Redcaps abstain from voting at Tribunal meetings to avoid political repercussions, even though they technically could.
A magus can, however, delegate his sigil to someone else, and allow that someone to vote in his stead. I'm wondering if one or more magi could delegate their sigils to a trusted redcap, and have him present their case at Tribunal and cast their votes, even as he abstains from casting his.
I mean, it's certainly legal according to the Code. But I'm wondering whether it would be seen as bad form, or if it's instead a service that Redcaps (in their role as messengers) often perform for magi who just can't come to a Tribunal meeting.
I would assume that would bring the same troubles as the redcap using his own sigil. Both speaking for other magi and (even more) holding and using their sigil(s) shows political views and alliances. Since the abstaining is (IIRC) to stay neutral and trusted by all showing political alignment to any group probably is very rare.
I would expect that redcaps rather often could deliver the sigil to a trusted amicus of the absent magus at the tribunal, though. And in my interpretation it would be very rare that not all redcaps in the tribunal are present at the tribunal meetings. They are not just the messengers but also more or less the journalists of the Order, and all of them should probably deliver information (and gossip) to the covenants on their routes. The best way to give correct (or properly viewed) tales from the Tribunal meeting is to experience the events yourself. And the business opportunities will be good both for messages and vis-trade.
I agree it would be bad form for the magus. If the Redcap read a letter and vote according to this letter, he stays neutral. If he joins in the discussion and advocate a POV, then it isn't.
I do not see speaking for someone else as showing a political view or alliance, as long as you make it clear that it's not your view and that you are simply relaying the vote/speech. This is especially true if you have a long-standing reputation for neutrality.
Also, while it is true that Redcaps have a reputation for neutrality, they abstain because they have no Gift, so they are in some sense "below" magi. Technically, the code does not require them to abstain, but if they did not, they'd run a very serious risk of seeing their privilege revoked. This is actually the reason why I'm wondering if relaying your vote through them would be seen in some sense as "bad form": speaking to your sodales through an intermediary that is, in some sense, "below" them.
I can see the redcaps doing that (letter from magus + vote as instructed) easily. if they have to represent the magus and deliberate on what should be done, I would assume that the magus (not the redcap) would earn a bad reputation, and that the vote by the redcap would be seen with quite some contempt if not anger. They are members of the Order and are respected because they provide a useful service, but they are not in the same league by any means and you can't expect them to be as smart as a Magus (be it right or not).
I don't think people would sweat it much because I see it not as an issue of the Redcap's rights and boundaries, but rather the rights of the actual petitioner. After all, the magus holding the sigil should be able to bring up whatever piece of business he or she wants. If the piece of business is on behalf of an amicus or even a mundane (explicitly or implicitly), it doesn't diminish his or her rights to bring it up and I don't think anyone would begrudge that right. If people wanted to limit it, it could be done by Praeco like any other issue, - but I don't think people would like the implications of such a precedent. Redcaps have friends and allies among the Order just like anyone else (perhaps more so since the get more one on one time with more people potentially) so it is reasonable to assume allies act accordingly at tribunal. This can't be the first time this has happened and I doubt it would even be controversial actually. Restricting the gifted petitioner's right of petition based on his or her motivations seems much more controversial by comparison.
"...but they are not in the same league by any means."
I doubt getting a friend to help you at tribunal would be taken as an assertion of equal rank. Quite the opposite I think. Working by proxy using an advocate that is in the same leagues is as much an admission of a secondary status.
I don't see why that has to be a problem. Of course, if the vote is close, that could be grounds for the other side to try to argue that such votes are invalid.
A possible problem, from the perspective of the magus using the Redcap as a proxy, is that a Redcap doesn't have Magic Resistance so is more vulnerable to having his mind read or manipulated and so his enemies might interfere with the presentation of his case or sense of his vote (which would, of course, be illegal --- but doesn't mean it isn't a risk).
I would think it would not be seen with happiness but that it would be accepted for a Redcap to get instructions on what to say and how to use any votes entrusted.
As RL said:
I expect that will one of the reasons why it wont be totally accepted. Xavi´s point another reason for it.
But i still think it WOULD be accepted.
Hoh:TL has a bit that's relevant in the Guernicus chapter (page 48, "Proxy Voting" grey box).
"A directed proxy involves the sigil owner composing a list of voting directions. Most magi find exercising a proxy like this tedious and a little demeaning. Usually Redcaps are paid to act as directed proxies."
So from that I'd take it that the Redcaps casting voting sigils may well not actually be that unusual. Free proxies (where magus who's been lent the sigil has the discretion to cast it) are another matter, of course, although it may not be apparent to onlookers which sigils (and even votes) are which.