The election timing amendment

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

WHEREAS elections now occur the month after the dissolution AND

WHEREAS the dissolution was on January 4th AND

WHEREAS this section of the organic law means the election starts on Februrary 15th AND

WHEREAS there is no provision for that additional month of waiting, therefore causing an impossible contradiction in the organic law 

THEREFORE the Ziu resolves to put to referendum the follow amendment to the organic law, in Article VII

Section 3, which currently reads:

All elections to the Cosa are to be conducted during a period beginning from the fifteenth day of the calendar month following the dissolution of the prior Cosa until 7:30 p.m. on the first day of the subsequent month. The first day of this period (the fifteenth) is called the "Balloting Day" and the final day is called the "Election Deadline."

is replaced by:

All elections to the Cosa are to be conducted during a period beginning from the fifteenth day of the calendar month following the last Clark or final month of Recess of the prior Cosa until 7:30 p.m. on the first day of the subsequent month. The first day of this period (the fifteenth) is called the "Balloting Day" and the final day is called the "Election Deadline."

Proposed by Marti-Pair Furxheir, Secretary of State

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

This solves the issue even better, in my opinion. No need to have the King deemed to have signed or anything. We just set the election contigent to the last Clark (or recess) and that way. if this had been in place, the election would have been on January 15th, unambiguously.

The King still needs to sign a Writ of Dissolution, but if he doesn't, the election can still go on.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Jan 5, 2016 6:39:30 GMT -6 Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. said:

if this had been in place, the election would have been on January 15th, unambiguously.

But wasn't your position that even after the 1st of January the Seneschal could declare a month of recess for January? Unless I've misunderstood something, that's what you thought had happened until this morning. I don't see how this amendment would change that.

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Jan 5, 2016 7:45:56 GMT -6 Sir C. M. Siervicül said:

Jan 5, 2016 6:39:30 GMT -6 Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. said:

if this had been in place, the election would have been on January 15th, unambiguously.

But wasn't your position that even after the 1st of January the Seneschal could declare a month of recess for January? Unless I've misunderstood something, that's what you thought had happened until this morning. I don't see how this amendment would change that.

And it is still my position that the Seneschal CAN declare a month of Recess and this bill doesn't change that.  In fact, in the end, we didn't have a month of Recess, so that part is moot. I was in error.

What changed, was that the implied month of Recess was used to reconcile the contradictions between "The election occurs the month after the Writ" and "The Writ must be issued during the last month" and "the writ was issue the next month", by saying:

"It doesn't matter when the Writ is written, the election timing is based on what triggers the Writ."

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

I think this is stuff that should be brought to the attention of the Royal Commission.

Another amendment which would be relevant to recent crises is giving the Head of State the power, if the Government fails a VoC, to actually sack the Government and appoint a caretaker between the failed VoC and the forthcoming election. I get the feeling that most of the people who are raving angry about the current drama are not so much angry about a late election but about the FreeDem-led government surviving a month longer than expected.

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Jan 5, 2016 13:08:49 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

I think this is stuff that should be brought to the attention of the Royal Commission.

Another amendment which would be relevant to recent crises is giving the Head of State the power, if the Government fails a VoC, to actually sack the Government and appoint a caretaker between the failed VoC and the forthcoming election. I get the feeling that most of the people who are raving angry about the current drama are not so much angry about a late election but about the FreeDem-led government surviving a month longer than expected.

And the King should be able to nominate a replacement PM should he feel that a new coalition can survive.

Imagine Party A gets 80 seats, Party B gets 75 Seats and Party C gets the remaining 45 seats.

Party A and C make a coalition and the first Clark gets 125 Yes and 75 No on the VOC.

In the 2nd Clark, Party C leaves the coalition and joins party B into opposing Party A, to the VOC fails, 80 Yes, 120 No.

We go back to election, right?

Except that Party B and C are ready to form a coalition which would have 120 Yes in the VOC and 80 No, more than enough to survive a VOC.

Should we involve the voters again? After all, they did pick that particular combination.

Now, it's up to the King to decide if the new coalition is stable enough and if it respects the wishes of the voters, but it would be better than such an early election, no?

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

That's an interesting question. I'd prefer the Head of State to be able to appoint a new government without an election in the case of a VoC fail, at least on the first three Clarks.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

There is a mechanism at OrgLaw XI:6 for a Cosa majority to direct the King to appoint a new Seneschal rather than voting no-confidence and triggering new elections.