|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jan 1, 2014 21:23:20 GMT -6
If all three small parties band together, they have a majority. I doubt a government will be appointed without that - it'd be inorganic, and grounds for an immediate suit.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Jan 1, 2014 21:26:34 GMT -6
You think you can sue the King for naming a Seneschál not to your liking, who can win a VoC? Where's my popcorn?
You really don't know Talossa's legal system if you think that.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jan 1, 2014 21:31:52 GMT -6
Well, out of curiosity, let's say the King appointed the RUMP to form a government. Presumably we would lose the first VoC, but does that mean the government was legitimate for a month?
Of course not. A group of voters would certainly sue because His Majesty broke the law.
|
|
|
Post by Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on Jan 1, 2014 21:47:25 GMT -6
If what you are saying is true, and the results are accurate, then the King's only option will to be dissolve the cosa and call new elections/ I don't see anywhere in Org Law saying that three parties cannot form a Government, all it says in regards to this at all is Org Law Article XI: The Seneschal Section II "The King appoints the Seneschal. If a single party occupies a majority of the seats in the Cosâ, the King shall choose as PM whichever individual shall be designated by that party. If no single party has a majority, the King shall appoint a Seneschál after consulting party leaders with the objective of finding a PM who can be sustained in subsequent Votes of Confidence by a majority of seats in the Cosâ. The King must appoint a new Seneschál or announce the continuation of the incumbent in office within one month of the end of elections, or, if after one month no candidate can be appointed with the support of a Cosâ majority, dissolve the Cosâ after the first Clark and call for new elections."
As I do not believe that the RPT will side with RUMP a MRPT/ZRT Coalition would be able to hold a majority of seats in a Cosâ to ensure a successful VoC as all the members in the parties are likely to voe UC on the VoC therefore I don't see any legal reason, if these results are correct, that a MRPT/ZRT coalition, if it goes ahead will be legally invalid, or even an MRPT/ZRT/RPT coalition if it happens. or in the event of this being refused fo some reason, then the only legal alternative is a new General Election as there will be no option of a government being formed.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jan 1, 2014 21:53:16 GMT -6
You misunderstand. You need a majority to form a government, and 50% or more to hold it. 100 out of 200 can hold the government in a VoC, since it's 50%, but 100 out of 200 isn't a majority, so it doesn't form a government. Org.XI.2 is the relevant clause.
So if the three small parties band together, they can form a government, and then keep it even if the RPT defects. But if the RPT won't cooperate to form a government, then new elections will be called.
|
|
|
Post by Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on Jan 1, 2014 22:02:35 GMT -6
Actually Alexandreu, to be precise all it says " finding a PM who can be sustained in subsequent Votes of Confidence by a majority of seats in the Cosâ" And according to Organic Law all you need is the Yes's to outnumber the No's in the VoC, so by the definition of this, if the RPT sits on the side lines, and everything stands, then according to this, a MRPT/ZRT coalition Government would meet the perimeters of Organic law. As they would hold enough of a majority to keep their government in power with the VoC. and the use of the word subsequent is key. if it said from the offset I would agree, but it does not, therefore I do not see how it would be in breach of this section of org law.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jan 1, 2014 22:06:22 GMT -6
Read: "or if after one month no candidate can be appointed with the support of a Cosa majority, dissolve the Cosa after the first Clark and call for new elections." Any Seneschal candidate initially needs "the support of a Cosa majority." wiki.talossa.com/Organic_Law_(text)#Section_2_10
|
|
|
Post by Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on Jan 1, 2014 22:13:46 GMT -6
Yes, but the definition of a majority under this section (as it uses the VoC to judge a majority) would be 100 seats, as that's enough to keep a government in office. I don't see a legal problem under organic law. as the basis of a majority is to pass a VoC and that is defined as a majority by the said article.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jan 1, 2014 22:27:26 GMT -6
I disagree. I won't repeat myself, but I can't imagine the King agreeing to appoint a PM who doesn't at least start with a majority. He has said as much.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Jan 1, 2014 22:30:08 GMT -6
Well, out of curiosity, let's say the King appointed the RUMP to form a government. Presumably we would lose the first VoC, but does that mean the government was legitimate for a month? Of course not. A group of voters would certainly sue because His Majesty broke the law. This is very, very, very wrong, and flies in the face of the experience of constitutional monarchy worldwide. Yes, if King John names you or another RUMPer Seneschál, you would have until the end of the first Clark to cobble together 100 seats, and your government is utterly legitimate until the Cosâ votes No Confidence. Of course no-one would "sue". In no country in the world would you think of suing a Head of State for appointing a Government which lost a vote of confidence! What Sir John Kerr did in Australia in 1975 was a horrific demonstration of why monarchy stinks, but it was by no means illegal or unconstitutional. (Look it up if you don't know the details.) This is the monarchical system you've been backing all this time, and it seems you haven't grasped the finer points. If, on the other hand, you want to switch to a German-style "constructive vote of confidence" - where the Cosâ votes on a Seneschál by 50% + 1 and then the King appoints that candidate - then I would be totally in favour of that, as more democratic.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Jan 1, 2014 22:31:03 GMT -6
What KJ1 will or won't do is a different matter. I'm explaining what he legally can do. Also, "majority" means "majority of those voting". If Maxime abstains on the vote of confidence - which he may well do, since whichever way you slice it there will be monarchists in the next Government - then that's still 100-96 for the good guys new team.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jan 1, 2014 22:35:02 GMT -6
What KJ1 will or won't do is a different matter. I'm explaining what he legally can do. Also, "majority" means "majority of those voting". If Maxime abstains on the vote of confidence - which he may well do, since whichever way you slice it there will be monarchists in the next Government - then that's still 100-96 for the good guys new team. We disagree on whether a suit is possible - or viable, that is to say, since it's certainly possible. I think it is my organic right, and can cite the relevant Talossan law providing me with a judicial hearing. I honestly don't know about the abstention thing. I know there is precedent in our cort. but I don't recall offhand.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Jan 1, 2014 22:37:44 GMT -6
... oh, silly me, I take the point back, I forgot that you're not allowed to abstain on the VoC in Talossa, for some benighted reason.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Jan 1, 2014 23:38:36 GMT -6
"The King appoints the Seneschal. If a single party occupies a majority of the seats in the Cosâ, the King shall choose as PM whichever individual shall be designated by that party. If no single party has a majority, the King shall appoint a Seneschál after consulting party leaders with the objective of finding a PM who can be sustained in subsequent Votes of Confidence by a majority of seats in the Cosâ."
Just for fun .... Technically speaking there are other possible options on the table.
The RUMP could name a candidate that has the support of a single listed ZRT or MRPT rogue MC. All the King needs to hear is that a particular PM candidate can pass a VOC. So, even if the rest of the MRPT/ZRT/RPT bloc says nay, one (or two) rogue MRPT MC(s) could prop up a RUMP minority government. I don't believe Talossa has ever seen a minority government.
The same goes in reverse. Alexander Davis, could, in theory, tell the King that he will break RUMP ranks and vote UC on the VOC for Gluc to be PM. Again, all the King needs to know is that an incoming PM has a majority of Cosa seats supporting him on future VoCs to satisfy Organic requirements. The OrgLaw doesn't dictate where this majority comes from or how bipartisan it appears.
It's highly unlikely, but it is a possibility, legally speaking.
And, a minority government would be fun, and tense, to witness.
|
|
Üc R. Tärfâ
Talossan since 3-8-2005
Deputy Fiôván Secretary of State
Posts: 760
|
Post by Üc R. Tärfâ on Jan 2, 2014 4:00:41 GMT -6
"The King appoints the Seneschal. If a single party occupies a majority of the seats in the Cosâ, the King shall choose as PM whichever individual shall be designated by that party. If no single party has a majority, the King shall appoint a Seneschál after consulting party leaders with the objective of finding a PM who can be sustained in subsequent Votes of Confidence by a majority of seats in the Cosâ." Just for fun .... Technically speaking there are other possible options on the table. The RUMP could name a candidate that has the support of a single listed ZRT or MRPT rogue MC. All the King needs to hear is that a particular PM candidate can pass a VOC. So, even if the rest of the MRPT/ZRT/RPT bloc says nay, one (or two) rogue MRPT MC(s) could prop up a RUMP minority government. I don't believe Talossa has ever seen a minority government. The same goes in reverse. Alexander Davis, could, in theory, tell the King that he will break RUMP ranks and vote UC on the VOC for Gluc to be PM. Again, all the King needs to know is that an incoming PM has a majority of Cosa seats supporting him on future VoCs to satisfy Organic requirements. The OrgLaw doesn't dictate where this majority comes from or how bipartisan it appears. It's highly unlikely, but it is a possibility, legally speaking. And, a minority government would be fun, and tense, to witness. Basically I understand that we run under a system of negative parliamentarianism just like Denmark. OrgLaw XIII.6 says "[...] If at the end of any month the "no" vote outnumbers the "yes" vote, the King shall dissolve the Cosâ and call new elections.". That means that a Government doesn't need to provide a majority, it just needs that there isn't a majority of votes against it. XIII.6 tells us how to interpret XI.2.
|
|