Chancellery Seats Distribution, 45th Cosa

[Istefan Perþonest]

Based on the currently presented voting results, we have 15 votes distributed as RUMP 6, CSPP 2, MRPT 2, NPW 3, IND 2.

That translates to 4.40 RUMP seats, 2.20 NPW seats, 1.46̅ CSPP seats, 1.46̅ MRPT seats, and 1.46̅ IND seats.

Given the 11 seats in the Chancellery, that works out to:

RUMP: 4
NPW: 2
CSPP: 1
MRPT: 1
IND: 1

And 2 seats to which CSPP, MRPT, and IND each have equal fractional but-less-than-50% claims, with RUMP not far behind and NPW at least some interest.

Do we have any established procedure for this?

[Istefan Perþonest]

Looking at the past, there doesn't seem to actually be a precedent here for a three-way equal claim to multiple seats in the Chancellery. If there is one, the following will be subject to revision, if it's brought to my attention before 4 PM Talossan Standard Time.

In my role as both as Arvitier Prima and as (outgoing) Maestro, I am making the following decision regarding how the two seats will be distributed among the three parties with equal highest fractional claims:

For the first seat, the first number drawn for the Badger 5 game by the Wisconsin Lottery on Monday, April 15, 2013, as reported by wilottery.com/lottogames/numbersOD.aspx, shall be consulted as a suitably random source outside the control of any partisan influence. If the number is 1-10, the CSPP will get the seat; if 11-20, the IND will get the seat, if 21-30, the MRPT will get the seat. In case of a 31, the second number drawn will be consulted with the same ranges. Since the same number cannot be drawn twice, this should suffice to produce a conclusion.

The two of the three parties (CSPP, IND, MRPT) not getting a seat by the above procedure will be in contention for the second seat. For the second seat, the first number drawn for the Pick 4 game will be consulted. If odd, the seat will go to the alphabetically first of the two parties; if even, the seat will go to the alphabetically last of the two parties. (Zero is indeed an even number, if anybody had any question.)

In the case that either scheduled game is not held due to some sort of disaster, we'll use Tuesday results, unless the disaster totally takes out Wisconsin's ability to hold the game(s). In that case, I'll come up with something else.

[Lüc da Schir]

It seems a quite strange way of assigning seats though.

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

How are the seats assigned to party members? By the provincial party leader or the national party leader?

[Vit Caçeir]

During my experience in the Mussolinian/Benitian Corporative Chamber, the seats were assigned by each party's respective national leaders. Whether or not the legislature has changed this practice along with its name is unknown to me, but I'll browse our old threads later this evening to check for precedent. As long as we're self-governing, I also propose we codify a statutory procedure for this in our first Clark.

[Istefan Perþonest]

Apr 15, 2013 7:39:35 GMT -6 Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă said:

How are the seats assigned to party members? By the provincial party leader or the national party leader?

There doesn't seem to be anything established in law, so as far as I'm concerned it's the job of each party to decide how it assigns the seats it won (by national leader, by local leader, by procedure laid out in party bylaws, etc.). Which in practice will default to by-national-leader in case of a conflict and no written party rules to the contrary.

Any objections?

[Istefan Perþonest]

Apr 15, 2013 6:25:22 GMT -6 Lüc da Schir said:

It seems a quite strange way of assigning seats though.

It's the "Largest Remainder" method, with a random-allocation tiebreaker among the three with equal claim.

If we did it Sainte-Laguë method (a common version of Highest Average), the seat distribution comes out RUMP 4, NPW 2, CSPP 1, IND 1, MRPT 1, and all four of the CSPP, IND, MRPT, and RUMP would all have the same claim to one of the remaining two seats, requiring a tiebreaker.

If we did it D'Hondt (the other common method of Highest Average), then it would be RUMP 5, NPW 2, CSPP 1, IND 1, MRPT 1, and then each and every one of the five parties would have an equal claim to the last seat, requiring a tiebreaker.

[Istefan Perþonest]

Looking further:

Danish method would produce the same results as the "Hamilton" largest remainder method used, complete with the three-way tie.

Imperiali, which is known to blatantly favor larger parties, would give no tie, but would allocate RUMP 6 seats, NPW 2, and everybody else 1 each.

[Istefan Perþonest]

Okay! The Badger 5 first number is 18 (in the IND range), and the Pick Four first number is 4 (even, so MRPT because it's alphabetically later than CSPP). The final allocation is:

CSPP: 1
IND: 2
MRPT: 2
NPW: 2
RUMP: 4

Parties, please post who holds the seats for your party.

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

Any Benitian RUMP'ers who want seats, please PM me :-)

[Vitxalmour Conductour]

I will be filling the NPW seats.

[Lüc da Schir]

As long as it's my duty to represent the MRPT inside Benito:
The MRPT assigns: 1 seat to Lüc da Schir, and waits to announce the holder of the second seat.

[Lüc da Schir]

So far: (just to summarize to our ArviPrim)
RUMP: 4
Ch. Timoþi Max Asmorescu (4)
NPW: 2
Ch. Vitxalmour Pelbiançeu Conductour (2)
MRPT: 2
Ch. Lüc Ianescu-Braneusëfiglheu da Schir (2)
IND: 2
Ch. Don Istefan Eovárt Perþonest (1)
Ch. Txosué Vernairac'h Pologn (1)
CSPP: 1
Ch. Don Flip Molinar: 1

Attachments:

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

The RUMP assigns all four (4) seats to Adm. T.M. Asmourescu.

[Lüc da Schir]

And I've updated the previous post, assigning the remaining MRPT seat to myself.