Voted best in category in the Users' Choice awards.
Source on this? As far as I know the electoral procedures aren't actually detailed anywhere.
In the first election after Luitpold died Karl got four votes and Boris Todbringer had eight, the remaining three abstained but Boris did not win because he needed at least ten votes.

The wiki says that it is from short story The Prince of Altdorf
 
In the first election after Luitpold died Karl got four votes and Boris Todbringer had eight, the remaining three abstained but Boris did not win because he needed at least ten votes.

The wiki says that it is from short story The Prince of Altdorf
As SpaceSloth says, it's from Prince of Altdorf by Andy Hall. It's the only source I've ever seen for how being elected actually works, so I run with it.

Of course that information is tucked away in a free ebook that was released with Total Warhammer a year after the setting was detonated. It's the first place I should have looked.
 
Becoming Emperor requires 10 votes. 2/3rds majority and all that.
After the whole Age of the Three Emperors debacle it seems weird that they'd stick with a 2/3rds majority, rather than going with a simple majority to avoid that happening again.

I guess either they're not all that attached to being an Empire or they're unwilling to change their imperial constitution.
 
Last edited:
After the whole Age of the Three Emperors debacle it seems weird that they'd stick with a 2/3rds majority, rather than going with a simple majority to avoid that happening again.

I guess either they're not all that attached to being an Empire or they're unwilling to change their imperial constitution.
"Easier to elect an emperor" is one way to look at it, and that has is advantages. But just because you elected an emperor doesn't mean everyone accepts that emperor. You could easily have a case where someone with less votes has greater military power and just decides to redistribute some votes. Or in a less extreme case, you end up with an emperor who doesn't have enough power to actually be effective.

Two thirds of the votes mostly guarantees the new emperor can make it stick, and that they've got enough support to actually govern, and aren't widely hated. You just need to reach that point. It's a trade-off.
EDIT: IIRC, the electors for the HRE got locked up together until they had a candidate, and if they took too long, they'd only get bread and water. A little like the vote for the pope. So there's ways to get a result in a reasonable timeframe.
 
Last edited:
"Easier to elect an emperor" is one way to look at it. But just because you elected an emperor doesn't mean everyone accepts that emperor. You could easily have a case where someone with less votes has greater military power and just decides to redistribute some votes. Or in a less extreme case, you end up with an emperor who doesn't have enough power to actually be effective.
Good point. I was thinking of interregnums as automatically problems, but an interregnum can actually be just fine for the Empire most of the time - the various departments can keep ticking on with their own leadership without an Emperor at the top.
 
"Easier to elect an emperor" is one way to look at it, and that has it's advantages. But just because you elected an emperor doesn't mean everyone accepts that emperor. You could easily have a case where someone with less votes has greater military power and just decides to redistribute some votes. Or in a less extreme case, you end up with an emperor who doesn't have enough power to actually be effective.

Two thirds of the votes mostly guarantees the new emperor can make it stick, and that they've got enough support to actually govern, and aren't widely hated. You just need to reach that point. It's a trade-off.
Is the difference between 8 votes and 10 really that big?
Say, if the two votes difference were Hochland and Stirland, would that deter any opposition willing to make himself counter-Emperor against a majority that does not include these?
 
After the whole Age of the Three Emperors debacle it seems weird that they'd stick with a 2/3rds majority, rather than going with a simple majority to avoid that happening again.

I guess either they're not all that attached to being an Empire or they're unwilling to change their imperial constitution.
The problem with the Age wasn't the number of votes required, they elected an Emperor. The problem was the perception that the vote was rigged and the (then more powerful) split between the Cults of Ulric and Sigmar.
 
Seems pretty big to me. 8 vs 7 is close enough for people to start getting ideas. 10 vs 5 really isn't.
At least it becomes a lot less likely.
I guess if my five votes were nicely concentrated and from powerful factors (something like Midderland, Nordland, Ostland, Ostermark and Cult of Ulric) I'd still consider it.
But certainly less than with 7.
 
Is the difference between 8 votes and 10 really that big?
Say, if the two votes difference were Hochland and Stirland, would that deter any opposition willing to make himself counter-Emperor against a majority that does not include these?
First, each vote that switches sides not only means one less on your side, but also one more on theirs, effectively a difference of two. And the effect is nonlinear, because fighting on two fronts will be more than twice harder.

And not all votes are equal. There's Hochland and the Moot. The Sigmar votes have a lot of political power, but has a hard time mobilizing a proper army (especially if there's an internal split, which would also reduce their political power). So right there, you can easily have a case where five votes contribute maybe as much army as two other provinces. It can get even more skewed if one or more provinces are in bad shape due to recent Waagh/Chaos/Undead/whatever. They just might not have an army, or no army they can deploy.

And finally, it also depends on the details of the voting. If someone can abstain, you could win with less than 8 votes, same if you just need more votes than any other candidate.
 
The needing 10 votes out of 15 thing really exacerbates the advantage Reikland holds in the vote, with 4 votes locked in you either need to convince the Reikland to support you or else you need everyone else except for one vote. It also makes it impossible to win without the support of either Reikland or Middenland as between them they account for 6 votes.
 
Last edited:
The needing 10 votes out of 15 thing realy exacerbates the advantage Reikland holds in the vote, with 4 votes locked in you either need to convince the Reikland to support you or else you need everyone else except for one vote. It also makes it impossible to win without the support of either Reikland or Middenland as between them they account for 6 votes.

Reikland does not dictate how the Cult of Sigmar votes, nor does Middenland give orders to the Ar-Ulric.
 
The needing 10 votes out of 15 thing really exacerbates the advantage Reikland holds in the vote, with 4 votes locked in you either need to convince the Reikland to support you or else you need everyone else except for one vote. It also makes it impossible to win without the support of either Reikland or Middenland as between them they account for 6 votes.
Just because the EC of Reikland and the Sigmarites are likely allies does not make them certain allies in any vote.
 
Back
Top