Mr. Secretary, is this still the case concerning incomplete ranked votes?
Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on September 21, 2020, 11:56:41 AM
Quote from: Açafat del Val on September 21, 2020, 10:08:37 AM
I should preface the below with this: Because the possible changes do not affect the outcome, there should be no reason to take further action; rather, it should be information to prevent a repeat in the future.
Unless there is some part of Talsosan law of which I am unaware (entirely possible), the default mode of counting in ranked-choice methods does not invalidate a vote merely because it indicated only one preference. Instead, the vote becomes 'exhausted' if its first choice is eliminated.
Therefore, Taiwos's vote should be / have been counted as a first-preference vote for Schiva.
The law quite clearly states "No member of the Cosâ may abstain in the election of a Seneschál, and shall rank on his ballot at least two distinct preferences, which itself shall be made public. (54RZ23)"
S:reu Taiwos only gave one preference thereby making his vote invalid under Organic Law.
Could you also confirm this?
Quote from: Tric'hard Lenxheir on May 01, 2022, 09:15:36 AM
I cast my vote for Brenier Tzaracompadra I assume I can only vote for the listed candidates so that would make my second choice pretty obvious
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on May 01, 2022, 09:28:17 AM
Mr. Secretary, is this still the case concerning incomplete ranked votes?
Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on September 21, 2020, 11:56:41 AM
Quote from: Açafat del Val on September 21, 2020, 10:08:37 AM
I should preface the below with this: Because the possible changes do not affect the outcome, there should be no reason to take further action; rather, it should be information to prevent a repeat in the future.
Unless there is some part of Talsosan law of which I am unaware (entirely possible), the default mode of counting in ranked-choice methods does not invalidate a vote merely because it indicated only one preference. Instead, the vote becomes 'exhausted' if its first choice is eliminated.
Therefore, Taiwos's vote should be / have been counted as a first-preference vote for Schiva.
The law quite clearly states "No member of the Cosâ may abstain in the election of a Seneschál, and shall rank on his ballot at least two distinct preferences, which itself shall be made public. (54RZ23)"
S:reu Taiwos only gave one preference thereby making his vote invalid under Organic Law.
The law is pretty clear that two choices must be made. Each MC needs to list their first choice and their second choice. Those who have already voted without a second ranked choice I will reach out to and ask them to amend their votes before the end of the election cycle.
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on May 01, 2022, 09:38:25 AM
Could you also confirm this?
Quote from: Tric'hard Lenxheir on May 01, 2022, 09:15:36 AM
I cast my vote for Brenier Tzaracompadra I assume I can only vote for the listed candidates so that would make my second choice pretty obvious
Although I can easily infer his meaning, MCs must be specific and name their choices.
Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on May 01, 2022, 10:48:44 AM
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on May 01, 2022, 09:38:25 AM
Could you also confirm this?
Quote from: Tric'hard Lenxheir on May 01, 2022, 09:15:36 AM
I cast my vote for Brenier Tzaracompadra I assume I can only vote for the listed candidates so that would make my second choice pretty obvious
So do I have to vote for only the listed candidates or can I "write in" a candidate
Although I can easily infer his meaning, MCs must be specific and name their choices.
Also, to clarify for everyone voting (although im sure of the answer), an MC can vote for any sitting MC, it doesn't have to be the proposed candidates from what i can tell from the quotes of Org law? So can make a free choice outside the two candidates (like i have done in my second vote) named? (again, i think this is the case, just thought this would be good to confirm)
Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on May 01, 2022, 10:48:44 AM
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on May 01, 2022, 09:38:25 AM
Could you also confirm this?
Quote from: Tric'hard Lenxheir on May 01, 2022, 09:15:36 AM
I cast my vote for Brenier Tzaracompadra I assume I can only vote for the listed candidates so that would make my second choice pretty obvious
Although I can easily infer his meaning, MCs must be specific and name their choices.
Sorry my clarification was on whether voters can only vote for nominated candidates. Or can they vote for others as one MC has done.
Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on May 01, 2022, 11:04:09 AM
Also, to clarify for everyone voting (although im sure of the answer), an MC can vote for any sitting MC, it doesn't have to be the proposed candidates from what i can tell from the quotes of Org law? So can make a free choice outside the two candidates (like i have done in my second vote) named? (again, i think this is the case, just thought this would be good to confirm)
This is not correct. OrgLaw states " The candidates for each such election shall be nominated by each political party which shall have earned representation in the Cosâ at the most recent general election. (54RZ23) (55RZ22)". The only allowed candidates are those nominated by the parties.
Please allow me to be clear: MCs must list a first and second choice, and they may only vote on candidates nominated by the parties. Any other vote is invalid and will not be counted until corrected.
I must follow the Organic Law folks.
Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on May 01, 2022, 12:01:33 PM
Please allow me to be clear: MCs must list a first and second choice, and they may only vote on candidates nominated by the parties. Any other vote is invalid and will not be counted until corrected.
I must follow the Organic Law folks.
Thank you for clarifying.
I'm not sure the interpretation by the secretary of state is correct, as yes, organic law does say that political parties nominate candidates for the election, and that it is a ranked choice vote, but it doesn't say that MC's can ONLY vote for the candidates presented to the Cosa, it just says, that MC's votes must be ranked choice and vote for at least two candidates, but the law as written, doesn't explicitly state that the only choices for Seneschal are the ones presented by the parties, from what i understand from reading the said laws, Also, if i recall correctly, last time we had the elections of Seneschal, we weren't constrained purely by the choices from the parties.
But yeah, from what i can tell, as the law isnt specific enough, from my own reading there is enough leeway in the law to allow other votes to be cast. And
QuoteNo member of the Cosâ may abstain in the election of a Seneschál, and shall rank on his/her ballot at least two distinct preferences, which itself shall be made public. (54RZ23)
, doesn't specify that we have to vote only for the candidates presented, just that we need to make two distinct choices.
I will respect your decision, although i honestly find the thought of casting my second vote for the other candidate abhorrent and distasteful, in the matter, but i thought id point out these things, and share my thoughts (and explain why i thought as i did) with all anyway.
Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on May 01, 2022, 12:22:42 PM
I'm not sure the interpretation by the secretary of state is correct, as yes, organic law does say that political parties nominate candidates for the election, and that it is a ranked choice vote, but it doesn't say that MC's can ONLY vote for the candidates presented to the Cosa, it just says, that MC's votes must be ranked choice and vote for at least two candidates, but the law as written, doesn't explicitly state that the only choices for Seneschal are the ones presented by the parties, from what i understand from reading the said laws, Also, if i recall correctly, last time we had the elections of Seneschal, we weren't constrained purely by the choices from the parties.
But yeah, from what i can tell, as the law isnt specific enough, from my own reading there is enough leeway in the law to allow other votes to be cast. And QuoteNo member of the Cosâ may abstain in the election of a Seneschál, and shall rank on his/her ballot at least two distinct preferences, which itself shall be made public. (54RZ23)
, doesn't specify that we have to vote only for the candidates presented, just that we need to make two distinct choices.
I will respect your decision, although i honestly find the thought of casting my second vote for the other candidate abhorrent and distasteful, in the matter, but i thought id point out these things, and share my thoughts (and explain why i thought as i did) with all anyway.
I respect your views, but unless I'm corrected in my interpretation by a judge, I'm going to continue with what I believe is the plain meaning of the law. The first time we did this only party leaders could be candidates. That was a bigger headache let me tell you.
Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on May 01, 2022, 12:50:23 PM
Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on May 01, 2022, 12:22:42 PM
I'm not sure the interpretation by the secretary of state is correct, as yes, organic law does say that political parties nominate candidates for the election, and that it is a ranked choice vote, but it doesn't say that MC's can ONLY vote for the candidates presented to the Cosa, it just says, that MC's votes must be ranked choice and vote for at least two candidates, but the law as written, doesn't explicitly state that the only choices for Seneschal are the ones presented by the parties, from what i understand from reading the said laws, Also, if i recall correctly, last time we had the elections of Seneschal, we weren't constrained purely by the choices from the parties.
But yeah, from what i can tell, as the law isnt specific enough, from my own reading there is enough leeway in the law to allow other votes to be cast. And QuoteNo member of the Cosâ may abstain in the election of a Seneschál, and shall rank on his/her ballot at least two distinct preferences, which itself shall be made public. (54RZ23)
, doesn't specify that we have to vote only for the candidates presented, just that we need to make two distinct choices.
I will respect your decision, although i honestly find the thought of casting my second vote for the other candidate abhorrent and distasteful, in the matter, but i thought id point out these things, and share my thoughts (and explain why i thought as i did) with all anyway.
I respect your views, but unless I'm corrected in my interpretation by a judge, I'm going to continue with what I believe is the plain meaning of the law. The first time we did this only party leaders could be candidates. That was a bigger headache let me tell you.
I believe the simplest way to fix this is to change the rules to allow voting for a single candidate as the current rules basically require people to vote against their own party and the philosophies of said party. Or simply have the party in power name a seneschal because in this case it really is not electing anyone.
Quote from: Tric'hard Lenxheir on May 01, 2022, 12:54:12 PM
Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on May 01, 2022, 12:50:23 PM
Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on May 01, 2022, 12:22:42 PM
I'm not sure the interpretation by the secretary of state is correct, as yes, organic law does say that political parties nominate candidates for the election, and that it is a ranked choice vote, but it doesn't say that MC's can ONLY vote for the candidates presented to the Cosa, it just says, that MC's votes must be ranked choice and vote for at least two candidates, but the law as written, doesn't explicitly state that the only choices for Seneschal are the ones presented by the parties, from what i understand from reading the said laws, Also, if i recall correctly, last time we had the elections of Seneschal, we weren't constrained purely by the choices from the parties.
But yeah, from what i can tell, as the law isnt specific enough, from my own reading there is enough leeway in the law to allow other votes to be cast. And QuoteNo member of the Cosâ may abstain in the election of a Seneschál, and shall rank on his/her ballot at least two distinct preferences, which itself shall be made public. (54RZ23)
, doesn't specify that we have to vote only for the candidates presented, just that we need to make two distinct choices.
I will respect your decision, although i honestly find the thought of casting my second vote for the other candidate abhorrent and distasteful, in the matter, but i thought id point out these things, and share my thoughts (and explain why i thought as i did) with all anyway.
I respect your views, but unless I'm corrected in my interpretation by a judge, I'm going to continue with what I believe is the plain meaning of the law. The first time we did this only party leaders could be candidates. That was a bigger headache let me tell you.
I believe the simplest way to fix this is to change the rules to allow voting for a single candidate as the current rules basically require people to vote against their own party and the philosophies of said party. Or simply have the party in power name a seneschal because in this case it really is not electing anyone.
The OrgLaw must be amended if people want to change the process. It's doable but it won't affect this election.
Quote from: Tric'hard Lenxheir on May 01, 2022, 12:54:12 PM
Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on May 01, 2022, 12:50:23 PM
Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on May 01, 2022, 12:22:42 PM
I'm not sure the interpretation by the secretary of state is correct, as yes, organic law does say that political parties nominate candidates for the election, and that it is a ranked choice vote, but it doesn't say that MC's can ONLY vote for the candidates presented to the Cosa, it just says, that MC's votes must be ranked choice and vote for at least two candidates, but the law as written, doesn't explicitly state that the only choices for Seneschal are the ones presented by the parties, from what i understand from reading the said laws, Also, if i recall correctly, last time we had the elections of Seneschal, we weren't constrained purely by the choices from the parties.
But yeah, from what i can tell, as the law isnt specific enough, from my own reading there is enough leeway in the law to allow other votes to be cast. And QuoteNo member of the Cosâ may abstain in the election of a Seneschál, and shall rank on his/her ballot at least two distinct preferences, which itself shall be made public. (54RZ23)
, doesn't specify that we have to vote only for the candidates presented, just that we need to make two distinct choices.
I will respect your decision, although i honestly find the thought of casting my second vote for the other candidate abhorrent and distasteful, in the matter, but i thought id point out these things, and share my thoughts (and explain why i thought as i did) with all anyway.
I respect your views, but unless I'm corrected in my interpretation by a judge, I'm going to continue with what I believe is the plain meaning of the law. The first time we did this only party leaders could be candidates. That was a bigger headache let me tell you.
I believe the simplest way to fix this is to change the rules to allow voting for a single candidate as the current rules basically require people to vote against their own party and the philosophies of said party. Or simply have the party in power name a seneschal because in this case it really is not electing anyone.
Yes, it used to be that the party/parties who formed a majority would name their candidate for Seneschal. But a year ago or so, this process was changed, adding a full month onto a Cosa term to accommodate this voting process.
http://www.talossa.ca/files/bills.php?cosa=54&bill=23
It remains unclear to me exactly why this was necessary. As far as I can tell, it's a lot of time to spend engaged in a show vote that arrives at the exact same conclusion -- unless someone defects, which I am otherwise assured is outrageous and shouldn't be allowed.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 01, 2022, 01:04:06 PM
Quote from: Tric'hard Lenxheir on May 01, 2022, 12:54:12 PM
Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on May 01, 2022, 12:50:23 PM
Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on May 01, 2022, 12:22:42 PM
I'm not sure the interpretation by the secretary of state is correct, as yes, organic law does say that political parties nominate candidates for the election, and that it is a ranked choice vote, but it doesn't say that MC's can ONLY vote for the candidates presented to the Cosa, it just says, that MC's votes must be ranked choice and vote for at least two candidates, but the law as written, doesn't explicitly state that the only choices for Seneschal are the ones presented by the parties, from what i understand from reading the said laws, Also, if i recall correctly, last time we had the elections of Seneschal, we weren't constrained purely by the choices from the parties.
But yeah, from what i can tell, as the law isnt specific enough, from my own reading there is enough leeway in the law to allow other votes to be cast. And QuoteNo member of the Cosâ may abstain in the election of a Seneschál, and shall rank on his/her ballot at least two distinct preferences, which itself shall be made public. (54RZ23)
, doesn't specify that we have to vote only for the candidates presented, just that we need to make two distinct choices.
I will respect your decision, although i honestly find the thought of casting my second vote for the other candidate abhorrent and distasteful, in the matter, but i thought id point out these things, and share my thoughts (and explain why i thought as i did) with all anyway.
I respect your views, but unless I'm corrected in my interpretation by a judge, I'm going to continue with what I believe is the plain meaning of the law. The first time we did this only party leaders could be candidates. That was a bigger headache let me tell you.
I believe the simplest way to fix this is to change the rules to allow voting for a single candidate as the current rules basically require people to vote against their own party and the philosophies of said party. Or simply have the party in power name a seneschal because in this case it really is not electing anyone.
Yes, it used to be that the party/parties who formed a majority would name their candidate for Seneschal. But a year ago or so, this process was changed, adding a full month onto a Cosa term to accommodate this voting process.
http://www.talossa.ca/files/bills.php?cosa=54&bill=23
It remains unclear to me exactly why this was necessary. As far as I can tell, it's a lot of time to spend engaged in a show vote that arrives at the exact same conclusion -- unless someone defects, which I am otherwise assured is outrageous and shouldn't be allowed.
Look folks. It's clear people don't like my interpretation of the law. A very badly written law, but the law nonetheless. I am doing my best to interpret this. Threatening to sue me is not helpful. Do what you must, however. Sorry.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 01, 2022, 01:04:06 PM
Yes, it used to be that the party/parties who formed a majority would name their candidate for Seneschal.
An untruth. The old way was that the King would choose the Seneschál from whichever party he could be convinced had a majority - or, if he felt like it, would just pick whoever he liked and dared the Cosa to overthrow them on the VoC. In the late 1990s, the then King said that he would simply never nominate a Seneschal from the Liberal Party no matter if they got an absolute majority. And there was nothing the Libs could do but mass-renounce, which they did.
Now the Cosa elects the Seneschal. I know that's probably disappointing to the TNC because the Senator from Florencia would probably be Seneschal right now under the old system!
But to the details of the system. As A-G,
I must endorse the SoS's reading of the law. Compulsory-preferential voting is quite common in elections in Australia. Yes, it means you can only vote for the people on the ballot paper. And yes, it means you have to rank a preference for
each one or your vote is invalid. This means that in an elections run by these rules, you have to give a preference to the Nazi Cannibal Child-Molester Party (presumably, your last preference) or your vote won't count.
This is something that has been on my radar for quite a while as someone I'd prefer to amend myself - but when I raised it in the Hopper last term, I got no bites (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=970.0). Happy to endorse any popular reform proposals.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 01, 2022, 03:28:47 PM
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 01, 2022, 01:04:06 PM
Yes, it used to be that the party/parties who formed a majority would name their candidate for Seneschal.
An untruth. The old way was that the King would choose the Seneschál from whichever party he could be convinced had a majority - or, if he felt like it, would just pick whoever he liked and dared the Cosa to overthrow them on the VoC. In the late 1990s, the then King said that he would simply never nominate a Seneschal from the Liberal Party no matter if they got an absolute majority. And there was nothing the Libs could do but mass-renounce, which they did.
Now the Cosa elects the Seneschal. I know that's probably disappointing to the TNC because the Senator from Florencia would probably be Seneschal right now under the old system!
I guess I can't speak to what it was like under the previous monarch. But as far as I can tell, in the modern era there doesn't seem to be any difference in outcome. Perhaps this is because, about a decade back or so, if I recall correctly, there was a short bill that eliminated the loophole you mention. I think it was actually sponsored by King John.
The new way takes a lot more time and seems to be confusing for people, so it seems worse.
Weird because this is the third election we've had with the system so far and the first time anyone had any problems.
My guess is that previous elections were automated on the Database, so people didn't have any problems with giving as many prefs as necessary or the lack of write-ins.
The main issue seems to be that you have to specify two choices. Who came up with that? In proper Ranked Choice Voting you dont have to do that either.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 01, 2022, 03:46:53 PM
Weird because this is the third election we've had with the system so far and the first time anyone had any problems.
My guess is that previous elections were automated on the Database, so people didn't have any problems with giving as many prefs as necessary or the lack of write-ins.
Possibly. A Facebook discussion about who should be picked might also have something to do with it, or the fact that the plurality winner of the election contested it sharply, etc. Whatever the cause, it seems to me it will be a lot easier to just go back to the previous system, which operated with no problems and no abuse for a very long time.
Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on May 01, 2022, 03:47:21 PM
The main issue seems to be that you have to specify two choices. Who came up with that?
This system was originally proposed by Açafat dàl Val (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=232.0). It was amended slightly after the first election, to give parties flexibility on who to nominate, and to remove the compulsory extra month of recess after the election.
QuoteIn proper Ranked Choice Voting you dont have to do that either.
In some Australian elections, you have to rank
every candidate on the ballot paper, including the Nazi. In others, you have to rank a certain percentage: "for the Senate a minimum of 90% of candidates must be scored, in 2013 in New South Wales that meant writing 99 preferences on the ballot."
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 01, 2022, 03:54:37 PM
QuoteIn proper Ranked Choice Voting you dont have to do that either.
In some Australian elections, you have to rank every candidate on the ballot paper, including the Nazi. In others, you have to rank a certain percentage: "for the Senate a minimum of 90% of candidates must be scored, in 2013 in New South Wales that meant writing 99 preferences on the ballot."
This seems weird, and I don't know why it would be required.
Australians, go figure, lol. Seriously, I think it combines with the Australian tradition of compulsory voting in particular - you have to turn up and cast a ballot or be fined, although you're free to cast an invalid vote up to and including smearing Vegemite on the ballot paper. The idea behind compulsory preferencing is that it ensures that the winner really does have the preference of 50%+1 voters.
I assume - although MC dàl Val can speak for himself - that he had a similar reasoning for requiring at least 2 preferences, that otherwise it would be too easy for a Seneschal to be elected by a plurality. I personally never saw it as a necessity, and I raised it in the last Cosa to see if anyone was keen for a change (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=970.0). The answer was "no" back then. Times may have changed.
I agree that the Cosa electing a Seneschal by absolute majority is ideal -- I would go further, I think to further avoid snap elections we could probably allow for what the Germans call a "Constructive Vote of No Confidence": a vote to replace one Seneschal with another specific individual. If it fails the original Seneschal retains their office, and if it passes the named individual becomes Seneschal without need for a new election.
That being said, I seem to recall seeing in another thread that generally once all the choices on a ranked ballot have been exhausted, said ballot is effectively not counted. I think we could certainly move to a similar system, with all MC's only needing to name a minimum of one candidate -- if their ballot is exhausted, they could be counted as "None of the Above" to ensure the Seneschal is still elected by absolute majority.
I'm sorry for the confusion and consternation that erupted in this election. I have asked the UC to interpret this law, but it will likely have to wait until the current election is concluded.
I am interpreting to my best effort the laws as written, as I will continue to do as long as I am allowed to continue in office as Secretary of State. This is by far not an easy job and I hope you all believe that I am doing this with grace, dignity, and fairness.
Not that being snide helps my attempt to persuade, but I'm cranky and, to speak politely, disillusioned.
The requirement that each ballot contain at least two distinct preferences was written in conjunction within a larger amendment. Piecemeal tweaks, as Talossa is so fond of doing, create more problems; I would advise that amendments to this one thing come up amendments of other things.
As for the text itself: I would beg that MZs attempt to look past the immediacy of today and try to imagine a wider picture. Constitutions are not meant to and shouldn't bother to contemplate every possible outcome; they are necessarily broad and vague. Accordingly, what are the risks of making no requirement?
Someone hinted at it before me: ranked-choice methods are bupkis without a certain number of preferences. What's the point of ranked-choice if everyone picks just one candidate? Ballots are then immediately exhausted.
I had to make a compromise between no requirement and the burdensome Australian approach. Two preferences seemed fair, especially when it's hard to predict that only two parties have put up leaders. I mean, shame on me for thinking that Talossa might have more than two Seneschal candidates at a time.
For what it's worth, when I wrote the section at issue, it came with another clause that allowed MZs to vote for more than just the political leaders. That was changed one or two Cosas ago, where now the only candidates are the party leaders themselves.
It's almost like Talossa should stop amending one paragraph at a time. Perhaps then we wouldn't be shocked when one section after another becomes broken.
Quote from: Açafat del Val on May 01, 2022, 11:24:54 PM
For what it's worth, when I wrote the section at issue, it came with another clause that allowed MZs to vote for more than just the political leaders. That was changed one or two Cosas ago, where now the only candidates are the party leaders themselves.
... no. Your original clause ran thus:
QuoteThe candidates for each such election shall be only the recognized and commonly known leader of each political party which shall have earned representation in the Cosâ at the most recent general election.
So it was only the party leaders - but
all the party leaders; no allowance for parties to nominate their own candidate or to not nominate a candidate at all.
The original language would not have even allowed the FreeDems to nominate a candidate in this election, as our "recognized and commonly known" party leader is the SoS.
Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on May 01, 2022, 11:24:26 PMI am interpreting to my best effort the laws as written, as I will continue to do as long as I am allowed to continue in office as Secretary of State. This is by far not an easy job and I hope you all believe that I am doing this with grace, dignity, and fairness.
For what it's worth, I think you're doing a good job. Sometimes people legislate themselves into knots, it happens (that's not a dig at AdV, for reference)
I'm happy to be corrected, and happier that someone read it.
For the sake of my ego, this exact current predicament wouldn't exist under my old writing. Moreover, even if it could, I reiterate that the issue is less the Organic section, and more the lack of candidates.
Why or how are people here all up in arms over "having" to pick two, and not mad that they have only two choices?! Surely we should expect more parties than just the TNC and FreeDems, right?
The very fact that people are whining proves how necessary the requirement is. The whole purpose of ranked-choice voting is upturned if MCs can just pop in and say "my party and no one else, kyhxbye". To have an actual... ranked-choice election... you have to... rank your choices. It doesn't seem unreasonable to require two picks. It's two. A whopping two. It's not three or four of five.
Perhaps Antalgha's suggestion that the second preference (but not the first) can be a "write-in" is an option?
Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, MoFA on May 01, 2022, 11:50:45 PM
Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on May 01, 2022, 11:24:26 PMI am interpreting to my best effort the laws as written, as I will continue to do as long as I am allowed to continue in office as Secretary of State. This is by far not an easy job and I hope you all believe that I am doing this with grace, dignity, and fairness.
For what it's worth, I think you're doing a good job. Sometimes people legislate themselves into knots, it happens (that's not a dig at AdV, for reference)
Shocking as it may seem, I think that our current SoS goes above and beyond; I respect the hell out of him, and he deserves all of our gratitude and appreciation. He has done, does, and is doing a fantastic job as SoS*.
If our only complaint is that the SoS is trying to abide by the law, then that sounds like a compliment! Wouldn't we rather have an SoS like this, than someone who
doesn't check the laws?
Sheesh.
*(Notwithstanding my complaint that he could or should have foreseen a moderator deleting posts.)
Quote from: Açafat del Val on May 01, 2022, 11:56:19 PM
Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, MoFA on May 01, 2022, 11:50:45 PM
Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on May 01, 2022, 11:24:26 PMI am interpreting to my best effort the laws as written, as I will continue to do as long as I am allowed to continue in office as Secretary of State. This is by far not an easy job and I hope you all believe that I am doing this with grace, dignity, and fairness.
For what it's worth, I think you're doing a good job. Sometimes people legislate themselves into knots, it happens (that's not a dig at AdV, for reference)
Shocking as it may seem, I think that our current SoS goes above and beyond; I respect the hell out of him, and he deserves all of our gratitude and appreciation. He has done, does, and is doing a fantastic job as SoS*.
If our only complaint is that the SoS is trying to abide by the law, then that sounds like a compliment! Wouldn't we rather have an SoS like this, than someone who doesn't check the laws?
Sheesh.
*(Notwithstanding my complaint that he could or should have foreseen a moderator deleting posts.)
I completely agree -- like I said, that wasn't intended as anything in your direction, just a simple expression of confidence in the good Secretary's performance.
Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on May 01, 2022, 11:24:26 PM
I'm sorry for the confusion and consternation that erupted in this election. I have asked the UC to interpret this law, but it will likely have to wait until the current election is concluded.
I am interpreting to my best effort the laws as written, as I will continue to do as long as I am allowed to continue in office as Secretary of State. This is by far not an easy job and I hope you all believe that I am doing this with grace, dignity, and fairness.
I want to be clear Txec, I am not in any way blaming you personally, it is the rule as written that I have a problem with. It is to some degree quite vague and it potentially could force MC's to vote for someone they are diametrically opposed to supporting. It would be no different than telling an American democrat that they have to vote for both Joe Biden and Donald Trump who they would likely rather run over with a bus LOL I understand that you are doing your best to make the interpretation and I am curious to hear what the Cort has to say on the subject.
Quote from: Açafat del Val on May 01, 2022, 11:51:37 PM
I'm happy to be corrected, and happier that someone read it.
For the sake of my ego, this exact current predicament wouldn't exist under my old writing. Moreover, even if it could, I reiterate that the issue is less the Organic section, and more the lack of candidates.
Why or how are people here all up in arms over "having" to pick two, and not mad that they have only two choices?! Surely we should expect more parties than just the TNC and FreeDems, right?
The very fact that people are whining proves how necessary the requirement is. The whole purpose of ranked-choice voting is upturned if MCs can just pop in and say "my party and no one else, kyhxbye". To have an actual... ranked-choice election... you have to... rank your choices. It doesn't seem unreasonable to require two picks. It's two. A whopping two. It's not three or four of five.
I completely agree with your statement that it is sad that no other parties even put forth a candidate. Perhaps there should be something stating that ALL represented parties MUST put forth a candidate? Maybe that would be too harsh as well I don't know. I will be the first to admit that I am a novice at law making and trying to learn on the fly here. Without more options it basically comes down to which party has the majority so the election becomes a bit of a joke.
Quote from: Tric'hard Lenxheir on May 02, 2022, 06:16:23 AM
Without more options it basically comes down to which party has the majority so the election becomes a bit of a joke.
If there were more options, it would still be a joke. The outcome was decided privately last month by the party leaders. Adding more candidates who are irrelevant won't change that. We're just pretending that the vote matters.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 02, 2022, 06:49:40 AM
Quote from: Tric'hard Lenxheir on May 02, 2022, 06:16:23 AM
Without more options it basically comes down to which party has the majority so the election becomes a bit of a joke.
If there were more options, it would still be a joke. The outcome was decided privately last month by the party leaders. Adding more candidates who are irrelevant won't change that. We're just pretending that the vote matters.
With more candidates the vote could be divided enough to block the majority.
Quote from: Tric'hard Lenxheir on May 02, 2022, 08:46:41 AM
With more candidates the vote could be divided enough to block the majority.
The whole point of Ranked Choice is that no vote splitting or spoiler effect can happen.