Question on Seneschal Voting

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

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, 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)

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.