Question on Seneschal Voting

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

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.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

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. 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.

In 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."

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

In 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.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

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. The answer was "no" back then. Times may have changed.

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

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.

[King Txec]

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.

[Açafat del Val]

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.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

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:

The 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.

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

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.

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)

[Açafat del Val]

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.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Perhaps Antalgha's suggestion that the second preference (but not the first) can be a "write-in" is an option?

[Açafat del Val]

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.

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.)

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

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.

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.

[Tric’hard Lenxheir]

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.

[Tric’hard Lenxheir]

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.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

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.

[Tric’hard Lenxheir]

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.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

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.