Honorable Arbitres,
Recently I’ve been considering our Praesidium and its size. While I do believe a large Praesidium is helpful to our region and the majority of our current Viziers are active, but nonetheless I am curious.
The Concordat states:
— Begin quote from ____
Section 4) The Viziers may temporarily suspend the Delegate if 2/3 of Viziers believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the Delegate has acted to destroy this Concordat. The temporary suspension must be confirmed within seventy-two hours by a decision of the Conclave. This suspension shall be considered an Indictment for High Treason as prosecuted by the Viziers or designee. The suspension and Indictment shall be lifted by a non-guilty verdict of the Conclave, a 2/3 vote of Viziers, or a 4/5 vote of the Magisterium.
— End quote
That “2/3 of Viziers” would have to confirm a Delegate suspension. Presumably this would be dealt with via a vote (although it seems a Vote isn’t nessecary so long as assent is given, given the Concordat’s ambiguity on this). Regardless, if the Viziers handled this matter via a vote, would it take 2/3 of only voting Viziers or 2/3 of all Viziers, voting and non-voting, to empower Delegate suspension and a trial?
I would also like to ask the same question for the 2/3 vote of Viziers as well, as it specifies a “vote” instead of saying “of Viziers”. Would a Vizier non-guilty verdict pass with a 2/3 majority of only those Viziers who cast a vote? Or is it a 2/3 majority of all Viziers needed, regardless if said Viziers vote or not?
It should be noted that the Standing Orders of the Viziers (if I recall correctly) have a mechanic where only those who vote count to the majority needed for a specific action. Section 6.5. of the SOV.
Thank you for your time!
— Begin quote from ____
…if the Viziers handled this matter via a vote, would it take 2/3 of only voting Viziers or 2/3 of all Viziers, voting and non-voting, to empower Delegate suspension and a trial?
— End quote
As you show, the Concordat states “… if 2/3 of Viziers believe…” The text does not specify explicitly whether this is ALL Viziers or just “voting” Viziers. Without deliberately and explicitly stating otherwise, “2/3 of Viziers” means exactly as it says: Two-thirds of Viziers. Two-thirds of the whole number of Viziers currently in existence.
Whether or not this is done by a “vote” or by some other mechanism (e.g. a petition or some other statement circulated among and signed by Viziers), in order for a suspension of the Delegate to meet the criteria set out in the Concordat, the number of Viziers required to indicate their “belief beyond a reasonable doubt that the Delegate has acted to destroy this Concordat” must at all times be equal to or greater than two thirds of the whole number of Viziers. If there are 15 Viziers, then the number of Viziers voting AYE must be at least 10.
— Begin quote from ____
Would a Vizier non-guilty verdict pass with a 2/3 majority of only those Viziers who cast a vote? Or is it a 2/3 majority of all Viziers needed, regardless if said Viziers vote or not?
— End quote
The same applies to this as well. Because the Concordat does not specify “two thirds of voting Viziers,” then it must be 2/3 of the total number of Viziers.
I agree, in general, with Arbiter Acronis, and as I have failed to find anything else in the Concordat which might have provided precedent (everything else seems to point to more specific answers) I find I must agree with him in particular here.
Presumably this would be dealt with via a vote (although it seems a Vote isn’t nessecary so long as assent is given, given the Concordat’s ambiguity on this). Regardless, if the Viziers handled this matter via a vote, would it take 2/3 of only voting Viziers or 2/3 of all Viziers, voting and non-voting, to empower Delegate suspension and a trial?
— Begin quote from ____
The Viziers may temporarily suspend the Delegate if 2/3 of Viziers believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the Delegate has acted to destroy this Concordat. The temporary suspension must be confirmed within seventy-two hours by a decision of the Conclave. This suspension shall be considered an Indictment for High Treason as prosecuted by the Viziers or designee. The suspension and Indictment shall be lifted by a non-guilty verdict of the Conclave, a 2/3 vote of Viziers, or a 4/5 vote of the Magisterium.
— End quote
I agree with Acronis. The consequence of this section reading “2/3 of Viziers” with no modifier or further detail is that the suspension of the Delegate requires the support of 2/3 of all Viziers. We can compare this against the language at the end of this section, which terminates a suspension upon “a 2/3 vote of Viziers”. This later language requires the 2/3 threshold to be met only among those Viziers present at vote.
You are correct that the suspension does not require an actual vote, so any method which proves that the Praesidium met the 2/3 requirement would be legal under these terms alone, only further limited by statute law and the Standing Orders.
It should be noted that the Standing Orders of the Viziers (if I recall correctly) have a mechanic where only those who vote count to the majority needed for a specific action. Section 6.5. of the SOV.
— Begin quote from ____
To pass vote, a majority of 3/4 of voting Viziers need to be in favor on the voting matter.
— End quote
This requirement applies to all votes held by the Praesidium. It exists simultaneously with the requirements of the Concordat, such that if a vote is held to suspend the Delegate, it must pass by both a 3/4 majority of Viziers voting and a 2/3 majority of Viziers total. Any further requirements of Vizier action as laid out in the Standing Orders also apply.