From AmericaBlog: The Vatican already has the NUCLEAR OPTION

[Nothing Without Hope]

This has significant implications on the likelihood that a non-reactionary pope will be elected. Not that this was at all likely anyway, still it was stunning to learn that in such a traditional-minded hierarchy John-Paul II changed the papal election rules in such a fundamental way.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/04/vatican-already-has-nuclear-option.html

The Vatican Already Has The Nuclear Option

by Michael in New York - 4/15/2005 05:58:00 PM

Maybe Frist is taking his cues from the late pontiff John Paul II. I'm currently reading "Heirs of the Fisherman: Behind the Scenes of Papal Death and Succession" by John-Peter Pham (Oxford Univ. Press). It's a great primer for the conclave beginning Monday that will elect the next Pope of the roughly one billion Catholics in the world.

JP II was already disappointingly conservative to me and of course I despair of a liberal Pope coming out of a conclave where 99% of the voters were put there by him. But as if that weren't safeguard enough, I find out that "in a radical departure from previous legislation" JP II instituted the nuclear option.

Fiddling with the rules of the conclave is a perennial pasttime of pontiffs, but one long-term tradition is that the Pope must receive a vote from two-thirds plus one of the cardinals present. So if there were 90 voters, they'd keep working at it until 61 voted for one candidate. But JP II changed that. If after 10 to 12 days of voting a new Pope hasn't been elected (not an unusual amount of time for this process, by the way), then a simple majority of 50% plus one will prevail.

This change from a "super-majority" to a simple majority has all the pitfalls in a Pope that we've considered for a Supreme Court Justice -- rather than switching to a candidate that has broader support, a core group of a simple majority can potentially elect someone who is vehemently opposed by almost half of the people present.

(snip)

[Princess Turandot]

1. I just skimmed the article but it has a techinical error in it....

JP II did enact a rule by which 50% plus 1 of the Cardinals could select a new Pope. However, it only kicks in if 30 rounds of voting have occured; it is not based on the number of days deliberating. From what I've read, the chance of the Cardinals not reaching a decision before 30 rounds of votes is extremely uncommon. In the 20th Century, the longest round of voting was 14 ballots.

The reference to the 14 ballots is from the St. Louis Post Dispatch.
The article is here:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/76A256AC3F4612E286256FD700718B2A?OpenDocument

Keep in mind that they are effectively locked up until they decide.
The Sistine Chapel may be a bit tonier than the average jury room, but they have no incentive to prolong the voting.

The reference to the number of days appears to relate to how many times the Cardinals vote each day. it starts out with a few votes a day and as time passes, more votes per day occur. There are breaks for reflection. In modern times, a new Pope has been elected in 5 days on average.

[Nothing Without Hope]

2. The description of the rule change is correct, but the issue is how likely

it is that the balloting process will be prolonged to the point where the new rule takes over. The blog article suggests that the new rule may itself prolong the balloting process but makes an error when it says it "not unusual" for the 10-12-day point to be reached.

Here's the relevant section of the article you cited (thanks for this interesting piece, by the way):

Despite the comfort of the Santa Marta, the voting is not expected to take weeks. The cardinals say they believe the Holy Spirit is highly involved in the outcome, so anything that smacks of too much politics or too much national or continental wrangling will detract from that. In the 20th century the longest conclave took 14 ballots over five days - the election of Pope Pius XI in 1922. If after three days of voting the electors have not decided on a pope, they will have a day of prayer and informal discussion. A senior cardinal will give them a sermon about their spiritual responsibilities. On the fifth day, balloting will resume.

If, after an additional seven ballots, they still have not elected a pope, there is another pause for a sermon and spiritual reflections, according to the new rules John Paul II made in 1996. After another seven ballots the camerlengo asks the voters for ideas on how to proceed. At this point - approximately 12 days or 30 ballots - John Paul's new rules suggest that the electors will likely decide that to be elected a man need only have a majority of the votes, no longer two-thirds.

So the difference from what the Americablog article said is in the estimate of how unusual it would be to reach this point:

If after 10 to 12 days of voting a new Pope hasn't been elected (not an unusual amount of time for this process, by the way), then a simple majority of 50% plus one will prevail.

So the statement that it's not unusual to reach 10-12 days of balloting is indeed wrong.

I suppose that the question is: how likely is it that this rule change will reduce the chance of compromise in a strongly divided election in which not quite half the voters are vehemently opposed to the favorite candidate of the remainder? The writer of the blog article is suggesting that it's now possible for a strongly polarizing candidate to be elected because his supporters know that if they hold out long enough, they can trigger the new rule and elect him with just over half the total votes. Under the old rules, once the numbers became clear, plans for a compromise candidate would be made.

[Princess Turandot]

3. You didn't see my edit..

sorry..it's sort of a semantics issue. I guess both statements could be right, since if they are voting for 10 to 12 days they will hit the 30 vote count. I've seen this referenced in several places & the 30 vote version seems to be the most common way of describing it.
I don't know what the exact Vatican wording is, since altho they have a website, it's a bit like reading directions translated for Chinese to English for that bike you are trying to assemble.

I would also say that it's a little misleading to call this a 'nuclear' option as JP II's intent, which to me connotes a negative motive. He already knew most of the voters would be Cardinals he promoted, so it isn't as if he needed to find a way to get around liberals. What he may have had in mind is if a majority under 66.6% cannot be obtained because the candidate isn't european, and there are Cardinals who won't go for a Third World pope, that the process could drag itself out a long time. For example, if 63% of them are voting for a South American, and a faction is refusing to go along with that, if they got to 30 votes, perhaps it was just his way of saying 'enough is enough'.

[Nothing Without Hope]

4. What I am wondering is if there will be a split between

an ultra-super-reactionary candidate and a more moderate one. Yes, the Italians really want an Italian pope this time, and if they put up a super-reactionary one, they may be able to pull in enough votes from reactionary factions from other countries to pull it his election by a narrow margin by holding out for the 30 vote cycles.

I am fearful, as the blog author was, that the next pope may be very reactionary. Will the new rule make it possible for an especially divisive, ultra-reactionary candidate to be elected rather than a compromise being forced? We can only wait and see. The rumors I have heard were that this was likely to be a "transitional" candidate who was very old and not likely to live very long.

Sorry, you're right - I didn't see your edit before I posted.

[Princess Turandot]

5. And I just did it again lol..sorry..nt

[regnaD kciN]

6. Yes, but...

From what I've read, the chance of the Cardinals not reaching a decision before 30 rounds of votes is extremely uncommon. In the 20th Century, the longest round of voting was 14 ballots.

They've never had a conclave under these rules before. As it stands now, according to some reports, Ratzinger has the support of 40-50 cardinals. With a two-thirds-plus-one count of 71, it would seem that he falls far short. However, if his supporters are determined enough, and he adds just enough votes to get him to 54 (50% plus one), all they need to do this time is to hold together as a bloc for the requisite 30 rounds of voting -- then switch the rules and elect him.

In previous conclaves, that option wasn't available. If, after two or three rounds, it was clear that none of the front-runners was going to pick up 71 votes (or the equivalent that year), the cardinals would start looking for a compromise candidate that they could settle on. This year, there's no need to do this, if a simple majority with the patience to wait long enough can be recruited to support one candidate.