Slight Fix to Senechal elections

[Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir]

Thought id put my ideas for slight tweaks here.


Whereas, the recent Senechal elections have revealed a flaw,

Whereas, it is not fair on MC's to force them to vote for their opposition, in a two candidate race

Therefore, the following current text of law :-

The method of election of a Seneschál shall be Ranked Choice Voting. Each member of the Cosâ shall have as many votes in the election as the seats which he hold in the Cosâ, but shall cast his votes as one bloc and have no divided conscience. 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)

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)

Shall be replaced by:-

The method of election of a Seneschál shall be Ranked Choice Voting for 3 or more candidates, for 2, a straight majority vote of the Cosa will be required, limited to voting to one candidate only.. Each member of the Cosâ shall have as many votes in the election as the seats which they hold in the Cosâ, but shall cast their votes as one bloc and have no divided conscience. 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)

No member of the Cosâ may abstain in the election of a Seneschál, and shall rank on their ballot at least two distinct preferences, which itself shall be made public. If the Cosa member wishes to, as a second or third preference, they shall be able to vote for any sitting Cosa member, as long as the First preference vote is for one of the named candidates in the election. (54RZ23)

Uréu q'estadra så
Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir (MC - FreeDem)

[Tric'hard Lenxheir]

I agree with this, I am seriously considering suing over this as it is not clearly stated in the law that only those candidates nominated can receive votes.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

I'm sympathetic to removing the compulsory preferencing aspect, but I'm not in favour of allowing "write-in votes". Cosa elections are between parties and individual MCs act as agents of those parties. Parties should continue to determine who the candidates for Seneschal are.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

If elections are between parties, and no defections are permitted, why are we having elections conducted by individuals in the first place? Why aren't parties negotiating and voting as a bloc, as before? It's much faster, it's much simpler, and it more accurately represents what's actually going on. Plus, then no one needs to vote for someone that they find objectionable as an actual outcome.

[Tric'hard Lenxheir]

I'm sympathetic to removing the compulsory preferencing aspect, but I'm not in favour of allowing "write-in votes". Cosa elections are between parties and individual MCs act as agents of those parties. Parties should continue to determine who the candidates for Seneschal are.

The election of a Seneschal should probably just be changed to allow the majority party to put their choice in place. Otherwise having an "election" is really just a dog and pony show. The only way to change that without allowing third party or write in votes would be to require the incoming Seneschal to receive a certain percentage of the vote. A simple majority "election" is a farce in this case. I know I don't speak legalese like a lot of the people here but the truth is the truth whether it is in fancy words or simple words. Let me clarify that I have no axe to grind against or in favor of either candidate, I haven't been here long enough or had enough interaction with either to develop any sort of animosity. I just think it is wrong to basically force people from two different parties to "vote" for the other.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Well, I am prepared to die in a ditch over the principle that the Cosa is to elect the Seneschal. The good Baron wants to go back to the old days where the King made a judgement call. The monarchy-critical majority won't have that. I'm not sure what other practical alternatives there are. I mean, if a bunch of parties get together and say "we've got 101 seats", the opposition are entitled to say "prove it". Which is what this election process is supposed to be all about.

If we were going for a minimal reform, I would simply say that this whole section:

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

should be deleted, because I've never seen the point of banning abstentions in the Seneschal election. (Since people have effectively abstained before, the SoS has simply treated it as "strike 1" for losing-your-seats-for-not-voting purposes.)

But what I would much prefer, however, is that this discussion be combined with this previous discussion, on what happens if we need a new Seneschal between elections. As I've mentioned, I've been down with a mild case of The Pandemic for a week so I haven't had the chance to flesh out my ideas on that - but I think it's the same topic.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Well, I am prepared to die in a ditch over the principle that the Cosa is to elect the Seneschal. The good Baron wants to go back to the old days where the King made a judgement call.

You're phrasing it in a way to imply that His Majesty had some choice in the matter.  But if defections aren't allowed because parties choose the Seneschal as a bloc, then it's just down to who can form a coalition representing a majority -- there's no judgment call to be made!  If two parties representing a majority of seats announce that they will support a specific person for Seneschal, then... well, as Tric'hard said, it's just a dog-and-pony show after that.

Nothing actually important is happening in the current vote, for example.  It's purely for show.  The decision as to who would be Seneschal was worked out between party leaders in private.  I mean, after all, no one voted for Ian P. to be Seneschal -- you were the person who was held out as the candidate for literally the entire campaign, and your personal strengths as a leader were trumpeted by some of your most reliable allies like GV , who made a whole speech about that in particular.  But some important people made their backroom decision, and that's that.  If the outcome to the current vote was different from the decision of the party leaders, then you guys would be upset and consider it a problem to be fixed.

So why are we locking ourselves into a month spent taking a show vote?  Just to pretend that it matters?

We're a constitutional monarchy, so we should be using the monarchy in ways that take advantage of it.  It's a very simple judgment call that he never got wrong in the past, including for five years of FDT/MRPT/etc coalitions.  If he abused the power for the first time someday, it's hard to imagine that would go unanswered.  It's the perfect thing for the apolitical guy to do.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

But if defections aren't allowed because parties choose the Seneschal as a bloc

Defections are clearly "allowed" legally, and no-one on the Coalition side argued that they weren't. I - personally - had problems with the TNC leadership's secretive approach to a very inexperienced new MC (who was under a lot of personal stress anyway), and the way that pure "power" was offered as an incentive to betray a republican party's principles and ally with the monarchists. And I don't think it's a coincidence that Caleb resigned very soon afterwards. (The TNC approach was far from the most serious problem he was having, but I suspect it was a straw on the camel's back.)

My mind casts back to the one and only time a government fell on the VoC, because one Government MC simply forgot to vote. And fair enough, too! The Seneschal election should IMHO be like any other Cosa vote, in that it's down to individual MCs and parties' ability to mobilise them. There are other ways the election could operate, but you need 2/3 of the Cosa and I don't think you'll get any votes from the Free Democrats or the PdR for something which increases the Royal input.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Instead of trying for "the engine is coughing a bit so let's explode the car and go back to a horse-and-buggy" approach, I wish Opposition MCs would engage with these concepts:

If we were going for a minimal reform, I would simply say that this whole section:

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

should be deleted, because I've never seen the point of banning abstentions in the Seneschal election. (Since people have effectively abstained before, the SoS has simply treated it as "strike 1" for losing-your-seats-for-not-voting purposes.)

But what I would much prefer, however, is that this discussion be combined with this previous discussion, on what happens if we need a new Seneschal between elections. As I've mentioned, I've been down with a mild case of The Pandemic for a week so I haven't had the chance to flesh out my ideas on that - but I think it's the same topic.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

But if defections aren't allowed because parties choose the Seneschal as a bloc

Defections are clearly "allowed" legally, and no-one on the Coalition side argued that they weren't. I - personally - had problems with the TNC leadership's secretive approach to a very inexperienced new MC (who was under a lot of personal stress anyway), and the way that pure "power" was offered as an incentive to betray a republican party's principles and ally with the monarchists. And I don't think it's a coincidence that Caleb resigned very soon afterwards. (The TNC approach was far from the most serious problem he was having, but I suspect it was a straw on the camel's back.)

My mind casts back to the one and only time a government fell on the VoC, because one Government MC simply forgot to vote. And fair enough, too! The Seneschal election should IMHO be like any other Cosa vote, in that it's down to individual MCs and parties' ability to mobilise them. There are other ways the election could operate, but you need 2/3 of the Cosa and I don't think you'll get any votes from the Free Democrats or the PdR for something which increases the Royal input.

You vigorously argued a week ago that defections were unethical and shouldn't really be allowed if possible. I understand that they're technically possible, but wasn't the whole point that it was not supposed to occur in the ideal?  So if that's true, why would it be good to allow them in selecting a Seneschal?

And while I understand that the government could fall with a small coalition because of some chance accident, like that time it fell after the 6th Clark (so basically when it was going to end anyway, lol), that doesn't seem like a feature that we really want in particular. So there's no reason to make sure that we install it on the selection of our Seneschal. Who has ever sat around and said, "It would be great if our desired outcome collapsed because one MC got sick. We should write that into the law."

We shouldn't defend the status quo as good just because it's the status quo. It is objectively bad that our system would fail at selecting the Seneschal if someone got sick and couldn't respond to the fake vote we spend a month on.

[Tric'hard Lenxheir]

Well, I am prepared to die in a ditch over the principle that the Cosa is to elect the Seneschal. The good Baron wants to go back to the old days where the King made a judgement call. The monarchy-critical majority won't have that. I'm not sure what other practical alternatives there are. I mean, if a bunch of parties get together and say "we've got 101 seats", the opposition are entitled to say "prove it". Which is what this election process is supposed to be all about.

If we were going for a minimal reform, I would simply say that this whole section:

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

should be deleted, because I've never seen the point of banning abstentions in the Seneschal election. (Since people have effectively abstained before, the SoS has simply treated it as "strike 1" for losing-your-seats-for-not-voting purposes.)

But what I would much prefer, however, is that this discussion be combined with this previous discussion, on what happens if we need a new Seneschal between elections. As I've mentioned, I've been down with a mild case of The Pandemic for a week so I haven't had the chance to flesh out my ideas on that - but I think it's the same topic.

I like the between elections approach you put forth and quite honestly I think it would be a great approach even at the beginning of a cycle. 2/3rds majority should really be required for one candidate to be named Seneschal.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

It seems that @the author of the current system himself came up against the annoying "compulsory preferences" language. Given that, I wonder if that means he's happy with the proposals to remove that requirement?

[Açafat del Val]

I oppose any removal of the requirement. The issue is not requiring MCs to pick two preferences; it's MCs not having more than two choices for Seneschal.

This is a solution looking for a problem.

[Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir]

I oppose any removal of the requirement. The issue is not requiring MCs to pick two preferences; it's MCs not having more than two choices for Seneschal.

This is a solution looking for a problem.

I Disagree, due to the nature of Talossa, these situations are likely not going to be a one off. And forcing an MC to vote, for a nominee, that goes against their political views, clashes with their freedoms, and is tyrannical in the approach, and the proposal, still keeps  ranked voting for above 3 in the vote.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on Yesterday at 04:10:51 PM
I'm sympathetic to removing the compulsory preferencing aspect, but I'm not in favour of allowing "write-in votes". Cosa elections are between parties and individual MCs act as agents of those parties. Parties should continue to determine who the candidates for Seneschal are.

Also, with the write in, that i do feel the idea needs to be thought about more, as what happens if mid election, one of the candidates has to pull out, leaving one candidate, who they in good conscience would not vote for, i feel that having that option makes the system more democratic. And as is the system is too restrictions on MC's freedoms.

I am aware that we vote and govern with parties, and MC's as agents of those parties, so maybe there be a requirement that the party has to approve a write in first. I dont know, it is something that requires some thought.

But on the whole, this is an issue i feel strongly about, and respectfully, i have to massively disagree with Açafat del Val, who i feel is missing the point.

[Ián S.G. Txaglh]

i would go with the first change to remove the necessity of voting for a candidate i do not want to vote for, as it is reeeeeeally hilariously ridiculous. logically, with two candidates, there is no need to order them purely formally just for the sake of a case with 3 and more candidates. even if the second candidate would be acceptable, what would be the point? does it make the evaluation easier or clearer? nope.

the second change (write-in of any cosa member) is imho unnecessary once there is a nomination process.

Thought id put my ideas for slight tweaks here.


Whereas, the recent Senechal elections have revealed a flaw,

Whereas, it is not fair on MC's to force them to vote for their opposition, in a two candidate race

Therefore, the following current text of law :-

The method of election of a Seneschál shall be Ranked Choice Voting. Each member of the Cosâ shall have as many votes in the election as the seats which he hold in the Cosâ, but shall cast his votes as one bloc and have no divided conscience. 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)

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)

Shall be replaced by:-

The method of election of a Seneschál shall be Ranked Choice Voting for 3 or more candidates, for 2, a straight majority vote of the Cosa will be required, limited to voting to one candidate only.. Each member of the Cosâ shall have as many votes in the election as the seats which they hold in the Cosâ, but shall cast their votes as one bloc and have no divided conscience. 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)

No member of the Cosâ may abstain in the election of a Seneschál, and shall rank on their ballot at least two distinct preferences, which itself shall be made public. If the Cosa member wishes to, as a second or third preference, they shall be able to vote for any sitting Cosa member, as long as the First preference vote is for one of the named candidates in the election. (54RZ23)

Uréu q'estadra så
Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir (MC - FreeDem)