- Under the provisions of Organic Law Article VI Section 2, should a Seneschal not be appointed prior to the first day of the first Clark, a Ranked Choice Vote to select the Seneschal shall appear on the First Clark.
- As the database is not currently equipped for this purpose, voting for Seneschal shall occur in a thread on Wittenberg concurrently with the First Clark.
- Only MC's may vote for a Seneschal. Senators have no vote.
- As Organic Law is relatively thin on the provisions of ranked choice voting for a Seneschal, the Chancery hereby proposes the following rules for voting:
- Votes shall be weighted by the number of seats assigned to each MC.
- Each party represented in the Cosa shall nominate one candidate for Seneschal prior to the posting of voting on Wittenberg. This should be done even if a Seneschal is elected prior to voting to ensure enough time for the actual vote.
- On the voting thread, there should be NO discussion or comments other than ranked choices.
- MC's will rank the candidates for Seneschal by preference (i.e. 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.) MC's should rank all candidates to avoid their ballots becoming exhausted.
- Should an MC rank the same candidate more than once, only the first appearance of that candidate on their ballot shall be counted.
- Failing to vote in the Seneschal election by an MC shall not count as a missed Clark unless that MC also fails to vote on the Clark itself.
- If a Seneschal candidate wins an outright majority of first-preference votes (50 percent plus 1) he or she will be declared the winner.
- If no Seneschal candidate wins an outright majority of first-preference votes, the candidate with the fewest first-preference votes is eliminated.
- All first-preference votes for the failed candidate are eliminated. Second preference choices on these ballots are then elevated to first-preference.
- A new tally is conducted to determine whether any candidate has won an outright majority of the adjusted votes.
- The process is repeated until either a candidate wins a majority of votes cast or a tie exists.
- If there's a tie after preferences, then we revert to the result of the previous round (which, in the case of only 3 candidates, would be the plurality result, i.e. just whoever gets the most first preferences). Only if it's still a tie then should we go for a revote on the second Clark.
As far as the required Vote of Confidence on each Clark, as there would be no new government in place should this election occur, the Chancery believes that the VoC would apply to the existing Seneschal and his Cabinet that was appointed during the 58th Cosa. However, should the VoC fail, a new election would need to be called.
Discussion should be by MCs only. I don't want this thread to become a free-for-all as it is vital that we have rules in place before the first Clark.
updated to include Miestra's proposed change to the tie-breaker.
Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on October 16, 2023, 02:42:46 PM- In the event of a tie after all preferences have been used, a new vote will be called for the second Clark. The Organic Law does not make provisions for alternate forms of voting should the ranked choice voting fail to produce a result.
I would suggest that we use the same kind of tie-breaker that we use in Fiova and that the latest iteration of the law on Senäts elections (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=2765.0) proposes - that if there's a tie after preferences, then we revert to the result of the previous round (which, in the case of only 3 candidates as here, would be the plurality result, i.e. just whoever gets the most first preferences). Only if it's still a tie then should we go for a revote.
I understand that this gives something of an advantage to the TNC in the current circumstances, but I still think it's the fairest rule, and a good precedent.
I've updated the proposed rules to include Dame Miestra's proposed rule for a tie-breaker.
Thank you
@Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB and
@Miestră Schivă, UrN for your proposal, which is a very good proposal
Quote from: þerxh Sant-Enogat on October 18, 2023, 11:28:18 AMThank you @Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB and @Miestră Schivă, UrN for your proposal, which is a very good proposal
Just for clarification S:reu Sant-Enogat, is this the TNC signing off on the proposed rules? Graschias.
Just to confirm, votes will be weighted by seats?
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 18, 2023, 01:33:26 PMJust to confirm, votes will be weighted by seats?
Yes, sorry, I meant to add that in.
Edit: I've added it in. I'm also working on a proposed law to codify this process for future Cosas.
I'm not sure I agree with the interpretation of the vote of confidence. It seems to me that legally there has to be a vote of confidence, but also that it could not have any effect either way.
Deleted
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 18, 2023, 03:39:04 PMI'm not sure I agree with the interpretation of the vote of confidence. It seems to me that legally there has to be a vote of confidence, but also that it could not have any effect either way.
That's entirely possible. This is uncharted territory. :-)
If there is an odd number of expressed votes, outright majority is less than 50% + 1 so I would replace by "strictly more than 50%"
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 18, 2023, 03:39:04 PMI'm not sure I agree with the interpretation of the vote of confidence. It seems to me that legally there has to be a vote of confidence, but also that it could not have any effect either way.
I would disagree. The VoC is the only means by which an early dissolution of the Cosa/election can be triggered; not even the King can do that under the Organic Law. So it needs to be preserved (with the continuing proviso that a tie means no dissolution)
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on October 19, 2023, 07:50:47 PMQuote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 18, 2023, 03:39:04 PMI'm not sure I agree with the interpretation of the vote of confidence. It seems to me that legally there has to be a vote of confidence, but also that it could not have any effect either way.
I would disagree. The VoC is the only means by which an early dissolution of the Cosa/election can be triggered; not even the King can do that under the Organic Law. So it needs to be preserved (with the continuing proviso that a tie means no dissolution)
Maybe we're talking about two different things? It was my impression that this discussion was just about how the first Clark this term would be conducted, wherein an election for a new government would occur. It seems to me that the VoC just doesn't matter under those circumstances, because it's a vote of confidence in a government that will cease to exist at the end of the Clark. I'm not sure it's crystal clear how the law should be interpreted, but on the absence of any real guidance in the text, we should probably stick with some common sense. There has to be a VoC on the Clark by law, but in every other respect it probably makes sense to think of the government in question as the incumbent one. I don't think there should be a possibility of a new election next month.
Well, the VoC doesn't just bring down a government, it triggers an early election - the only thing that can trigger an early election. If there's no VoC on the first Clark (or whatever Clark a new Seneschal hasn't been elected), there is no option for the Cosa to say "we're deadlocked, we can't form a Government, new election please". That should always be an option.
I see your point, but how could a RCV vote fail? Won't there be some sort of winner, no matter how votes are arranged?
I mean, it's a vote of confidence in a government that doesn't exist yet. Calling a new election in the manner in which you suggest seems like it should either happen as a result of an immediate failure of a VOC on the second Clark, or because there is a new election called by dissolution as people affirmatively decide that no government can come together.
I mean, otherwise it doesn't seem like there's any point to having this RCV vote anyway, right? We should probably just get rid of it and go right to the former process, where we have new elections if no one can put together 101 seats before the first Clark is over. I guess that would allow for some legislating to get done if it was really pressing, so there wouldn't be total paralysis no matter how things turned out.
Assuming all 100 TNC seats are voted in favor of the VoC, which is likely, the trigger won't happen. I included the language because under Organic Law, a failed VoC automatically triggers a new election. Additionally, as there is no new government, the previous government is still in office as caretakers. I may have worded things a bit oddly, but a VoC is a VoC.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 20, 2023, 04:14:40 PMI mean, it's a vote of confidence in a government that doesn't exist yet. Calling a new election in the manner in which you suggest seems like it should either happen as a result of an immediate failure of a VOC on the second Clark, or because there is a new election called by dissolution as people affirmatively decide that no government can come together.
Organic Law is quite clear: "The Clark must contain, in every edition, a Vote of Confidence. Each MC may answer this question in his Clark ballot every month, either with a "yes" or a "no." If at the end of any Clark the "no" vote outnumbers the "yes" vote, the King shall dissolve the Cosa and call new elections."
It does not say if the Seneschal vote fails. It says if the no votes outweigh the yes votes, the King SHALL dissolve the Cosa. Show me where the wiggle room is in the law.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 20, 2023, 04:14:40 PMI see your point, but how could a RCV vote fail? Won't there be some sort of winner, no matter how votes are arranged?
There very well could be a tie in RCV (thus the current mess in Maricopa). There are 100 seats for the TNC and 100 seats for the other parties. A tie is a possible result based on preferences, etc. If all 100 seats in opposition vote for the same first and second or even third preferences, and every seat in the majority do the same, a tie will result and a second vote will occur on a subsequent Clark.
I thought the rules meant that led to a flip of a coin, right?
Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on October 20, 2023, 04:17:53 PMQuote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 20, 2023, 04:14:40 PMI mean, it's a vote of confidence in a government that doesn't exist yet. Calling a new election in the manner in which you suggest seems like it should either happen as a result of an immediate failure of a VOC on the second Clark, or because there is a new election called by dissolution as people affirmatively decide that no government can come together.
Organic Law is quite clear: "The Clark must contain, in every edition, a Vote of Confidence. Each MC may answer this question in his Clark ballot every month, either with a "yes" or a "no." If at the end of any Clark the "no" vote outnumbers the "yes" vote, the King shall dissolve the Cosa and call new elections."
It does not say if the Seneschal vote fails. It says if the no votes outweigh the yes votes, the King SHALL dissolve the Cosa. Show me where the wiggle room is in the law.
Yeah, that is pretty clear, I guess. I was reading this to assume that the vote of confidence was a vote of confidence in the Government, and so implicitly a new election has already been held about the legislature's confidence in the executive. But probably your interpretation is more direct, even if the results doesn't make much sense.
Okay.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 20, 2023, 04:25:40 PMI thought the rules meant that led to a flip of a coin, right?
There is no provision in the proposed rules for a flip of the coin in the event of a tie. I'm no expert in RCV, so I'm not even sure a coin-toss is an option.
Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on October 20, 2023, 04:33:50 PMQuote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 20, 2023, 04:25:40 PMI thought the rules meant that led to a flip of a coin, right?
There is no provision in the proposed rules for a flip of the coin in the event of a tie. I'm no expert in RCV, so I'm not even sure a coin-toss is an option.
RCV can choose any means to resolve a tie, just like plurality voting. It's actually *more* flexible in that the obvious tie-breaker is "go back to the previous round".
Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on October 20, 2023, 04:33:50 PMQuote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 20, 2023, 04:25:40 PMI thought the rules meant that led to a flip of a coin, right?
There is no provision in the proposed rules for a flip of the coin in the event of a tie. I'm no expert in RCV, so I'm not even sure a coin-toss is an option.
Sorry, maybe I should have been reading more carefully... In a scenario where there's a tie and no tiebreaker, an equal division of a Cosa seat, Lexh.B.15 directs a coin flip. Maybe that should be included in the rules?
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 20, 2023, 04:29:55 PMYeah, that is pretty clear, I guess. I was reading this to assume that the vote of confidence was a vote of confidence in the Government, and so implicitly a new election has already been held about the legislature's confidence in the executive. But probably your interpretation is more direct, even if the results doesn't make much sense.
Okay.
Yeah, unfortunately it doesn't say "government" and I'm bound by the law if a VoC fails.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 20, 2023, 04:44:30 PMQuote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on October 20, 2023, 04:33:50 PMQuote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 20, 2023, 04:25:40 PMI thought the rules meant that led to a flip of a coin, right?
There is no provision in the proposed rules for a flip of the coin in the event of a tie. I'm no expert in RCV, so I'm not even sure a coin-toss is an option.
Sorry, maybe I should have been reading more carefully... In a scenario where there's a tie and no tiebreaker, an equal division of a Cosa seat, Lexh.B.15 directs a coin flip. Maybe that should be included in the rules?
If all parties agreed I'd be agreeable to adding in something like this: In the event of a tie, the King shall conduct a live coin toss, witnessed by chosen representatives of the two candidates.
Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on October 20, 2023, 04:47:33 PMQuote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 20, 2023, 04:44:30 PMQuote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on October 20, 2023, 04:33:50 PMQuote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 20, 2023, 04:25:40 PMI thought the rules meant that led to a flip of a coin, right?
There is no provision in the proposed rules for a flip of the coin in the event of a tie. I'm no expert in RCV, so I'm not even sure a coin-toss is an option.
Sorry, maybe I should have been reading more carefully... In a scenario where there's a tie and no tiebreaker, an equal division of a Cosa seat, Lexh.B.15 directs a coin flip. Maybe that should be included in the rules?
If all parties agreed I'd be agreeable to adding in something like this: In the event of a tie, the King shall conduct a live coin toss, witnessed by chosen representatives of the two candidates.
I actually kind of like the scenario that's been spelled out here, where a failure to form a coalition leads to another election. I know what happens in a lot of other parliamentary countries and I think it's very interesting and kind of cool. The fact that there's a month of legislating that can happen means that nothing would be paralyzed, and the fact that there's an incumbent government to continue in the meantime for another two months means that any disaster could be dealt with.
Fortunately, wiser heads than mine will be deciding this one for my party. I will put it out for them.
When will nominations open?
Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on October 16, 2023, 02:42:46 PM- Under the provisions of Organic Law Article VI Section 2, should a Seneschal not be appointed prior to the first day of the first Clark, a Ranked Choice Vote to select the Seneschal shall appear on the First Clark.
- As the database is not currently equipped for this purpose, voting for Seneschal shall occur in a thread on Wittenberg concurrently with the First Clark.
- Only MC's may vote for a Seneschal. Senators have no vote.
- As Organic Law is relatively thin on the provisions of ranked choice voting for a Seneschal, the Chancery hereby proposes the following rules for voting:
- Votes shall be weighted by the number of seats assigned to each MC.
- Each party represented in the Cosa shall nominate one candidate for Seneschal prior to the posting of voting on Wittenberg. This should be done even if a Seneschal is elected prior to voting to ensure enough time for the actual vote.
- On the voting thread, there should be NO discussion or comments other than ranked choices.
- MC's will rank the candidates for Seneschal by preference (i.e. 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.) MC's should rank all candidates to avoid their ballots becoming exhausted.
- Should an MC rank the same candidate more than once, only the first appearance of that candidate on their ballot shall be counted.
- Failing to vote in the Seneschal election by an MC shall not count as a missed Clark unless that MC also fails to vote on the Clark itself.
- If a Seneschal candidate wins an outright majority of first-preference votes (50 percent plus 1) he or she will be declared the winner.
- If no Seneschal candidate wins an outright majority of first-preference votes, the candidate with the fewest first-preference votes is eliminated.
- All first-preference votes for the failed candidate are eliminated. Second preference choices on these ballots are then elevated to first-preference.
- A new tally is conducted to determine whether any candidate has won an outright majority of the adjusted votes.
- The process is repeated until either a candidate wins a majority of votes cast or a tie exists.
- If there's a tie after preferences, then we revert to the result of the previous round (which, in the case of only 3 candidates, would be the plurality result, i.e. just whoever gets the most first preferences). Only if it's still a tie then should we go for a revote on the second Clark.
I'd like to finalize these Seneschal election rules. Any last thoughts?
Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on October 24, 2023, 07:46:32 AMI'd like to finalize these Seneschal election rules. Any last thoughts?
None, apart from my remark on '50% + 1' which should be replaced by 'strictly more than 50%'
(50%+1 for 199 expressed votes are 100,5 votes, which could be understood as 101 votes. In this case, 100 votes are enough for a majority out of 199 expressed votes).
Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on October 24, 2023, 07:46:32 AM- Under the provisions of Organic Law Article VI Section 2, should a Seneschal not be appointed prior to the first day of the first Clark, a Ranked Choice Vote to select the Seneschal shall appear on the First Clark.
- As the database is not currently equipped for this purpose, voting for Seneschal shall occur in a thread on Wittenberg concurrently with the First Clark.
- Only MC's may vote for a Seneschal. Senators have no vote.
- As Organic Law is relatively thin on the provisions of ranked choice voting for a Seneschal, the Chancery hereby proposes the following rules for voting:
- Votes shall be weighted by the number of seats assigned to each MC.
- Each party represented in the Cosa shall nominate one candidate for Seneschal prior to the posting of voting on Wittenberg. This should be done even if a Seneschal is elected prior to voting to ensure enough time for the actual vote.
- On the voting thread, there should be NO discussion or comments other than ranked choices.
- MC's will rank the candidates for Seneschal by preference (i.e. 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.) MC's should rank all candidates to avoid their ballots becoming exhausted.
- Should an MC rank the same candidate more than once, only the first appearance of that candidate on their ballot shall be counted.
- Failing to vote in the Seneschal election by an MC shall not count as a missed Clark unless that MC also fails to vote on the Clark itself.
- If a Seneschal candidate wins an outright majority of first-preference votes (more than 50%) he or she will be declared the winner.
- If no Seneschal candidate wins an outright majority of first-preference votes, the candidate with the fewest first-preference votes is eliminated.
- All first-preference votes for the failed candidate are eliminated. Second preference choices on these ballots are then elevated to first-preference.
- A new tally is conducted to determine whether any candidate has won an outright majority of the adjusted votes.
- The process is repeated until either a candidate wins a majority of votes cast or a tie exists.
- If there's a tie after preferences, then we revert to the result of the previous round (which, in the case of only 3 candidates, would be the plurality result, i.e. just whoever gets the most first preferences). Only if it's still a tie then should we go for a revote on the second Clark.
I have adjusted the phrase "50% plus 1" to "more than 50%". Unless any objections are raised before today at midnight TST, I will consider these rules final.
The alternative, of course, is if a Seneschal is elected within the next 40 hours or so!