Question on Seneschal Voting

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Mr. Secretary, is this still the case concerning incomplete ranked votes?

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.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Could you also confirm this?

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

[King Txec]

Mr. Secretary, is this still the case concerning incomplete ranked votes?

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.

[King Txec]

Could you also confirm this?

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.

[Tric’hard Lenxheir]

Could you also confirm this?

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.

[Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir]

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)

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Could you also confirm this?

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.

[King Txec]

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.

[King Txec]

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.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

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.

[Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir]

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

No 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.

[King Txec]

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

No 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.

[Tric’hard Lenxheir]

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

No 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.

[King Txec]

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

No 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.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

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

No 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.

[King Txec]

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

No 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.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

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. Happy to endorse any popular reform proposals.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

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.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

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.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

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.