Nimlet election

[Glüc da Dhi S.H.]

Am I correct in interpreting the constitution that the Chancery is to conduct the Nimlet election?

Should there be an additional accompanying instructions?

[Açafat del Val]

...another reminder on my part that I need to update the Wiki with the new Constitution.

The relevant parts:

Section 4. Provincial Elections.

Unless the Nimlet have passed a resolution to the contrary which be limited to one election or referendum at a time, the Chancery of Talossa shall conduct each provincial election or referendum of Florencia as a matter of right, and this clause is for all intents and purposes a perpetual request to the Chancery for the same; provided that the Constable shall be responsible for this duty if the request be refused in good faith or the Chancery be practicably and actually unable to fulfill it.

The House of Shepherds shall be elected all at once for a term concurrent with that of the Cosa of Talossa, and the election for them shall be coincident with the General Election of the same, to be held on the same day in the same manner at the same times and places.

A qualified elector for the House of Shepherds shall exercise such vote by written ballot and indicate thereon an exclusive preference for one political party or, if without a preference, shall participate by abstention and indicate thereon the word “Present”.

Section 5. Composition of the House of Shepherds.

Whichever authority shall have conducted a provincial election for the whole House of Shepherds, either the Chancery of Talossa or the Constable of Florencia, shall publicly and at the same time, but not later than the tenth day following the certification of the same election:

   (a) Determine and fix the total number of seats for the new term of the Shepherds, which number shall be equal to the number of ballots returned in the election, less those returned and indicating “Present”, plus one additional seat for each incumbent Senator for Florencia, plus one additional seat for the Governor;

   (b) Apportion among those political parties, which have received votes in the election, their respective proportional share of the number of remaining seats with respect to their electoral performance, after the assignments to the Senators and Governor; and

   (c) Fix the date for the commencement of the session of the new Nimlet, to be not later than the thirtieth day following the aforesaid certification.

I suggest simply that the ballot instruct the voter to vote for a party or, to vote 'Present', as is the law. Beyond that, no other accompanying instructions are needed.

Though I remind the Secretary of State that, under Florencian law and pursuant to OrgLaw IX.3, he must also "determine and fix the total number of seats" and "apportion [the political parties'] respective proportional share of...seats" within 10 days of the certifying the election (among other things).

[Glüc da Dhi S.H.]

IX.3 just allows provinces to delegate their elections to the chancery. It says nothing about the Chancery being required to conduct every election a province requests in accordance with the specific wishes of that province.

It's long been tradition in Talossa for the Chancery to provide the raw vote totals and provinces to do whatever calculations they want with those. This appears to me quite sensible as the Chancery is better suited to conduct the election (already sending out a ballot to which a provincial election can, because of mpfs great work on the database, be added with the press of a button), but provinces are perfectly capable of following their own procedures themselves and this frees the SoS from having to be an expert of the election procedures of eight different provinces and doing eight different calculations after each election.

What the Chancery offers is a line on the ballot, option to include additional instructions to whats on the ballot by default* and the raw vote totals at the end.

* I think(?) it reads "[province] is running it's provincial election at this time. You can enter your vote(s) below and it will be compiled by the Chancery"

[Açafat del Val]

Although this is a subform specifically for Florencia, I invite anyone of the greater Talossan public to comment or answer.

If this is truly the case, then I wrote in a terrible provision of the new provincial constitution. I had interpreted IX.3 far differently; it seems pretty plain to me that "...may...delegate the conduction of their elections to the Chancery" includes the very basic tasks of announcing the results and fixing the proportion of seats.

Florencia needs a firm answer here. If the SoS is refusing to fix the number of seats, apportion them, and delcare an arbitrary day for the commencement of the new Nimlet session, then Florencia will enter a weird grey zone because the Constitution outright specifies that the Chancery must do it. Without the Chancery, there is legally no Nimlet... and without a Nimlet, there is legally no way to amend the Constitution and prevent this.

Will the SoS do this, or not?

But futhermore, what is the extent to which a province may, under OrgLaw IX.3, "delegate" its elections to the Chancery?

[Glüc da Dhi S.H.]

Although this is a subform specifically for Florencia, I invite anyone of the greater Talossan public to comment or answer.

If this is truly the case, then I wrote in a terrible provision of the new provincial constitution. I had interpreted IX.3 far differently; it seems pretty plain to me that "...may...delegate the conduction of their elections to the Chancery" includes the very basic tasks of announcing the results and fixing the proportion of seats.

Florencia needs a firm answer here. If the SoS is refusing to fix the number of seats, apportion them, and delcare an arbitrary day for the commencement of the new Nimlet session, then Florencia will enter a weird grey zone because the Constitution outright specifies that the Chancery must do it. Without the Chancery, there is legally no Nimlet... and without a Nimlet, there is legally no way to amend the Constitution and prevent this.

Will the SoS do this, or not?

But futhermore, what is the extent to which a province may, under OrgLaw IX.3, "delegate" its elections to the Chancery?

I am worried about creating a precedent that broadens the interpretation of Org IX.3 beyond what is traditionally expected of the Chancery. I'd love for the Chancery to help provinces out with those things the chancery does better than the provinces themselves. Knowing all details of provincial law is not one of them. Same for doing calculations with raw votes that are available to everyone. Note that the current Florencian law might still be relatively straightforward, but it wouldnt have to be. Provinces could for example also have a law that asks voters to rank several candidates and then use some complicated preference system to determine who wins.

As for now, my suggestion would be for you to assign the seats and set a date. There is also a long tradition in pretty much every province of citizens just moving ahead on their own when institutions fail. Just some of the most recent exaples are me conducting the Cézembre Sénéchal election months after it should have happened, postponing the deadline when there wasn't any candidate, and then starting up the election when there was, or Ian doing the MM assembly call when the M3 failed to do so. Unless there is some person or party affected in a negative way I doubt the courts are going to throw it out.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Although this is a subform specifically for Florencia, I invite anyone of the greater Talossan public to comment or answer.

If this is truly the case, then I wrote in a terrible provision of the new provincial constitution. I had interpreted IX.3 far differently; it seems pretty plain to me that "...may...delegate the conduction of their elections to the Chancery" includes the very basic tasks of announcing the results and fixing the proportion of seats.

Florencia needs a firm answer here. If the SoS is refusing to fix the number of seats, apportion them, and delcare an arbitrary day for the commencement of the new Nimlet session, then Florencia will enter a weird grey zone because the Constitution outright specifies that the Chancery must do it. Without the Chancery, there is legally no Nimlet... and without a Nimlet, there is legally no way to amend the Constitution and prevent this.

Will the SoS do this, or not?

But futhermore, what is the extent to which a province may, under OrgLaw IX.3, "delegate" its elections to the Chancery?

It looks like the Secretary of State is currently conducting the Florencian provincial election. But I am still unclear on the plans on how to proceed, post-Election, based on the quandary described below:

"...to fix the number of seats, apportion them, and delcare [sic] an arbitrary day for the commencement of the new Nimlet session, then Florencia will enter a weird grey zone because the Constitution outright specifies that the Chancery must do it. Without the Chancery, there is legally no Nimlet... and without a Nimlet, there is legally no way to amend the Constitution and prevent this."

Who will be fixing and apportioning seats, declaring a commencement day in order to prevent the "weird gray zone" created by the new Constitution?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

As the SoS is resigning, maybe his successor will sort this out.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

As the SoS is resigning, maybe his successor will sort this out.

This appears to be a constitutional issue. The power to fix seats and set commencement dates was moved from the Governor to the Chancery in the recent overhaul. The now-resigned SOS expressed reservations and the position is now (or soon-to-be-vacant).

Acting in a caretaker role as outgoing Governor I am happy to complete these administrative functions but there will need to be clarity on the matter.

[Açafat del Val]

If we are to follow both the letter and the spirit of the law, then we are unfortunately dependent on the SoS (incumbent or successor) to fulfill the very basic task of saying: "FreeDems 1 seat, LCC 7 seats, start of Nimlet [arbitrary date here]". If we don't care about the law - a bit of a hypocritical stance - then we could just do this ourselves.

In either case, I own up to and apologize for this debacle. I did not foresee a refusal by the SoS to comply with the OrgLaw or, more importantly, a very simple and very basic administrative task.

We will definitely want to amend the Constitution (if a new Nimlet can be formed) so to avoid this situation in the future.

[Açafat del Val]

To be extremely clear: There is no clarity on the matter. The Chancery has to complete this for us, by provincial law, or we have to break the law. It's cut and dried.

I personally would like to wait, in hopes that a successor SoS will do what his predecessor stubbornly and obnoxiously refused to do.

[Glüc da Dhi S.H.]

Well thanks...

The Chancery does not report to the nimlet, yet without consultation you wrote a provincial law telling the Chancery what to do. Nothing is stopping you from going to the CpI if you think I'm breaking the OrgLaw. I've tried to explain my perspective on this. Fine if you disagree with my interpretation, but please don't call me obnoxious.

(Edit: I'm fine with stubborn though)

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Well thanks...

The Chancery does not report to the nimlet, yet without consultation you wrote a provincial law telling the Chancery what to do. Nothing is stopping you from going to the CpI if you think I'm breaking the OrgLaw. I've tried to explain my perspective on this. Fine if you disagree with my interpretation, but please don't call me obnoxious.

(Edit: I'm fine with stubborn though)

Excellent riposte.

To be extremely clear: There is no clarity on the matter. The Chancery has to complete this for us, by provincial law, or we have to break the law. It's cut and dried.

I personally would like to wait, in hopes that a successor SoS will do what his predecessor stubbornly and obnoxiously refused to do.

I appreciate you taking responsibility for this debacle.
Mea culpas are sometimes difficult.
And for providing necessary clarity on the matter.

I don't know if the Secretary of State was consulted before the Constitution came into effect but he did seem blindsided. And definitely has a different interpretation of The Chancery's role in facilitating provincial elections. I wrote this before Gluc's response.

If we do not have a Secretary of State appointee (I assume we will) by the deadlines stated in our Constitution (and enter that "weird gray zone" you referenced in an earlier post) then I will revisit this issue.

Breneir

[Açafat del Val]

It is not difficult at all to accept blame when an error has occurred.

However, I stand by my assessment: the incumbent Secretary of State is being obnoxious. Perhaps he is not an obnoxious character or an obnoxious personality, but his decision in this matter is obnoxious and unduly burdensome. It is not unreasonable on behalf of this province to interpret IX.3, which says in part...

Provinces may conduct their elections themselves or delegate the conduction of their elections to the Chancery.

...as having the power to compel the Chancery to perform a simple ministerial task of the election.

I would like to point out that the incumbent Governor was invited to, and in fact did, collaborate on the same Constitution which is now posing an issue. The incumbent Constable (and King, for that matter) was invited likewise, but neglected to offer much constructive or substantial feedback. Certainly, if they had foreseen this same issue, then they would have spoken up.

I also point out, perhaps to our collective chagrin, that both the Governor and the Constable have had to be reminded during the previous Nimlet term to perform their provincial duties and, at least in one case, failed completely to do so despite those reminders. Worse: in another case, one of them took offense at having been reminded and informed - not threatened - of a potential lawsuit to compel constitutionally required performance.

One may call it ironic that a person would have been offended by a lawsuit seeking to remedy their own nonfeasance, but would then compliment and condone a malfeasant Secretary of State whose only defense is, "If you don't like it, sue me".

It is extremely pitiful that a lawsuit, whether potential or actual, is the only thing that gets attention in Florencia and produces results.

Mea culpas aren't difficult. I do hope that the named officeholders choose also to accept blame and work to fix their own errors.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

It is not difficult at all to accept blame when an error has occurred.

However, I stand by my assessment: the incumbent Secretary of State is being obnoxious. Perhaps he is not an obnoxious character or an obnoxious personality, but his decision in this matter is obnoxious and unduly burdensome. It is not unreasonable on behalf of this province to interpret IX.3, which says in part...

Provinces may conduct their elections themselves or delegate the conduction of their elections to the Chancery.

...as having the power to compel the Chancery to perform a simple ministerial task of the election.

I would like to point out that the incumbent Governor was invited to, and in fact did, collaborate on the same Constitution which is now posing an issue. The incumbent Constable (and King, for that matter) was invited likewise, but neglected to offer much constructive or substantial feedback. Certainly, if they had foreseen this same issue, then they would have spoken up.

I also point out, perhaps to our collective chagrin, that both the Governor and the Constable have had to be reminded during the previous Nimlet term to perform their provincial duties and, at least in one case, failed completely to do so despite those reminders. Worse: in another case, one of them took offense at having been reminded and informed - not threatened - of a potential lawsuit to compel constitutionally required performance.

One may call it ironic that a person would have been offended by a lawsuit seeking to remedy their own nonfeasance, but would then compliment and condone a malfeasant Secretary of State whose only defense is, "If you don't like it, sue me".

It is extremely pitiful that a lawsuit, whether potential or actual, is the only thing that gets attention in Florencia and produces results.

Mea culpas aren't difficult. I do hope that the named officeholders choose also to accept blame and work to fix their own errors.

Cool stories, bro.
Looking forward to the commencement of the next Nimlet. Let's get this situation fixed. 

[Açafat del Val]

I don't know about cool stories, but they are true stories. Is this a dare to attach the email chain as well as link the Google Doc? I have no qualms about disclosing proof that the Governor and the Constable had a chance to remedy this themselves and now one of them has the gumption to pretend it's not his own shared failure.

You'll have a virtual monopoly in the next term. Have at it. Hell, write a new constitution altogether. But don't condescend Florencia with this intellectual dishonesty and passive aggression.

If you had the time to use riposte in a sentence, then you surely have time to write something more constructive and befitting of your office than "cool stories, bro".