Slight Fix to Senechal elections

[Mic’haglh Autófil, SMC EiP]

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.

I think AdV is right about the root of the problem, but I think that even in such a case, this solution would still be fine. I feel like the two changes conflict with each other a bit though -- if there are only two candidates, you only need to vote for one, but can also write in a second choice if you want to? Do I have that right?

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.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

...but what is the point?  Why not just have the party leaders officially declare that their party backs such-and-such?  Do we need the dog-and-pony show?  "Party leaders, each representing their party caucuses entire and voting their party's seats as a bloc, shall publicly indicate their support for a Talossan of their choice.  Whichsoever candidate has public declarations with a total that represents a majority shall be pronounced the winner by the Secretary of State."

[Tric'hard Lenxheir]

...but what is the point?  Why not just have the party leaders officially declare that their party backs such-and-such?  Do we need the dog-and-pony show?  "Party leaders, each representing their party caucuses entire and voting their party's seats as a bloc, shall publicly indicate their support for a Talossan of their choice.  Whichsoever candidate has public declarations with a total that represents a majority shall be pronounced the winner by the Secretary of State."

Perhaps I am misunderstanding what the "ranked vote" means?

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

...but what is the point?  Why not just have the party leaders officially declare that their party backs such-and-such?  Do we need the dog-and-pony show?  "Party leaders, each representing their party caucuses entire and voting their party's seats as a bloc, shall publicly indicate their support for a Talossan of their choice.  Whichsoever candidate has public declarations with a total that represents a majority shall be pronounced the winner by the Secretary of State."

Perhaps I am misunderstanding what the "ranked vote" means?

The idea behind a ranked vote is that you list your preferences in order.  If your first choice doesn't get a majority, then your vote instead is moved to count for the second choice.  And so on with your third choice.

But in this instance, party leaders nominate the only viable candidates, and no one's supposed to defect from their party choice.  So (a) there's no point to a ranked vote, since someone's always going to win on the first ballot based on whoever was chosen by party leaders, and (b) there's no point to a vote at all, since the real decision was made by party leaders when they agreed on a coalition.  The only thing this accomplishes is that it enables defections, which people were just decrying as a terrible thing that never happens (even though they were wrong about that).

[Tric'hard Lenxheir]

...but what is the point?  Why not just have the party leaders officially declare that their party backs such-and-such?  Do we need the dog-and-pony show?  "Party leaders, each representing their party caucuses entire and voting their party's seats as a bloc, shall publicly indicate their support for a Talossan of their choice.  Whichsoever candidate has public declarations with a total that represents a majority shall be pronounced the winner by the Secretary of State."

Perhaps I am misunderstanding what the "ranked vote" means?

The idea behind a ranked vote is that you list your preferences in order.  If your first choice doesn't get a majority, then your vote instead is moved to count for the second choice.  And so on with your third choice.

But in this instance, party leaders nominate the only viable candidates, and no one's supposed to defect from their party choice.  So (a) there's no point to a ranked vote, since someone's always going to win on the first ballot based on whoever was chosen by party leaders, and (b) there's no point to a vote at all, since the real decision was made by party leaders when they agreed on a coalition.  The only thing this accomplishes is that it enables defections, which people were just decrying as a terrible thing that never happens (even though they were wrong about that).

How about this for an idea. To me ranked voting would be something similar to the Talossa Music thing. First choice gets 2 points and second choice gets 1 point. That would make it possible (though unlikely) for a secondary candidate to actually win. The current set up really serves no purpose. If people like this idea then they might as well just allow the majority party to name a Seneschal. I mean...what happens if only one party nominates a candidate???

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

...but what is the point?  Why not just have the party leaders officially declare that their party backs such-and-such?  Do we need the dog-and-pony show?  "Party leaders, each representing their party caucuses entire and voting their party's seats as a bloc, shall publicly indicate their support for a Talossan of their choice.  Whichsoever candidate has public declarations with a total that represents a majority shall be pronounced the winner by the Secretary of State."

Perhaps I am misunderstanding what the "ranked vote" means?

The idea behind a ranked vote is that you list your preferences in order.  If your first choice doesn't get a majority, then your vote instead is moved to count for the second choice.  And so on with your third choice.

But in this instance, party leaders nominate the only viable candidates, and no one's supposed to defect from their party choice.  So (a) there's no point to a ranked vote, since someone's always going to win on the first ballot based on whoever was chosen by party leaders, and (b) there's no point to a vote at all, since the real decision was made by party leaders when they agreed on a coalition.  The only thing this accomplishes is that it enables defections, which people were just decrying as a terrible thing that never happens (even though they were wrong about that).

How about this for an idea. To me ranked voting would be something similar to the Talossa Music thing. First choice gets 2 points and second choice gets 1 point. That would make it possible (though unlikely) for a secondary candidate to actually win. The current set up really serves no purpose. If people like this idea then they might as well just allow the majority party to name a Seneschal. I mean...what happens if only one party nominates a candidate???

Unfortunately, I think you're still thinking of this like a real vote. But it just is not. I know it seems weird, but the outcome was already decided. If the winner is not who the party leaders decided upon, then that would be a problem. So any method that might get a surprise is a bad one.

If only one party nominates a candidate, then that person is sure to win a majority. That might seem weird, but the situation is already weird. Here we are, undergoing a show vote, when again only one person can possibly win, because the outcome was decided last month. This is all just literally for show. It's not a real vote.

[Tric'hard Lenxheir]

...but what is the point?  Why not just have the party leaders officially declare that their party backs such-and-such?  Do we need the dog-and-pony show?  "Party leaders, each representing their party caucuses entire and voting their party's seats as a bloc, shall publicly indicate their support for a Talossan of their choice.  Whichsoever candidate has public declarations with a total that represents a majority shall be pronounced the winner by the Secretary of State."

Perhaps I am misunderstanding what the "ranked vote" means?

The idea behind a ranked vote is that you list your preferences in order.  If your first choice doesn't get a majority, then your vote instead is moved to count for the second choice.  And so on with your third choice.

But in this instance, party leaders nominate the only viable candidates, and no one's supposed to defect from their party choice.  So (a) there's no point to a ranked vote, since someone's always going to win on the first ballot based on whoever was chosen by party leaders, and (b) there's no point to a vote at all, since the real decision was made by party leaders when they agreed on a coalition.  The only thing this accomplishes is that it enables defections, which people were just decrying as a terrible thing that never happens (even though they were wrong about that).

How about this for an idea. To me ranked voting would be something similar to the Talossa Music thing. First choice gets 2 points and second choice gets 1 point. That would make it possible (though unlikely) for a secondary candidate to actually win. The current set up really serves no purpose. If people like this idea then they might as well just allow the majority party to name a Seneschal. I mean...what happens if only one party nominates a candidate???

Unfortunately, I think you're still thinking of this like a real vote. But it just is not. I know it seems weird, but the outcome was already decided. If the winner is not who the party leaders decided upon, then that would be a problem. So any method that might get a surprise is a bad one.

If only one party nominates a candidate, then that person is sure to win a majority. That might seem weird, but the situation is already weird. Here we are, undergoing a show vote, when again only one person can possibly win, because the outcome was decided last month. This is all just literally for show. It's not a real vote.

Based upon the rules set forth if only one candidate was available then the election would have to be thrown out completely as all votes would be invalid. The rules require each MC to select two candidates or their vote becomes invalid.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

They would probably just handwave it away, and that would be that. When a law is really badly written, then sometimes it's going to be difficult to implement, and may even be logistically impossible at times. The people in charge of implementing it generally do their best, in a case with an obvious outcome and no clear alternative solution, I don't think anyone would get sued in that circumstance.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Based upon the rules set forth if only one candidate was available then the election would have to be thrown out completely as all votes would be invalid. The rules require each MC to select two candidates or their vote becomes invalid.

That's absolutely right, I was wondering whether someone else would notice that. So something needs fixing.

BTW, AD is just talking nonsense about "no-one's allowed to defect". Seneschal votes are just like any other votes, MCs can vote how they want. Our objection was the sleazy, cynical and manipulative way that the TNC leader tried to peel off an inexperienced Coalition MC who was having a bad time already, for unrelated reasons.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

This is not the first time AD has just made up an untruth for political advantage and repeated it over and over again, with the ring of confidence, to inexperienced citizens who don't think for a second that an experienced Talossan would just lie to them for political advantage. But it's up to the rest of us to rebut him, and he does it with such indefatigable (demonic?) energy that that is an unpleasant and demanding chore for the rest of us.

(I should not that Costanza's Law applies here - "it's not a lie if you believe it". I know that AD tells complete untruths with such absolutely verve and conviction that maybe he believes it, and really does believe he has a reputation for "unimpeachable honesty" rather than being Talossa's Roger Stone.)

It's amazing because it's also a defeatist attitude from the TNC. If the TNC were to round up not only Mximo, but Dien and the two new citizens (which won't happen, but they're entitled to give it a go), and if one FreeDem or PdR candidate failed to vote (or purposefully cast an invalid vote in a fit of pique), the TNC candidate would win and become Seneschal. I've been having nightmares about precisely that happening, but it would be utterly legitimate - just like it was legitimate that time our Government fell because one MC forgot to vote on the VOC and we had a 2-seat majority. Every single VoC during this Cosa will count, and I would have assumed the TNC would be hoping every month that this is the month they can get a defection, or some Coalition MC will fall asleep?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

there's no point to a vote at all, since the real decision was made by party leaders when they agreed on a coalition. 

The genius of the system is: what happens if there is no coalition deal? In Belgium, for example, it sometimes takes 9 months for the feuding parties from 3 different ethnic communities to sign on the dotted line. In the Talossan system, if 1 month after the election there's no coalition deal, it goes to a vote in the Cosa rather than indefinitely drawn-out negotiations. That's where the ranked-choice ballot proves its worth.

If people like this idea then they might as well just allow the majority party to name a Seneschal.

But how do you know who is the majority party without a vote on the floor of the Cosa? AD keeps telling you "defections are impossible", but that's a total lie. He's piqued because his party leader tried to get a defection in a sleazy, backhanded way. Votes in the Cosa have always depended on who actually turns up to vote. A Government fell because one MC didn't turn up and they lost their majority. The Seneschal election works exactly the same way. All votes in the Cosa are votes by real people, not "card votes" by party leaders. Defections or people forgetting is always a possibility. A Cosa majority has to not only win the election but make sure they get their MCs to vote, every single time. I think that's the beauty of our system.

[Mic’haglh Autófil, SMC EiP]

Unfortunately, I think you're still thinking of this like a real vote. But it just is not. I know it seems weird, but the outcome was already decided. If the winner is not who the party leaders decided upon, then that would be a problem. So any method that might get a surprise is a bad one.

If only one party nominates a candidate, then that person is sure to win a majority. That might seem weird, but the situation is already weird. Here we are, undergoing a show vote, when again only one person can possibly win, because the outcome was decided last month. This is all just literally for show. It's not a real vote.

Yes and no. In this particular case, yes, the outcome was largely decided, but that doesn't mean situations can't happen where the outcome is less certain until much later. I have a hard time seeing every government formation being so easily-foreseen.

Even in cases where the outcome is largely predetermined, you need a way other than simply saying "well So-and-so is going to be the Seneschal now" -- something publicly verifiable. We pretty much know who the President is going to be by the middle of November, but NBC and CBS don't decide who wins the election. The Electoral College does.

And, as Miestra said, defections do happen. Internal disagreements and dissatisfaction with negotiations can manifest when it comes time to actually put things to a vote. Just when it's encouraged from a source external to an individual party, that's what sort of shakes the underlying assumptions of a parliamentary system (as S:reu Tafial pointed out in the original thread).

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

This is not the first time AD has just made up an untruth for political advantage and repeated it over and over again, with the ring of confidence, to inexperienced citizens who don't think for a second that an experienced Talossan would just lie to them for political advantage. But it's up to the rest of us to rebut him, and he does it with such indefatigable (demonic?) energy that that is an unpleasant and demanding chore for the rest of us.

It's amazing because it's also a defeatist attitude from the TNC. If the TNC were to round up not only Mximo, but Dien and the two new citizens (which won't happen, but they're entitled to give it a go), and if one FreeDem or PdR candidate failed to vote (or purposefully cast an invalid vote in a fit of pique), the TNC candidate would win and become Seneschal. I've been having nightmares about precisely that happening, but it would be utterly legitimate - just like it was legitimate that time our Government fell because one MC forgot to vote on the VOC and we had a 2-seat majority.

You just spent last week making a big deal about how this shouldn't be allowed and was not legitimate in a parliamentary democracy. You were very incensed about it. But I fear that your passion again outruns the facts.

As I have repeatedly said, I understand that technically it's legal for people to defect and force someone to otherwise get elected. But much ado has been made about how this is wrong and should never happen. As I understand it, everyone is supposed to vote the party line. And that makes this just a show, even though it's a show that can go disastrously wrong.

Indeed, there are variety of ways it can go wrong. We just saw widespread confusion in enacting the procedure, for example, where five people voted but failed to actually register a vote. Or people can defect, even though that's a horrible thing that should not be permitted (as you have loudly stated). Or people or their loved ones can get sick. All of these things can contribute to significant failures of the process. And none of that is good! None of it is a feather in the cap for this current election show, which at best contributes nothing, and at worst destabilizes the results of the preceding election.

The real result was privately decided last month. As much as possible, the real result should not require a laborious kabuki show to take effect.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

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?

[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.