Slight Fix to Senechal elections

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

You just spent last week making a big deal about how this shouldn't be allowed and was not legitimate in a parliamentary democracy...  much ado has been made about how this is wrong and should never happen.

I'm just going to copypaste this until you stop lying.

Defections are legitimate. The way the TNC went about trying to get a vulnerable, inexperienced Coalition MC to defect was sleazy, cynical and unprincipled.

If you are serious that you don't think it necessary that MCs should actually have to vote - that party leaders should be entitled to vote for them - then why do we have VoCs at all?

lol, I was going to quote back to you what you'd written about defections, but -- amazingly -- you've gone back and deleted it all!

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

There is a lot of rhetoric being flung around. The simple fact is the outcome is not known with certainty, no matter what one side keeps suggesting, and that is why we go through this democratic exercise.

Yes, the outcome is only certain as long as nothing goes wrong to derail the outcome of the democratic vote.  This is a bad thing.  It is not a good feature to have a system where we spend a month taking a show vote where the best-case outcome is that it won't matter.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Aaanyway.... back on topic.

Alternatively, to fix the issue of "too few candidates", we could make it so that every listed party leader is up for election as Seneschal unless they either decline or nominate someone else in their stead (for example, if one such leader is also serving as the SoS). Then you presumably have at least three candidates and have to name two on your ballot anyway.

The problem would still exist, though, if - for example - there were a 2-party election. It happens in Talossa very occasionally. And - as Tric'hard has helpfully pointed out for us - if, for example, the minority party refused to nominate, and there was only one candidate, we'd be in trouble. Unless the ruling party/coalition named a second candidate for show, but the question of whether the current law allows one party to name more than one candidate seems ambiguous.

Look, all sniping aside, we need a solution which has both Coalition and TNC support. Is the sole contributor to the debate so far from the TNC representative in his contention that we should just abolish the Seneschal election altogether and go back to letting the King pick the Seneschal? Because that's not going to happen and we'd be at an impasse.

lol, I was going to quote back to you what you'd written about defections, but -- amazingly -- you've gone back and deleted it all!

Because I was wrong on the legality of it. Aside from that I endorse everything that my Coalition colleagues said.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

My previous suggestion for a minimal tweak was simply deleting:

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.

But Açafat don't like that, so how about:

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. If there are two or fewer nominations for Seneschal, a single preference shall constitute a valid ballot.

But I prefer the first version. The question is: which can get 2/3 of the Cosa? Would TNC MCs like to express a preference? Because AD's "let the King pick the Seneschal, lol we know who he'll pick if it's at all ambiguous" is a no-go.

We might also consider language which would clear up any ambiguity about whether parties could make more than one nomination. I would err on the side of explicitly forbidding it.

[Tric'hard Lenxheir]

There is a lot of rhetoric being flung around. The simple fact is the outcome is not known with certainty, no matter what one side keeps suggesting, and that is why we go through this democratic exercise. There are a lot of situations that could change the outcome. Let's keep our eyes in focus and instead of throwing verbal abuse, figure out a way to make the process work better so your exhausted Secretary of State can implement a smooth process that we can all agree on.

I probably shouldn't have asked for a seat, I am very passionate but hell, I'm a truck driver so I ain't the smartest guy in the world, not even in the top 50 here in Talossa LOL

That being said I do see a need for a fix I just don't really know how to go about crafting legislation and wording it properly. It should be a simpler process so that you don't get bombarded with work trying to keep everything straight and in my opinion if we are going to require MC's to choose two candidates it should be on some sort of a points basis (which would make more work for you) which would make it slightly more possible to win if you are not in the majority or conversely just have a straight up vote, one MC, one vote and that would remove the possibility of overturning the intent of the voters in the general election. Again, I know I'm not very smart

[Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir]

In response to the arguments about why the vote for Senechal by the cosa is needed, some of the arguments for this has already been made, but the main reason i believe it is needed, as it is a public declaration of endorsement of the new Seneschal, and in effect, whatever agreements made to put them in place. And until this vote confirms the Seneschal, things could still go awry in the intervening time until the vote. It is essentially a ratification of the incoming government, and its programme. It is more than just electing one person, it is formalising the government approach in the incoming cosa, and showing that they have the confidence of a majority of the Cosa, which until a vote is made, is uncertain, despite what might have been agreed beforehand.
So yeah, the importance is more that certain people believe in my view.

With proposals,

My previous suggestion for a minimal tweak was simply deleting:

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.

But Açafat don't like that, so how about:

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. If there are two or fewer nominations for Seneschal, a single preference shall constitute a valid ballot.

But I prefer the first version. The question is: which can get 2/3 of the Cosa? Would TNC MCs like to express a preference? Because AD's "let the King pick the Seneschal, lol we know who he'll pick if it's at all ambiguous" is a no-go.

We might also consider language which would clear up any ambiguity about whether parties could make more than one nomination. I would err on the side of explicitly forbidding it.

deleting that part is a decent possibility, and likely a fairer way.
The second one is what is currently being proposed in the bill, i think.

I agree with more forbidding making more than one nomination by a party, except in limited circumstances, such as unexpected absence/ill tidings of the nominee, which is why im leaning to having the write in, but explicitly only as a way for a party to name a new nomination and have MC's vote for a new candidate, in this event, but otherwise write in's arent valid? (basically, have it as a failsafe to help prevent a one person election) this concept needs tweaking, but i think is workable. And i have been convinced by arguments here that a free choice write in is a bit unworkable in this case.

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

There is a lot of rhetoric being flung around. The simple fact is the outcome is not known with certainty, no matter what one side keeps suggesting, and that is why we go through this democratic exercise. There are a lot of situations that could change the outcome. Let's keep our eyes in focus and instead of throwing verbal abuse, figure out a way to make the process work better so your exhausted Secretary of State can implement a smooth process that we can all agree on.

I probably shouldn't have asked for a seat, I am very passionate but hell, I'm a truck driver so I ain't the smartest guy in the world, not even in the top 50 here in Talossa LOL

That being said I do see a need for a fix I just don't really know how to go about crafting legislation and wording it properly. It should be a simpler process so that you don't get bombarded with work trying to keep everything straight and in my opinion if we are going to require MC's to choose two candidates it should be on some sort of a points basis (which would make more work for you) which would make it slightly more possible to win if you are not in the majority or conversely just have a straight up vote, one MC, one vote and that would remove the possibility of overturning the intent of the voters in the general election. Again, I know I'm not very smart

We do in essence have a point system, in that each MC has one vote for every seat, so for example you have 1 seat thus 1 vote. I'd be happy with removing the "two choices" required option if we only have two candidates, or we make it that every party must nominate a candidate, which increases the chances that there will be more than 2 choices.

As an aside, if you're smart enough to log into Talossa and engage with us, you are plenty smart enough to write legislation, etc. That's why we have the processes in place that we do.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

I have to reiterate that, in a situation where there were only 2 parties in the Cosa (it's happened before, I'm sure it'll happen again), we'd have the same issue here that people who're not familiar with Ranked Choice voting will find it violates their conscience to have to give an (effectively meaningless) preference to "the other guy".

[Tric'hard Lenxheir]

There is a lot of rhetoric being flung around. The simple fact is the outcome is not known with certainty, no matter what one side keeps suggesting, and that is why we go through this democratic exercise. There are a lot of situations that could change the outcome. Let's keep our eyes in focus and instead of throwing verbal abuse, figure out a way to make the process work better so your exhausted Secretary of State can implement a smooth process that we can all agree on.

I probably shouldn't have asked for a seat, I am very passionate but hell, I'm a truck driver so I ain't the smartest guy in the world, not even in the top 50 here in Talossa LOL

That being said I do see a need for a fix I just don't really know how to go about crafting legislation and wording it properly. It should be a simpler process so that you don't get bombarded with work trying to keep everything straight and in my opinion if we are going to require MC's to choose two candidates it should be on some sort of a points basis (which would make more work for you) which would make it slightly more possible to win if you are not in the majority or conversely just have a straight up vote, one MC, one vote and that would remove the possibility of overturning the intent of the voters in the general election. Again, I know I'm not very smart

We do in essence have a point system, in that each MC has one vote for every seat, so for example you have 1 seat thus 1 vote. I'd be happy with removing the "two choices" required option if we only have two candidates, or we make it that every party must nominate a candidate, which increases the chances that there will be more than 2 choices.

As an aside, if you're smart enough to log into Talossa and engage with us, you are plenty smart enough to write legislation, etc. That's why we have the processes in place that we do.

Heck you folks all like to speak in that sort of pseudo-Shakespearian language with wherefore's and hereto's and I just talk plain. I think the only thing I might be good for is coming up with an idea and then getting someone to write it out using the accepted verbiage and then hoping I still understand it enough to make sure it is what I was actually trying to say LOL

[Ian Plätschisch]

I must admit that an election to determine the Seneschal, when in practice the Seneschal is determined by parties making up a majority of the Cosa, is maybe not very useful. On the other hand, I totally understand the concern that, if the King gets to nominate whoever he wants, it might go badly.

What if we did something similar to how we select the Tuis'chach.
-MCs representing a majority of the Cosa present a petition to the King to appoint X as Seneschal. The King then must (and will be deemed to if he doesn't) appoint X as Seneschal.
-If no such petition is presented within X time, the Cosa holds a ranked-choice vote. This ensures that someone will be named Seneschal regardless of any impasse (although their government would probably not be very stable)

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I must admit that an election to determine the Seneschal, when in practice the Seneschal is determined by parties making up a majority of the Cosa, is maybe not very useful. On the other hand, I totally understand the concern that, if the King gets to nominate whoever he wants, it might go badly.

What if we did something similar to how we select the Tuis'chach.
-MCs representing a majority of the Cosa present a petition to the King to appoint X as Seneschal. The King then must (and will be deemed to if he doesn't) appoint X as Seneschal.
-If no such petition is presented within X time, the Cosa holds a ranked-choice vote. This ensures that someone will be named Seneschal regardless of any impasse (although their government would probably not be very stable)

This seems like a really good approach.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

If this approach can get 2/3 of the Cosa, then I don't have a problem with it.

[Ian Plätschisch]

I could come up with an amendment if this idea is popular enough.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

I'm in favour of moving forward on this, as long as it also deals with the other issue of the Seneschalsqåb falling vacant between elections and there might not be a Distáin. I.e., if the "nomination mechanism" can be triggered at other times than after a general election.

In addition: how about we put the election procedure into statute law so it can be tweaked when necessary? The process would be:

- delete OrgLaw IV.5 in its entireity;
- tweak OrgLaw IV.2 as follows:

The Seneschál shall be elected directly by the Cosâ in accordance with law, and his term shall expire upon the installation of his successor. The candidate chosen shall be appointed subsequently and forthwith by the King to serve as Seneschál. He shall maintain the confidence of a majority of the Cosâ alone in order to hold the office.

[Ian Plätschisch]

I'm in favour of moving forward on this, as long as it also deals with the other issue of the Seneschalsqåb falling vacant between elections and there might not be a Distáin. I.e., if the "nomination mechanism" can be triggered at other times than after a general election.

In addition: how about we put the election procedure into statute law so it can be tweaked when necessary? The process would be:

- delete OrgLaw IV.5 in its entireity;
- tweak OrgLaw IV.2 as follows:

The Seneschál shall be elected directly by the Cosâ in accordance with law, and his term shall expire upon the installation of his successor. The candidate chosen shall be appointed subsequently and forthwith by the King to serve as Seneschál. He shall maintain the confidence of a majority of the Cosâ alone in order to hold the office.

Are we sure we want the procedure in statute law? That seems too important to be changed willy-nilly.