembly shall then consider the final text.”
(6) The amendment is adopted only if not fewer than two thirds of the combined full membership of the National Assembly vote affirmatively on the identical final text.”
(7) A substantive alteration proposed at the Extraordinary Joint Session returns the proposal to the Committee and engages subsection (4).”
(8) Sections 48 and 49 do not replace or abridge any requirement of this section.”
(9) Nothing in this section limits sections 60 to 62 or another amendment route expressly established by this Constitution.”
9. Effect of adoption
9.1 Section 59 of the Constitution is replaced by the following:
“59(1) Upon adoption in accordance with the applicable constitutional procedure, an amendment forms part of the Constitution and has effect immediately unless the amendment expressly provides for a later commencement.”
(2) The National Assembly may enact consequential and transitional provisions consistent with the amendment.”
10. Special procedure for limited electoral adjustments
(1) A constitutional amendment confined to one or more matters in subsection (2) may be adopted by affirmative votes of not fewer than three fifths of the full membership of the House and three fifths of the full membership of the Senate, voting separately.
(2) The matters are:
(a) increasing, but not reducing, the total number of House seats;
(b) increasing, but not reducing, the number of proportional Senate seats, without reducing the number of state senators or altering equal state representation;
(c) changing the allocation of the fixed or increased House membership between district seats and House proportional seats, without abolishing either component;
(d) changing the number of House electoral regions or Senate candidate-list regions, or authorizing their adjustment following a census; and
(e) making strictly necessary numerical, classificatory or transitional changes consequential upon a matter in paragraphs (a) to (d).
(3) The complete proposed text and an assessment by the Commission shall be published at least 30 days before the first vote. A substantive alteration restarts that period.
(4) An amendment under this section shall not govern an election held less than six months after its adoption.
(5) The procedure does not authorize:
(a) a reduction in the membership of either chamber;
(b) a reduction in the two state senators guaranteed to each state;
(c) the abolition of district representation, House compensation, proportional Senate representation or preferential candidate voting;
(d) a change to the franchise, candidate or party qualification thresholds, terms of office, representation minimums, recall rights, dissolution rights, or the independence of the Commission;
(e) a change to this section or to an express safeguard governing its use; or
(f) a matter whose dominant purpose or effect lies outside subsection (2).
(6) An amendment that exceeds this section must proceed under the ordinary constitutional amendment procedure or another applicable procedure in the Constitution.
11. Membership based thresholds
(1) In section 48(2) of the Constitution, “651 members” is replaced by “more than one half of the combined full membership of the National Assembly”.
(2) In section 70, the requirement of 501 votes in the House is replaced by “more than one half of the full membership of the House”, and the requirement of 151 votes in the Senate is replaced by “more than one half of the full membership of the Senate”.
(3) Until the members elected under this Amendment assume office, thresholds calculated by reference to full membership continue to be calculated using the membership of the National Assembly then in office.
PART 6: Recall Dissolution and Vacancies
12. Application to all elected components
(1) Sections 69 to 72 of the Constitution apply to district members, House proportional members, state senators and proportional senators, with the modifications required by their electoral basis.
(2) For section 71, the relevant electorate is:
(a) the district for a district member;
(b) the House electoral region for a House proportional member;
(c) the state for a state senator; and
(d) the Senate candidate-list region from which a proportional senator was drawn.
(3) A replacement for a recalled or vacant proportional seat shall be selected through an electoral process prescribed by law that preserves, so far as practicable, the party entitlement, geographical rule, class and representation requirement attached to the seat.
(4) An extraordinary election of the Senate may include both classes, but each successful candidate serves only the unexpired term of the applicable class, and the established alternating cycle continues.
PART 7: Transition and Commencement
13. Senate transition at the 2026 election
(1) At the general election scheduled for 3 November 2026:
(a) the 150 Class A state Senate seats shall be elected for terms ending in 2030;
(b) the 100 Class A proportional Senate seats shall be elected for terms ending in 2030;
(c) the Class B state senators elected in 2024 continue in office until their terms end in 2028 and their state seats shall not be contested;
(d) the electors of every state and the District of Lexington shall nevertheless cast a separate Class B party vote to elect 100 Class B proportional senators for initial terms ending in 2028.
(2) Beginning in 2028, the state and proportional components of the class then due shall be elected together for four-year terms.
(3) The Class A and Class B state-selection rotations for proportional senators begin with the states finally designated to supply proportional senators at the 2026 election.
14. Continuity of institutions
(1) The members in office immediately before the 2026 general election continue until their successors are elected, qualified and assume office, except that the Class B state senators described in section 13 continue until 2028.
(2) The expanded membership and the related full-membership thresholds apply when the respective successors assume office.
(3) No change made by this Amendment shortens the mandate of a Class B state senator elected in 2024.
15. Administrative authority before the election
(1) Upon adoption, the Commission may immediately undertake boundaries, nominations, ballot preparation, public education, staffing, procurement, testing and other measures necessary to administer this Amendment.
(2) The National Assembly may appropriate funds and enact the Election Reform Implementation Act, 2026 and other provisions strictly necessary to implement this Amendment.
16. Application to the 2026 election
(1) The electoral arrangements created by this Amendment govern the general election scheduled for 3 November 2026 only if, by the end of 10 September 2026 in Lexington civil time:
(a) this Amendment has been validly adopted; and
(b) the Election Reform Implementation Act 2026 has become law and all provisions necessary to conduct that election are in force.
(2) If either condition is not satisfied, the 3 November 2026 election proceeds under the law previously in force. The institutional and electoral transition established by this Amendment shall then take place at a later election fixed by law, with such revised class transitions as are necessary to protect existing mandates and preserve staggering.
(3) Neither the Executive nor the Commission may waive, extend or apply the deadline in subsection (1) retrospectively.
17. Constitutional status
(1) This Amendment forms part of the Constitution upon adoption in accordance with the constitutional procedure in force when it is adopted.
(2) For greater certainty, the special procedure established by section 10 does not apply to the adoption of this Amendment itself.
Official Statement From the Doer of Things
Considering how dead this region has been, and how close our region is to Kryndel, I've come up with a Thing.
We're gonna merge with them. We are all gonna go over there and be one big happy family. Yay!
Don't worry, I'll never forget any of you, nor will I ever take my time in this region for granted. As one of my final statements in my short tenure, I will do whatever it takes to make my people happy, comfortable, and at home.
As a side note, Kryndel under Chezian Foreign Affairs leadership shall strive to make embassies with yall.
Sincerely,
His Majesty The Chezburger
Doer of Things
Heyo from Gay Equality! 🩷💜💙
With Bi Awareness Week coming up, we're celebrating with this week's regional poll!
Your nation is hosting a Bi Visibility celebration — what's the main event? 👀
🔗 page=poll/p=328815
Everyone is welcome to come over, cast a vote, and join in on the fun!
Advertisement
