Revote for Lord Protector.

Given that the vote was called to an end was out of order and the fact that 6 councilors had not voted, in addition to two who had resigned while the vote was still in progress, I think it is in the best interests of the council and the citizens of Somerset to call for a revote.

Yes

It has been discussed to death and now we are discussing the legality of the vote. We have more pressing matters before us. Let us get on with council business.

yes

I will be voting for Counselor Chardonnay

Thank you Lady Buccica! I do earnestly appreciate your support.

Your Grace, It perhaps is out of order, but in the interest of getting on with what matters, would you be adverse to accepting Lady Budicca's statement in this thread, coupled with the 6 legal votes that were already cast? We have more on our plate now than we did yesterday, and those concerns are really more important in terms of Somerset.

No the first vote is legal and should be put to place.

I concur with Cleophas the first vote was lawful.

Yes, but allow me explain.

I think the revote should happen for the sake of reconciliation. I honestly believe the last vote's outcome (Lady Chardonnay) will stand, but I feel that it is not fair for someone to vote and leave the same day.

I will admit that I do not know the precedent of this, if there is one. But with all the talk of accountability recently, I think it is only fair for us to be consistent. If the people cannot hold councilors accountable for their votes (i.e. they vote and leave before the vote closes), then it is hardly consistent with our recent move to be more transparent and accountable.

For Somerset!

The original vote having been lawful as per the laws of Somerset has been lawfully appealed to the Regent and she is in conference with the King on this matter.

I vote yes for a revote. Though I have reservations about doing so. I understand that the interpretation of the laws of Somerset should be done by the Judge of Somerset. In which case there should be no need for a revote. However, since it was the council who created the law in the first place, the council does have a right to clarify or reinterpret the intent of the law, especially if they are concerned that the Judge's verdict on the matter does not reflect the intent of the law, and so I am voting yes because my opinon is that the intent was not to allow resigned councillors to dictate laws for their successors. In fact I don't think that was even considered before.
I am also concerned that our Judge feels it necessary to appeal to the Regent on this issue, since she knows that Somerset laws overrule Regent's laws, according to our Codex. There is, as yet, no higher court in England with the authority to overrule County Laws, and this precedent of appealing to the Regent therefore goes against our Codex. Were there to be a constitution or a Supreme Court for England, then appealing to it would be proper, but without such the Judge's appeal for interference by the Regent goes against our legal Codex.

you talk about laws, but laws don't change a revote is just simply illegal.

It's an abuse of power, it's against the legal corpus of Somerset and fall under high treason and such thing is not to take lightly.

And a vote here will not change that, only a change a laws can change that and laws are no retroactive so forget it. Not accepting this vote is simply illegal, not matter how you put it.

It's clear simple majority vote. Not absolute, simple majority. And the writter of the laws himself confirm that allikath move is illegal.

What more is needed stop breaking the laws of the county and accept the defeat, all that is just political and that is exactly why people leave and don't trust any somerset politiian of any side.

When a Duke or Duchess fail in their duty to protect the laws of the county they lead and in fact ignore the letter of the law the people are always free to appeal to the King. The King is the final arbiter of law in this Kingdom. period.

This is not RL England. This is not RL US. This is a game that the King has a vested interest in attracting and maintaining a customer base in and when people become disgusted and quit the game or one of the counties sinks into chaos because the matter in which it is run it ceases to be a workable part of the game and any new players born here have THIS ONE impression of RK and THAT is a very big problem. They cannot immediately escape this environment as they cannot travel

so Yes it is acceptable to RP this up the ladder to the person whose bottom line it affects

It was a legal vote. We have precedent for the councilors voting before their resignation. Lady Allikath's action in decreeing the vote as illegal was, in itself, an illegal act. She does not have that power under the Legal Corpus.

I never declared the vote invalid, I merely stated my opinion as a councilor and proposed a revote.

In essence Chardonnay is present Lord Protector contingent on the poll for a revote.

Do we have precedent to remove a lawfully elected Lord Protector? What are the grounds for removal?

Vana, in your interpretation current sitting council can thumb their nose at established law, reinterpret them or rewrite them on a whim? Even retroactively? That seems a bit draconian.

OK, the time limit for the vote is up and it has not passed.

The original vote still stands and Chardonnay is LP.

This is officially a dead issue so can we move on now or would you like to continue crossing your arms, stamping your foot, and pouting?

I am locking this thread as it has no further use.

Actually Duchess by Somerset law this DID in fact Pass for the lawful record

the law in regard to voting is such

Quote :

Art. 3.4.5. : A proposal is approved when a simple majority of the council members approve it by vote, subject to the time period of the vote.

and I am sure I do not need to point out in fact the simple majority was IN FAVOR of a revote so legally this DID pass by Somerset law.

Somerset law does not require an absolute majority to pass

and more than 50% of those voting DID vote for a re vote so simple majority was achieved


An ABSOLUTE Majority requirement would indeed mean it did not pass as an ABSOLUTE majority means that at least 50% of the members who are legally ENTITLED to vote whether they do or not must be achieved

A SIMPLE Majority means simply that 50% of the votes CAST must be in favor.

Well what do you suggest then?

well we have a legal comnumdrum

The first vote was legally conducted by the law as written.
The outcome was lawful.

Technically it should be declared official.

The outcome of the Vote to re vote was lawful but in actuality the vote for a re vote was not lawfully conducted as there was not the required by law 2 day discussion of this motion for a re-vote prior to placing it on the floor for a vote.

Therefore my suggestion to be lawful would be to nullify the vote for a re-vote as it did not meet procedural requirements by law and to declare the original vote lawful and then if the council is concerned with addressing the resignation of counselors in the future and the effect this would have on any vote in motion at that time, there would need to be a re-write to include this language and it's remedies and then of course a vote to amend the current law to add this provision.

Ellsbeth wrote:

well we have a legal comnumdrum

The first vote was legally conducted by the law as written.
The outcome was lawful.

Technically it should be declared official.

The outcome of the Vote to re vote was lawful but in actuality the vote for a re vote was not lawfully conducted as there was not the required by law 2 day discussion of this motion for a re-vote prior to placing it on the floor for a vote.

Therefore my suggestion to be lawful would be to nullify the vote for a re-vote as it did not meet procedural requirements by law and to declare the original vote lawful and then if the council is concerned with addressing the resignation of counselors in the future and the effect this would have on any vote in motion at that time, there would need to be a re-write to include this language and it's remedies and then of course a vote to amend the current law to add this provision.

If that is how the law is written, then fine. I find the legal corpus in Somerset far more confusing then the Legal Corpus of my previous County, Wiltshire.

Fine, whatever, as long as there are no objections from the other councilors.

Ladies I did not write the law. I simply try to uphold it as it is written since that is my job and it is my responsibility as a citizen

Allikath wrote:

Fine, whatever, as long as there are no objections from the other councilors.

Thank you for asking, Your Grace. I do not object to the Judge's interpretation, I find it fair. Congratulations, Lady Protector Chardonnay.

I look forward to moving on, as I am sure we all do.



For Somerset!
Rebo

I support Ellsbeth's proposal if it leads to a consensus solution.