[Chancery] Rules and Registrations December 2019 GE

[Açafat del Val]

Posting three times in a row is borderline spam, so I'm going to making this my last consecutive (no pun intended) post. I am getting my own self lost/confounded among all the debate.

We are trying to balance two conflicting maxims: (1) A Senator may not vote until he is a citizen for a year, holds a high office for six months, or is granted knighthood; and (2) a Senator vacates his seat if he fails to vote on two consecutive Clarks [among other conditions].

No one has disputed the following:

• Amada Merþedes reaches his citizenship anniversary on March 26.
  
• Amada Merþedes cannot vote in the Senäts until March 26.

Here are the questions which need answers:

1. Does an abstention on any question equal a vote of 'present'? Is 'abstain' the same as 'present'?
2. May a member of the Senäts vote 'present' (or otherwise abstain) while he is "unable to vote his seat"?
3. Under which circumstances, if any, may a member of the Senäts "fail to vote" without triggering V.5?
4. If there are circumstances under which a Senator may "fail to vote" without triggering V.5, which authority determines those circumstances and how are those determinations made?
5. With respect to Clarks, does "consecutive" include actual time passed?
6. If one Clark happens in June and the next in August but none in July, are the two considered "consecutive"?

My answers:

1. Yes.
2. No.
3. None.
4. N/A because of my above answer.
5. No.
6. Yes.

Your answers may vary.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

But you miss the question which the King himself has raised:

Does a Senator "fail to vote" when he is not permitted to vote?

The King says NO, and I prefer his logic.

[Eðo Grischun]

Dec 6, 2019 13:02:18 GMT -6 Açafat del Val said:

...holds a high office for six months...

He was a governmental Minister since sometime in the summer. Can anybody confirm if the Senator-elect has or hasn't held high office for six months already? He's been Minister of Interior, he held a Deputy role at some point too, and maybe something provincial?

If we can confirm he meets the high office for 6 months rule then that might put the whole thing to bed and actually qualify him to be able to vote in January.

[Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN]

Dec 6, 2019 13:22:26 GMT -6 Eðo Grischun said:

Dec 6, 2019 13:02:18 GMT -6 Açafat del Val said:

...holds a high office for six months...

He was a governmental Minister since sometime in the summer. Can anybody confirm if the Senator-elect has or hasn't held high office for six months already? He's been Minister of Interior, he held a Deputy role at some point too, and maybe something provincial?

If we can confirm he meets the high office for 6 months rule then that might put the whole thing to bed and actually qualify him to be able to vote in January.

OrgLaw Article IV: Election to the Senäts, Section 4:
Except as otherwise provided in the Organic Law, any Talossan who may vote may only be elected or appointed to the Senäts for his or her own province. No Senator, even though elected or appointed to the Senäts, may actually vote his seat until he has been a citizen for one year, or served for six months as Secretary of State or Prime Minister, or received an order of knighthood from the King. No person may simultaneously hold more than one seat in the Senäts. (47RZ32)

[Eðo Grischun]

Yeah, I just read that and came back to recant my last post. Beat me to it. I read the A-G saying "high office" and posted without checking which high offices.

[Açafat del Val]

Dec 6, 2019 13:07:53 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

But you miss the question which the King himself has raised:

Does a Senator "fail to vote" when he is not permitted to vote?

The King says NO, and I prefer his logic.

I didn't miss it; I just worded it more obtusely.

• Under which circumstances, if any, may a member of the Senäts "fail to vote" without triggering V.5?
• If there are circumstances under which a Senator may "fail to vote" without triggering V.5, which authority determines those circumstances and how are those determinations made

If we accept that a disqualification to vote does not constitute a failure to vote, as King John is arguing, then by what standard did we make that interpretation? I am the Senator-elect of Florencia: do I vacate my seat if I miss two consecutive Clarks because I was tending to my uncle's terminal bladder cancer in Seattle? It's an entirely understandable circumstance, but unlike the case of Amada Merþedes , I would have no remedy (or three) prescribed by the OrgLaw.

If we make an exception for V.5 in this case, then we have to start opening exceptions elsewhere, and my problem with that is that the plain language of the Section offers no such concession.

So, back to the whole set:

1. Does an abstention on any question equal a vote of 'present'? Is 'abstain' the same as 'present'?
2. May a member of the Senäts vote 'present' (or otherwise abstain) while he is "unable to vote his seat"?
3. Under which circumstances, if any, may a member of the Senäts "fail to vote" without triggering V.5?
4. If there are circumstances under which a Senator may "fail to vote" without triggering V.5, which authority determines those circumstances and how are those determinations made?
5. With respect to Clarks, does "consecutive" include actual time passed?
6. If one Clark happens in June and the next in August but none in July, are the two considered "consecutive"?
   

[Istefan Perþonest]

Dec 6, 2019 18:29:40 GMT -6 Açafat del Val said:

I didn't miss it; I just worded it more obtusely.

• Under which circumstances, if any, may a member of the Senäts "fail to vote" without triggering V.5?

That's not the question.

The question is, do all cases of a vote not being cast qualify as a case of failing to vote?

Here I'll go to the tenth definition in the OED:

10. a. trans. To leave undone, omit to perform, miss (some customary or expected action). Obs. exc. with inf. as object.

If a senator with the right to vote does not cast one, then they have failed to vote; they have omitted or missed the performance of their expected action. They might have a very good reason (tending an uncle with bladder cancer), but they still left the act undone.

But if a senator without a vote does not cast one, there is no failure. There is no action which they were expected to take, because there was no vote they could cast. They have made no omission, they left nothing undone. There was nothing to do.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

If someone cannot do something, they fail to do it. It may be unfortunate or unfair, but it remains true. In the terms being presented, "failure to vote" just means that the person did not vote. There is no conditional element to it, such as "due to circumstances beyond their control." The word "fail" is used several times elsewhere in the OrgLaw, and nowhere else would it have the meaning being suggested here -- where not being able to do something makes one unable to fail at it. IV.10 discusses that provincial executive failure to appoint a senator lets the king do it -- it wouldn't fly for the executive to say that they didn't have the ability to do so (being in jail or the like would not be accepted as an excuse and keep the office vacant forever). IV.12 discusses a "failed" expulsion of a senator in the same binary terms. "Failure to act" was explicitly cited as just being unable to do so when the rules regarding the removal of judges were passed in XVI.1. And if a provincial constitution "failed" to grant appeal authority to national courts in contravention of XVII.9, it would be understood as not being permissible -- not maybe still being okay.

If I try to fly by flapping my arms hard, I will fail. Yes, it was always going to be impossible for me to do that. But that doesn't mean that I didn't nonetheless fail. People fail at most impossible things

If Regeu fails to vote in two consecutive Clarks, even if it is impossible for him to do so, then he has failed to vote. There is no intermediate state on a binary condition. Vote or not. Fail or not.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

There is some slightly applicable precedent on this. The Conta Thord was knighted so that he could hold a Senate seat and vote with it, although it's not exactly pertinent since his ability to vote was actually necessary since it gave the Senats a quorum for ratifying appointments in the wake of the Great Abdication.

Maybe more pertinent is the fact that we just kicked out another big bunch of citizens for failing to vote or fill in a census. No provision or possibility of retention of their citizenship is allowed, even if they were unable to perform those actions. We have one shamed citizen in particular who has been unable to do these things because of his incarceration, and his eventual striking out is something greatly desired by everyone and anticipated to happen in due course.

[Istefan Perþonest]

Dec 6, 2019 22:05:53 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

If someone cannot do something, they fail to do it. It may be unfortunate or unfair, but it remains true. In the terms being presented, "failure to vote" just means that the person did not vote. There is no conditional element to it, such as "due to circumstances beyond their control."

The issue is not "due to circumstances beyond their control". The issue is that to leave something undone only constitutes failure when it is customary or expected to be done.

That you did not introduce the Trans-Pacific Partnership to the US Congress for enactment into law does not mean that you failed to do it (because of circumstances beyond your control); it simply indicates that you have never been in a position where it would be customary or expected, by anyone, that you do it. On the other hand, Barack Obama did so fail. He had the power, and the expectation came into existence when he signed it and thus committed under international law to see it come into effect. Why he did not to do so is of course irrelevant to the fact that he failed . . . but the irrelevance of the reason in his case does not metastasize into a failure by the other seven billion people in the world because they also did not take that action.

Dec 6, 2019 22:05:53 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

If I try to fly by flapping my arms hard, I will fail.

This is a separate sense/meaning of "fail", which is entirely dependent on the attempt. If you tried that, you would fail, but you are not at this moment failing at flying by flapping your arms because you are not attempting to, you are not expected to, and it is not customary for you to.

Dec 6, 2019 22:05:53 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

If Regeu fails to vote in two consecutive Clarks, even if it is impossible for him to do so, then he has failed to vote.

But if he does not attempt to vote, he has not failed to vote, because it is neither customary nor expected that someone who does not have a vote will cast a vote.

[Açafat del Val]

Dec 7, 2019 0:59:15 GMT -6 Istefan Perþonest said:

Dec 6, 2019 22:05:53 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

If Regeu fails to vote in two consecutive Clarks, even if it is impossible for him to do so, then he has failed to vote.

But if he does not attempt to vote, he has not failed to vote, because it is neither customary nor expected that someone who does not have a vote will cast a vote.

But he DOES have a vote and is simply not allowed to “vote his seat”. The distinction is incredibly important.

By your interpretation, the Senator-elect is not a member at all and lacks equal standing, which is untrue and is in conflict with OrgLaw principles (and standard parliamentary procedure). If he cannot fail because he cannot vote, then he is not a member even though he is.

By the other interpretation, the Senator-elect is a member, has a vote, has equal standing, is “expected” to vote as the representative of his province, and is simply prohibited to cast that vote until March 26.

Something else that irks me here is the total focus on Amada Merþedes. What about the province? As much as they elected him despite this disqualification, they are nonetheless deprived of representation until March 26 regardless of the outcome of this debate. That is as much a problem, if not a bigger problem, as the whole question over V.5.

The OrgLaw offers us three remedies very clearly. At this point, why are we squabbling over the minutia when we could merely grant a knighthood, revoke it after March 26, and be done with all of this? A totally painless solution.

That, or postpone two Clarks and hope that no one sues over the definition of “consecutive”.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Dec 7, 2019 0:59:15 GMT -6 Istefan Perþonest said:

Dec 6, 2019 22:05:53 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

If someone cannot do something, they fail to do it. It may be unfortunate or unfair, but it remains true. In the terms being presented, "failure to vote" just means that the person did not vote. There is no conditional element to it, such as "due to circumstances beyond their control."

The issue is not "due to circumstances beyond their control". The issue is that to leave something undone only constitutes failure when it is customary or expected to be done.

That you did not introduce the Trans-Pacific Partnership to the US Congress for enactment into law does not mean that you failed to do it (because of circumstances beyond your control); it simply indicates that you have never been in a position where it would be customary or expected, by anyone, that you do it. On the other hand, Barack Obama did so fail. He had the power, and the expectation came into existence when he signed it and thus committed under international law to see it come into effect. Why he did not to do so is of course irrelevant to the fact that he failed . . . but the irrelevance of the reason in his case does not metastasize into a failure by the other seven billion people in the world because they also did not take that action.

I have never tried to introduce the TPP for enactment, which is why I have never failed to do so. If I tried, I assure you that I would fail.

Dec 7, 2019 0:59:15 GMT -6 Istefan Perþonest said:

Dec 6, 2019 22:05:53 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

If I try to fly by flapping my arms hard, I will fail.

This is a separate sense/meaning of "fail", which is entirely dependent on the attempt. If you tried that, you would fail, but you are not at this moment failing at flying by flapping your arms because you are not attempting to, you are not expected to, and it is not customary for you to.

This is a good point. I suppose the distinction lies in the fact that one failure is on active terms, and one failure is on passive terms. You can fail to do something if you are required to do it and do not do so, as in the case under discussion. But if you do not try to do something and there is no condition requiring you to do it, you do not fail.

Otherwise, you can only fail to do something if you try to do it. There will be no such thing as passive failure.

Dec 7, 2019 0:59:15 GMT -6 Istefan Perþonest said:

Dec 6, 2019 22:05:53 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

If Regeu fails to vote in two consecutive Clarks, even if it is impossible for him to do so, then he has failed to vote.

But if he does not attempt to vote, he has not failed to vote, because it is neither customary nor expected that someone who does not have a vote will cast a vote.

Then by corollary, someone in prison -- thinking specifically of one person in particular -- cannot accumulate strikes under Three Strikes, since it's not possible for them to vote, then? And if they were a provincial executive, they would forever retain the power to appoint a senator until they lost their post, even after months had passed?

It seems as though we'd be establishing under Talossan law that no one could be held accountable for something beyond their power -- that you cannot fail to do something unless you made an active choice not to do it. Maybe we do want to go that way, but it does seem like it could be problematic.

Side note, since I remember someone asking: no, the Cort does not properly issue advisory opinions. The OrgLaw does not provide for the Cort to opine on any matter it wishes or that someone asks it about. This is for the good reason that it would be drastically expanding the Cort's authority and ability to insert itself into issues at a time of its choosing, providing the potential for it to play an active role in policy-making rather than its intended role as arbiter. "The Cort shall try persons for all offences under law, such as a person doing something he should not, or not doing something he should," and "may as part of its written decision call upon the Ziu, or if relevant, the Provincial legislature to revise (a confusing or unclear]) law" (Org.XVI.9-10).

Should the Cort ever begin to issue advisory opinions, it will be a dangerous road and we should start requiring regular elections to a position that will then be inherently political.

[Istefan Perþonest]

Dec 7, 2019 5:25:54 GMT -6 Açafat del Val said:

But he DOES have a vote and is simply not allowed to “vote his seat”. The distinction is incredibly important.

It's important, yes, but from the other side. He has a seat, but he does not have a vote.

Dec 7, 2019 5:25:54 GMT -6 Açafat del Val said:

By your interpretation, the Senator-elect is not a member at all and lacks equal standing, which is untrue and is in conflict with OrgLaw principles (and standard parliamentary procedure).

The existence of members of bodies without a vote might be nonstandard, but it isn't unprecedented. For example, there are the six non-voting members of the United States House of Representatives.

Dec 7, 2019 13:00:32 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Dec 7, 2019 0:59:15 GMT -6 Istefan Perþonest said:

But if he does not attempt to vote, he has not failed to vote, because it is neither customary nor expected that someone who does not have a vote will cast a vote.

Then by corollary, someone in prison -- thinking specifically of one person in particular -- cannot accumulate strikes under Three Strikes, since it's not possible for them to vote, then?

No. Someone in prison still has a vote in Talossa, and so they are expected to vote. That they cannot exercise their vote is a circumstance beyond their control, but it is still a failure to vote their vote. A penguin cannot fail to fly; an eagle in a small cage can.

---

Anyway. That's my two bence, but it's not like I'm a member of the Cort, Ziu, or Bar.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Dec 7, 2019 13:36:56 GMT -6 Istefan Perþonest said:

Dec 7, 2019 13:00:32 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Then by corollary, someone in prison -- thinking specifically of one person in particular -- cannot accumulate strikes under Three Strikes, since it's not possible for them to vote, then?

No. Someone in prison still has a vote in Talossa, and so they are expected to vote. That they cannot exercise their vote is a circumstance beyond their control, but it is still a failure to vote their vote.

The person in the Senats has a vote in the Ziu, and so they are expected to vote. That they cannot exercise their vote is a circumstance beyond their control, but it is still a failure to vote their vote.

[Eðo Grischun]

Dec 7, 2019 14:08:06 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Dec 7, 2019 13:36:56 GMT -6 Istefan Perþonest said:

No. Someone in prison still has a vote in Talossa, and so they are expected to vote. That they cannot exercise their vote is a circumstance beyond their control, but it is still a failure to vote their vote.

The person in the Senats has a vote in the Ziu, and so they are expected to vote. That they cannot exercise their vote is a circumstance beyond their control, but it is still a failure to vote their vote.

aah, but we all know the law is going to prevent him from being allowed to vote, so technically, we do not expect him to vote, thus no "failing". This argument will go round in circles.

What we really should expect is the law to say "no candidate may stand for election until criteria x,y and z are met", but it doesn't. It allows them to stand and take their seats and THEN place a limit on their ability to vote that seat until x,y and z are met. The law allowing them to stand for election and be seated, instead of placing a limit on standing for election at all, changes the expectations of that senator.