Question on Seneschal Voting

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

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]

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]

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.

[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]

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]

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, SMC EiP]

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.

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

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]

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, SMC EiP]

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.