[Cantzelerïă/Chancery] Proposed Rules for Seneschal Election

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

Assuming all 100 TNC seats are voted in favor of the VoC, which is likely, the trigger won't happen. I included the language because under Organic Law, a failed VoC automatically triggers a new election. Additionally, as there is no new government, the previous government is still in office as caretakers. I may have worded things a bit oddly, but a VoC is a VoC.

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

I mean, it's a vote of confidence in a government that doesn't exist yet. Calling a new election in the manner in which you suggest seems like it should either happen as a result of an immediate failure of a VOC on the second Clark, or because there is a new election called by dissolution as people affirmatively decide that no government can come together.

Organic Law is quite clear: "The Clark must contain, in every edition, a Vote of Confidence. Each MC may answer this question in his Clark ballot every month, either with a "yes" or a "no." If at the end of any Clark the "no" vote outnumbers the "yes" vote, the King shall dissolve the Cosa and call new elections."

It does not say if the Seneschal vote fails. It says if the no votes outweigh the yes votes, the King SHALL dissolve the Cosa. Show me where the wiggle room is in the law.

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

I see your point, but how could a RCV vote fail? Won't there be some sort of winner, no matter how votes are arranged?

There very well could be a tie in RCV (thus the current mess in Maricopa). There are 100 seats for the TNC and 100 seats for the other parties. A tie is a possible result based on preferences, etc. If all 100 seats in opposition vote for the same first and second or even third preferences, and every seat in the majority do the same, a tie will result and a second vote will occur on a subsequent Clark.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I thought the rules meant that led to a flip of a coin, right?

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I mean, it's a vote of confidence in a government that doesn't exist yet. Calling a new election in the manner in which you suggest seems like it should either happen as a result of an immediate failure of a VOC on the second Clark, or because there is a new election called by dissolution as people affirmatively decide that no government can come together.

Organic Law is quite clear: "The Clark must contain, in every edition, a Vote of Confidence. Each MC may answer this question in his Clark ballot every month, either with a "yes" or a "no." If at the end of any Clark the "no" vote outnumbers the "yes" vote, the King shall dissolve the Cosa and call new elections."

It does not say if the Seneschal vote fails. It says if the no votes outweigh the yes votes, the King SHALL dissolve the Cosa. Show me where the wiggle room is in the law.

Yeah, that is pretty clear, I guess. I was reading this to assume that the vote of confidence was a vote of confidence in the Government, and so implicitly a new election has already been held about the legislature's confidence in the executive. But probably your interpretation is more direct, even if the results doesn't make much sense.

Okay.

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

I thought the rules meant that led to a flip of a coin, right?

There is no provision in the proposed rules for a flip of the coin in the event of a tie. I'm no expert in RCV, so I'm not even sure a coin-toss is an option.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

I thought the rules meant that led to a flip of a coin, right?

There is no provision in the proposed rules for a flip of the coin in the event of a tie. I'm no expert in RCV, so I'm not even sure a coin-toss is an option.

RCV can choose any means to resolve a tie, just like plurality voting. It's actually *more* flexible in that the obvious tie-breaker is "go back to the previous round".

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I thought the rules meant that led to a flip of a coin, right?

There is no provision in the proposed rules for a flip of the coin in the event of a tie. I'm no expert in RCV, so I'm not even sure a coin-toss is an option.

Sorry, maybe I should have been reading more carefully... In a scenario where there's a tie and no tiebreaker, an equal division of a Cosa seat, Lexh.B.15 directs a coin flip. Maybe that should be included in the rules?

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

Yeah, that is pretty clear, I guess. I was reading this to assume that the vote of confidence was a vote of confidence in the Government, and so implicitly a new election has already been held about the legislature's confidence in the executive. But probably your interpretation is more direct, even if the results doesn't make much sense.

Okay.

Yeah, unfortunately it doesn't say "government" and I'm bound by the law if a VoC fails.

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

I thought the rules meant that led to a flip of a coin, right?

There is no provision in the proposed rules for a flip of the coin in the event of a tie. I'm no expert in RCV, so I'm not even sure a coin-toss is an option.

Sorry, maybe I should have been reading more carefully... In a scenario where there's a tie and no tiebreaker, an equal division of a Cosa seat, Lexh.B.15 directs a coin flip. Maybe that should be included in the rules?

If all parties agreed I'd be agreeable to adding in something like this: In the event of a tie, the King shall conduct a live coin toss, witnessed by chosen representatives of the two candidates.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I thought the rules meant that led to a flip of a coin, right?

There is no provision in the proposed rules for a flip of the coin in the event of a tie. I'm no expert in RCV, so I'm not even sure a coin-toss is an option.

Sorry, maybe I should have been reading more carefully... In a scenario where there's a tie and no tiebreaker, an equal division of a Cosa seat, Lexh.B.15 directs a coin flip. Maybe that should be included in the rules?

If all parties agreed I'd be agreeable to adding in something like this: In the event of a tie, the King shall conduct a live coin toss, witnessed by chosen representatives of the two candidates.

I actually kind of like the scenario that's been spelled out here, where a failure to form a coalition leads to another election. I know what happens in a lot of other parliamentary countries and I think it's very interesting and kind of cool. The fact that there's a month of legislating that can happen means that nothing would be paralyzed, and the fact that there's an incumbent government to continue in the meantime for another two months means that any disaster could be dealt with.

Fortunately, wiser heads than mine will be deciding this one for my party. I will put it out for them.

[Munditenens Tresplet]

When will nominations open?

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

- Under the provisions of Organic Law Article VI Section 2, should a Seneschal not be appointed prior to the first day of the first Clark, a Ranked Choice Vote to select the Seneschal shall appear on the First Clark.
- As the database is not currently equipped for this purpose, voting for Seneschal shall occur in a thread on Wittenberg concurrently with the First Clark.
- Only MC's may vote for a Seneschal. Senators have no vote.
- As Organic Law is relatively thin on the provisions of ranked choice voting for a Seneschal, the Chancery hereby proposes the following rules for voting:
- Votes shall be weighted by the number of seats assigned to each MC.
- Each party represented in the Cosa shall nominate one candidate for Seneschal prior to the posting of voting on Wittenberg. This should be done even if a Seneschal is elected prior to voting to ensure enough time for the actual vote.
- On the voting thread, there should be NO discussion or comments other than ranked choices.
- MC's will rank the candidates for Seneschal by preference (i.e. 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.) MC's should rank all candidates to avoid their ballots becoming exhausted.
- Should an MC rank the same candidate more than once, only the first appearance of that candidate on their ballot shall be counted.
- Failing to vote in the Seneschal election by an MC shall not count as a missed Clark unless that MC also fails to vote on the Clark itself.
- If a Seneschal candidate wins an outright majority of first-preference votes (50 percent plus 1) he or she will be declared the winner.
- If no Seneschal candidate wins an outright majority of first-preference votes, the candidate with the fewest first-preference votes is eliminated.
- All first-preference votes for the failed candidate are eliminated. Second preference choices on these ballots are then elevated to first-preference.
- A new tally is conducted to determine whether any candidate has won an outright majority of the adjusted votes.
- The process is repeated until either a candidate wins a majority of votes cast or a tie exists.
- If there's a tie after preferences, then we revert to the result of the previous round (which, in the case of only 3 candidates, would be the plurality result, i.e. just whoever gets the most first preferences). Only if it's still a tie then should we go for a revote on the second Clark.

I'd like to finalize these Seneschal election rules. Any last thoughts?

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

When will nominations open?

I opened them this morning.

[þerxh Sant-Enogat]

I'd like to finalize these Seneschal election rules. Any last thoughts?

None, apart from my remark on '50% + 1' which should be replaced by 'strictly more than 50%' (50%+1 for 199 expressed votes are 100,5 votes, which could be understood as 101 votes. In this case, 100 votes are enough for a majority out of 199 expressed votes).