Slight Fix to Senechal elections

[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-GC]

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-GC]

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-GC]

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, O.Be]

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-GC]

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?

[King Txec]

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.

[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-GC]

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-GC]

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.

[King Txec]

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-GC]

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

[Sir 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)