Well, there is no sede vacante yet and will not be until the pope’s abdication takes effect on 28 February. John-Paul II issued the apostolic constitution Universi Dominici Gregis which among other things dropped the traditional requirement for a 2/3+1 majority. Benedict XVI amended that constitution to restore the 2/3 rule but restrict the election to the 2 leading candidates once certain conditions are met. They are the same conditions as allowed an election by absolute majority under John-Paul’s rules. Many people argue that Cardinal Ratzinger would not have been elected without the lower majority established by Universi Dominici Gregis.
All cardinals except those over the age of 80 can vote. In theory any male Catholic is eligible. It has been some time since a non-cardinal was elected.
The media consensus seems to be that Cardinal Turkson of Ghana is the most likely candidate among the papabili but a more ancient consensus is that whoever enters the conclave a pope comes out a cardinal. There is an equally ancient consensus that fat popes are always succeeded by thin popes. Wojtyla and Ratzinger were the first time in many conclaves that 2 popes in succession came from the same faction among the cardinals.
I was under the impression that to”restrict the election to the 2 leading candidates” would imply that it was a run of the mill election and not God telling the Conclave of who He wants to be Pope. I guess my conception of the balance between the sacred and the secular in Vatican politics is not up to snuff.
Seed planted by Mark R — 11 February 2013 @ 14:13
As noted in Vox Populae Vox Dei Vox Sagittae:
The modality of divine intervention is much more direct in the election of Coptic popes.
Seed planted by Alan — 11 February 2013 @ 17:45
There is a very good episode of ‘Yes, Minister’ discussing the recommendation of episcopal candidates to the queen, and the tradition of only naming one suitable candidate so that HM the Queen would better be able to divine the will of God in which she should pick.
Of course, since the candidacy commission now only recommends one candidate to the PM, who in turn advises Her Majesty to appoint that candidate, it isn’t as fun anymore
Seed planted by Chris — 11 February 2013 @ 18:37
Interesting post at The Monkey Cage by political scientists Forrest Maltzman and Melissa Schwartzberg, the co-authors along with the late Lee Sigelman of “Vox Populi, Vox Dei, Vox Sagittae.”
Seed planted by MSS — 11 February 2013 @ 22:31
The odd thing is that the Benedict rule still allows a voting paradox. After 33 ballots the college of electors is restricted ti the 2 leading candidates, but the 2/3 rule is back. In theory they can continue balloting forever and not elect a pope.
Seed planted by Alan — 11 February 2013 @ 23:34
@4:” just like prime ministers in parliamentary systems of government, the Pope may have realized the value of timing elections strategically….”
And French Presidents. Greek ones, too, if I rightly recall some of the circumstances surrounding the replacement of Karamanlis in 1984-85.
Seed planted by Tom Round — 12 February 2013 @ 12:02
I can’t really see the temporal advantage. The electorate is not all that volatile, indeed any volatility would be the result of the pope naming further cardinal electors.
Seed planted by Alan — 12 February 2013 @ 12:07
There is the volatility of electors turning 80 an losing their vote…indeed, at least one cardinal turns 80 in early March, meaning he may have votes in early ballots but not later ones
Seed planted by Chris — 12 February 2013 @ 18:23
One of the points in the Monkey Cage article is that Benedict (or does he go back to being Cardinal Ratzinger now?) has appointed an unusually large number of Cardinals, who are disproportionately from what one presumes is a relatively conservative group, the Roman Curia. So maybe there is something to it-experienced Vatican bureaucrats hold up the show for deeks until someone acceptable to them emerges?
Seed planted by DC — 12 February 2013 @ 18:41
@Chris
Not so. Universi Dominici Gregis, Article 33
Seed planted by Alan — 12 February 2013 @ 18:42
@DC
The history is that curialists have tended to do well at early ballots and then fade as the conclave progresses. You’d have to go back to 1939 for the last case of a curialist pope. If Benedict (he remains pope until 28 February) had wanted to entrench curial power all he had to do was retain the John-Paul rule for an absolute majority after the 33rd ballot. In fact there has been considerable tension between Benedict and the Curia.
Seed planted by Alan — 12 February 2013 @ 18:50
I stand corrected with regard to losing the vote during the conclave…I wonder if the 28th date had anything to do with particular cardinals’ ages or not.
Seed planted by Chris — 12 February 2013 @ 19:07
At the last conclave all but 2 cardinal electors had been raised to the purple (aways wanted a chance to use that phrase on Fruits and Votes) by John-Paul II. It happens after a long pontificate. The situation was similar in the 1978 conclaves where the vast majority had been named by Paul VI.
John XXIII named 56 cardinals during a slightly shorter pontificate (1958-63) than Benedict. Benedict appointed 67 but that is not significantly greater than John XXIII given the slightly longer reign (2005-13).
Universi Dominic Gregis sets the maximum at 120 and there is usually an effort to keep the number of cardinal electors close to that figure.
There is one cardinal who will turn 80 before 28 February.
Seed planted by Alan — 12 February 2013 @ 19:32
If you want an exhaustive (and I do mean exhaustive) account of the various papabili and grand electors (numbers men) you could do worse than Paul Collins’ guide, although it was written before the resignation. Collins is a former priest who was defrocked for his criticisms of the curia although he remains active in the church.
Seed planted by Alan — 13 February 2013 @ 00:17
Benedict is apparently considering changes to the rules surrounding the conclave-to bring the date of convening of the conclave forward.
The BBC article mentions possible changes to two documents-one of which governs the rules of the election, the other the organising of the interregnum between popes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21522069
Seed planted by DC — 21 February 2013 @ 10:21
Recommended: Colomer and McClean (1998), “Electing Popes: Approval balloting and qualified-majority rule”.
Seed planted by MSS — 21 February 2013 @ 13:08
Since we are talking medieval electoral reform, it’s worth looking at the Most Serene Republic which managed to outlast any other republic by a long way. The US will catch up in another 9 centuries or so.
Seed planted by Alan — 21 February 2013 @ 14:24
Benedict has issued a second moto proprio amending Universi Dominici Gregis:
The church needs a pope before the beginning of Holy Week.
Seed planted by Alan — 25 February 2013 @ 14:26
It seems Julia Gillard is not the only head of government to choose an election date that’s highly inconvenient for adherents of another religion.
A charitable reading of Benedict’s timing is that he could not physically withstand another year in the Chair and wanted a new Pope (assuming the Conclave isn’t deadlocked) installed in time for Easter. It’s the Anglicans’ bad luck that Easter is sacred to them also.
While the C of E, unlike the RCC, splits the positions of chief bishop and Supreme Governor between two different people, both have seen their schedules confounded by the two most recent Papal vacancies… But no one has ever circulated conspiracy theories about the Vatican before, and l don’t want to be the first to start.
[MSS note: link changed, to what I think Tom intended.]
Seed planted by Tom Round — 25 February 2013 @ 22:42
I don’t think this resignation has been very well executed. Apart from anything else the time to issue an amendment to the electoral rules is before, not after, resigning. The new motu proprio should see the election completed well before 21 March.
I think it as likely that the day of election, itself in the hands of the cardinals rather than the outgoing pope, was picked to screw up the new Archbishop of Canterbury’s enthronement as that Benedict will issue a quick decree in favour of the ordination of women and gay marriage on his way to the helipad.
Seed planted by Alan — 26 February 2013 @ 05:56
Monti was pretty much the Vatican candidate in that other election. It cannot much help the cause of Italian candidates that they have such little influence wither own electorate.
Seed planted by Alan — 26 February 2013 @ 18:33
Habemus primum Jesuitem Argentinum et Franciscum.
And those are all hopeful signs.
Seed planted by Alan — 13 March 2013 @ 17:23
Habemus papam!
HH Pope Francis, formerly Jorge Cardinal Bergoglio, SJ, Archbishop of Buenos Aires.
I have to think the 2/3 majority rule played a strong part in his election, and the quick speed thereof. He had to be seen as the only candidate who could have obtained that majority and quickly gained the support of the stragglers.
Seed planted by Chris — 13 March 2013 @ 17:41
@Alan, it is worth noting that he has been one of the most conservative Jesuits. That does not mean he will continue to be conservative, given the doctrinal freedom the papacy gives.
“Open to Growth” is one of the principles Jesuit schools strive to instill in their graduates.
Seed planted by Chris — 13 March 2013 @ 17:53
@Chris
I agree he’s conservative for a Jesuit. The unprecedented name is what most gives me hope. Francis of Assisi was not at all a conservative saint, which may be why there has not been a Francis before. I would have been much less happy with a John-Paul III or a Benedict XVII. It’s also fascinating that he did not appear in the usual papal vestments, just a plain white cassock with no special adornments.
And just for the record he’s already tweeted. He did not retweet anything by @Conclave Chimney or @Papal Seagull.
Seed planted by Alan — 13 March 2013 @ 18:25
A good profile.
Seed planted by Alan — 13 March 2013 @ 18:28
I think Francis may be more for Xavier than Assisi.
Seed planted by Chris — 13 March 2013 @ 21:05
He’s a Jesuit. If he wanted to take the name of a Jesuit saint he would be Ignatius or Francis Xavier. Admirable a figure as St Francis Borgia may have been I am not sure the world is ready for a pope to adopt that name. Paul Collins, a noted Australian papal historian, commented ‘The name says it all’.
Jesuits don’t make mistakes in matters like that.
PS A Vatican spokesperson has confirmed the name is for Francis of Assisi.
Seed planted by Alan — 13 March 2013 @ 21:16
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/opinion/2013/03/13/pope-francis-whats-in-papal-name/
The Washington Post and NY Times have also asserted it’s for Xavier. I haven’t seen or heard the Vatican Radio report they’re basing,it on, but my thoughts immediately turned to Francis Xavier, the great missionary saint, as well. Given the emphasis on Jesuit saints within the Society, I find it hard to believe Xavier was not the main inspiration, if not the only inspiration.
Seed planted by Chris — 13 March 2013 @ 21:30
One small group of ten dozen voters rejects the Argentine option, a different one goes for it…
Are Jesuits still constitutionally barred from entering Switzerland? Who’s going to interview new Swiss Guards applicants?
Seed planted by Tom Round — 13 March 2013 @ 21:49
And the Vatican says Assisi. Vatican Radio must have been speculating based on the views of the Jesuits who run it.
Seed planted by Chris — 13 March 2013 @ 23:21
Never trust a Jesuit, ummm…
Seed planted by Alan — 13 March 2013 @ 23:45
Well, if they’d elected someone named Peter the St Malachi prophecy buffs would be going berserk. Likewise had they elected a Pope whose surname means “son of the Turk”.
Seed planted by Tom Round — 14 March 2013 @ 00:01
At risk of sounding Jesuitical (sorry) I note Francis Xavier was named after Francis of Assisi.
Seed planted by Alan — 14 March 2013 @ 00:26
I’m just waiting for the NWO-Jesuit-Illuminati conspiracy theories to begin.
Seed planted by Chris — 14 March 2013 @ 01:42
@Chris
They are already way out of the starter’s gate and running hard. Their favourite idea seems to be that popes cannot resign and that Francis is therefore an antipope.
Seed planted by Alan — 14 March 2013 @ 09:29
Right. So the invalidly-resigned Benedict should be dragged back to the See, ignoring his cries of nolo episcopari</I. (hey, there is a precedent, see?), where he can then infallibly declared that… he has in fact validly reisgn? Rinse and repeat…
Seed planted by Tom Round — 15 March 2013 @ 04:09
Right. So the invalidly-resigned Benedict should be dragged back to the See, ignoring his cries of nolo episcopari (hey, there is a precedent, see?), where he can then infallibly declared that… he has in fact validly resigned? Rinse and repeat…
Seed planted by Tom Round — 15 March 2013 @ 04:12
The 1958 sedevacantists (we can all point at Mel Gibson now) have a whole string of theories to claim that John XXIII was not validly elected. My favourite is that a conservative was really elected pope but stood aside when the USSR threatened to nuke the Vatican.
Seed planted by Alan — 15 March 2013 @ 06:38
Yeah, l gather that Cdl Siri is the Al Gore of the Sedevacantists. Doubly so. He wuz robbed in both 1958 and 1963.
While the new Pope is (or was) Argentinean by nationality, note his surname is Italian – not uncommon in Argentina (c/f Galtieri) – but never hispanicised to something like “Borguello”.
Seed planted by Tom Round — 15 March 2013 @ 07:45
By the way, Morris West is now two for two. Let’s hope a Pope doesn’t come back from the dead after heart-bypass surgery…
Seed planted by Tom Round — 15 March 2013 @ 10:05
I was wondering what would happen if the College of Cardinals would have 3 rounds of voting.
First round: 2/3
Second round: 3/5
Third round: 4/7
Although I did think of an alternative method. You have only three rounds. The two-thirds supermajority is kept but, unless a candidate gets the two-thirds needed, at the beginning of a second (and potential third) ballot, the number of Cardinals voting would be decreased by one-third.
Seed planted by Derek — 15 March 2013 @ 22:45
I’d just prefer they keep voting until they have unanimity. I think the Church would be quite fine with them locked in the Sistine for years on end.
Seed planted by Chris — 16 March 2013 @ 06:04
The unhappy experience in Poland with electing kings by unanimous vote suggest that a unanimity rule would not be a good thing. If you want a supermajority plus without stopping the governance of the curia for years, the Venetian system described above would be better.
One of the major problems under both John-Paul II and Benedict XVI is that the curia is not actually very closely tied to the papacy. There are no regular meetings of the curial heads of departments (fighting the tendency to use ‘dicastery’ because its such a lovely word) and there are no regular reports to the pope or even to the cardinal secretary of state. neither John-Paul nor Benedict paid a great deal of attention to the decisions being made in their name. The hope is that Francis will be different.
The theory is that the pope can hire and fire at will. The practice is that curial positions until promotion, death or 80. Even the 80 is somewhat flexible. The curia would run wild during very long conclaves and we certainly of not want the Roman people to emulate the people of Viterbo, who forced an end to the 1268-71 conclave by unroofing the church where the cardinal electors were meeting.
Benedict forced the resignation of Cardinal Law from the post of archpriest he held at Santa Maria Maggiore as soon as he turned 80. That was regarded as heavy-handed and faintly scandalous and the job was not even, strictly, a curial office.
Even in the light of his coming resignation, Benedict did not arrange for a dean of the college of cardinals who would be under 80, so the presidency of the conclave fell to the senior cardinal-bishop.
A number of German cardinals petitioned for the removal of Cardinal Bertone as secretary of state after a series of disastrous statements on the sex abuse scandal and were bluntly refused.
Autocracy is not necessarily as autocratic as it looks, which is why curial reform is such a pressing issue, but one Francis seems to be aware of. Unanimous elections for autocrat are an even worse idea.
Seed planted by Alan — 16 March 2013 @ 13:14
Pope Francis has reappointed the existing Curia, but only on a temporary basis. Previous popes reappointed these officials permanently.
Seed planted by Alan — 16 March 2013 @ 13:51
I was implying that the Church would be better off with the Cardinals locked away, not that unanimous voting would be a good idea.
Seed planted by Chris — 17 March 2013 @ 03:00
I think we can agree on thar)
Seed planted by Alan — 17 March 2013 @ 05:23
I had missed it till now, but Nate Silver offered some nice data on the long-term trends in papal ages, both at becoming pope and at the ends of their papacies.
Seed planted by MSS — 18 April 2013 @ 18:05
They really need a fixed term or a fixed retirement age. A pope can only resign if he is mentally competent. Leaving it entirely to the pope’s discretion invites the situation of a pope who drifts into incapacity without realising it, but cannot be removed or even declared incompetent.
Seed planted by Alan — 19 April 2013 @ 01:16
Organisations often adopt an absolute two-thirds requirement (ie, not an initial threshold that reduces over time, as in Italian presidential elections) as a way of encouraging opposing factions to agree on a consensus candidate who may not be either side’s first choice but is also not detested by either side.
Organisations often adopt a “top two” rule (or a “lowest-man-out” rule, which is a more scenic route to the same destination) to ensure that eventually someone will get elected when an absolute majority [*] of votes is required and a plurality below 50% is not sufficient.
The problem with adopting both at once is that the virtues of one device cancel out those of the other so you end up with the world’s biggest microchip. [**] If the two-thirds threshold is non-negotiable but only the two highest contenders can be considered – no new compromise candidate can be introduced, nor can a tolerable candidate who had low first-preference support be resurrected (so to speak) – that’s a recipe for deadlock. If the top two have say, 55% and 45% support then the Cardinals can keep balloting until kingdom come (so to speak) but the deadlock cannot be broken – not by the older method of throwing in a fresh name who might satisfy both blocs (not least by giving each bloc the psychological satisfaction of knowing it didn’t get “bulldozered” by its rivals), and not be the newer method of eliminating the lowest until only two remain thus making it certain (barring a tie) that the highest will have over 50% of the ballots cast and likely that he (ah, what a relief not to have to write “her or she” for once…) will be supported by over 50% of all eligible voters.
[*] I hereby stipulate that “absolute majority” in the context of a multi-ballot runoff system means all eligible voters but in a single-round system of transferable votes means the valid ballots actually cast. This is because someone who abstains on the first ballot can still weigh in on the second or third if there is one, but if they don’t cast a ballot for their first choice then their second and third preferences don’t get counted later.
[**] I am curious whether use of that phrase will bump this page into even the first thousand Google hits for “Vatican + microchip”.
Seed planted by Tom Round — 19 May 2013 @ 19:24
Hmm, 1,040,000 results but give the Google gophers time…
Note that super-majority thresholds for election are actually rare for governmental positions, and usually watered down by a fallback provision where a simple majoriy suffices after a specified number of days and ballots have gone by (eg, Italy and ISTR Third and Fourth Republic France had similar rules).
The Democrats used to have an absolute two-thirds threshold to nominate a presidential candidate, but changed it to 50% + 1 in 1936.
The proposal for an Australian Republic, defeated by referendum in 1999 would have required a two-thirds majority to elect a President. (Voters thought that still gave too much power to the Prime Minister to impose his or her preferred nominee. We are thus left with the status quo under which the PrM can appoint whomever he or she wants after phoning the Queen to get the nomination rubber-stamped.)
Some private bodies do have absolute two-thirds majorities: eg, one or another of the US Protestant denominations (Disciples of Christ, perhaps) a few years ago, I saw in the news, had to repeatedly re-ballot because its national conference couldn’t elect a president by the required 65% of delegates. ALP branches in some States require a 2/3 or 3/4 majority of State Conference to elect members of the disputes committee. The Univ of Queensland student union used to require (and still does) a two-thirds simple majority of the Council to approve the Secretary’s nomination of an Electoral Officer.
IIGTR, Italy pre-1994 required 65% to elect a Senator for a single-member district, but if no candidate polled that high, the seat was not left vacant but instead added to those filled from the party lists.
Amateur political commentators sometimes throw around suggestions like “Judges of the Highest Court should not be appointed by the head of government, but instead elected by a 75% majority of the legislature”, which suggests a certain naivety.
My own compromise suggestion is to combine super-majorities with qualified term limits. If no candidate has two-thirds after a specified number of days of balloting, a simple majority can elect, but any candidate who has previously held the office is disqualified. In other words, former Presidents/ Speakers/ Electoral Officers/ Other Quasi-Constitutional or Electoral Umpires are barred from re-election if they seriously anger more than 25% of their electorate. A minority can’t prevent a position being filled or block decisions being taken, but it can take its revenge on an incumbent whom, they feel, has been biased against them.
Seed planted by Tom Round — 19 May 2013 @ 19:35
Err, either “2/3…. 33.4%” or “3/4… 25%” but either way you get my drift. A large minority has the right of reprisal if they think the umpire has got it in for them. But they have to “maintain their rage” (so to speak) until the umpire next faces re-election. US experience with GOP and Dems alternating in vowing to repeal the filibuster the second they next win a Senate majority suggests that having time to cool off filters out the passing dummy-spits from those who are seriously grieved.
Seed planted by Tom Round — 19 May 2013 @ 19:39
Benedict XVI was not a particularly good legislature*, although he was better than his predecessor.
The palace gave the Queensland government very clear advice about the re-nomination of Sir Colin Hannah (who had publicly called for the election of a federal coalition government) and ultimately the nomination was withdrawn. I seriously doubt the palace would simply agree to whoever the prime minister fancied.
*One cannot really say ‘legislator’ because that implies a collective body rather than an individual with sole legislative power.
Seed planted by Alan — 19 May 2013 @ 21:59