Voting Results for February Election

Former English Colony

Former English Colony

InFECtious
-
-
-
-
Pronouns
she/her
Ladies and Gentlemen, the election results for the February elections. Winners are indicated by an underlined name.

Delegate/Vice-Delegate:
Delegate (26) -
HoneySheep (24)
Abstain (1)
Disqualified (1)

Vice Delegate (26) -
Tresville (24)
Abstain (1)
Disqualified (1)
Click to expand...

Ministers:
Prime Minister (38) -
Flemingovia (17)
Poltsamaa (10)
Romanoffia (7)
Abstain (4)

Minister of Immigration and Internal Affairs (38) -
Hersfold (34)
Abstain (4)

Minister of External Affairs (38) -
Haor Chall (18)
Koona (12)
Conneticun (6)
Abstain (2)

Minister of Defense (38) -
Dalimbar (30)
Gaspo (3)
Abstain (5)

Attorney General/Minister of Justice (38) -
Mr. Sniffles (27)
Abstain (11)

Minister of Communications (38) -
Ator People (34)
Abstain (4)

Minister of Arts and Entertainment (38) -
IndieGirl (19)
Deikura (13)
Puckton (6)

Minister of Culture and Education (38) -
Namyeknom (30)
none (5)
Abstain (2)
Disqualified (1)

Speaker (38) -
wizardofoz01 (33)
Abstain (5)
Click to expand...

Security Council:
Security Council -
Tresville (33)
Great Bights Mum (33)
Ator People (31)
Grosseschnauzer(29)
Byardkuria (28)
Dalimbar (25)
Gaspo (24)

Mr. Sniffles (16)
Conneticun (14)
Click to expand...

This is certified by myself, and sometime tonight Heft will be able to get on and certify it.

Now, we realize that Namyeknom has won and dropped out of the race for the Minister of C&E, which leaves us with noone. Therefore, we're going to have to hold another election. I have to discuss this with Heft, but we should be holding nominations for a week and then elections for a week.
 
Erastide:
Now, we realize that Namyeknom has won and dropped out of the race for the Minister of C&E, which leaves us with noone.  Therefore, we're going to have to hold another election.  I have to discuss this with Heft, but we should be holding nominations for a week and then elections for a week.
Click to expand...
I thought the PM (in other words Flem) was supposed to appoint someone?

*Hersfold starts masking people - all done. VB has also been added as MoAE as per IG's campaign.
 
According to the legal code we need a run off for Prime Minister and Minister of External Affairs as the candidate with the highest number of votes did not obtain a majority of cast votes, ie. greater than 50%!! This is the case even disregarding the abstentions for those elections!!

Can this be confirmed or denied by the Electoral officials and the dates for the run-offs, if deemed necessary, be published?!
 
At present we have no PM, so we might best focus on rectifying that situation before we seek appointment and confirmation of the Minister of Culture and Education!!
 
TNP Law 5 on Election Procedures:
Section 4. Runoff Elections
A - When an Office has no candidate obtaining a majority, the two highest-placed candidates shall enter into a runoff.
B - If the second-highest candidate position is tied, the candidates so tied shall enter into a runoff with the highest-placed candidate.
C - If there is a tie for the highest-placed candidate position, only those candidates so tied shall enter into a runoff election.
D - The runoff election shall utilize the same procedures as for the initial round of elections. A plurality shall determine the winner of the runoff election.
E - In the event of a tie in any office other than the UN Delegate, the incoming UN Delegate has the right to cast a vote to break the tie, pursuant to Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. In the event of a tie in a runoff election for UN Delegate, the incoming Cabinet shall vote to break the tie, pursuant to Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution.
Click to expand...
 
*Erastide sighs

So... a couple of questions for y'all.

1. If there is no candidate running, does the PM still get to appoint someone? Since Nam withdrew before he was elected, there was no candidate.

2. On the majority, sorry. To me... that meant simply whoever garnered the most votes. Excuse me for having poor English skills.

Heft and I have been running around completely clueless with noone guiding us. I think he and I both want to write something up about what the *actual* steps of an election commissioner should be, as opposed to the bs in the Constitution. And I think we need some more official rules on voting and counting votes, and.... whatever if we're going to dispute this. :duh:

So yes. Apparently we will be needing several runoff elections.
Prime Minister
Minister of Arts and Entertainment (for which I believe Deikura wants to drop out, which means... what? Puckton runs against IG?)
Minister of External Affairs

When will they happen? I have no idea at this time.
 
*Ator People finds his new mod powers :D


Good job Eras & Heft....it's hard work to do the election counting and everything, and you guys did well.
 
I agree with Ator.

Presumably we can and should hold runoffs ASAP so we give the eventual winners as much time as possible to actually perform their jobs.
 
TNP Constitution Article III Section 1:
B - Elections and referendums shall take place on The North Pacific Regional off-site forum. Elections for the UN Delegate, the UN Vice Delegate, the Prime Minister, the other elected Cabinet Ministers, the Speaker of the Regional Assembly, and the Security Council, shall be held every three calendar months in the months of February, May, August, and November. Voting shall commence at 12:00 am GMT on the first day of the designated month and end at 11:59 pm GMT on the seventh day of the designated month. Voting in any necessary runoff election shall commence at 12:00 am GMT on the tenth day of the designated month and end at 11:59 pm GMT on the sixteenth day of the designated month. Nations take office when a certificate of results of an election are published.
Click to expand...

In other words, tonight.
 
I don't think I should have mod powers, I'm only le deputy. Feel free to ignore me though, I don't really mind, lol.
 
I would suggest that polls are simply opened again ASAP, and are left open for a week.

as regards the position for MOAE, if Deikura really wants to drop out, I would not complain should the election officers decide that the runoff should be between IG and Deikura, but as Deikura withdraws, IG is elected. That seems to me to be a valid interpretation under the legal code.

I also think that as Nam withdrew mid election (something the constitution does not foresee), it would be in order for there to be a simple bye-elction (to use a British term). In other words, a week of nominations and hustings, and then a week of polling.

I would also suggest, since this could all develop into a drawn out waffle concerning the interpretation of the consitution that could leave us with no effective government for quite a while, that we leave the procedure etc to Eras and Heft, and then agree to abide by what they decide, rather than knee-jerk challenge it.

To help Eras and heft, since they seem to be asking for guidance, here is the relevant section of the legal code regarding the conduct of runoff elections.

Section 4. Runoff Elections
A - When an Office has no candidate obtaining a majority, the two highest-placed candidates shall enter into a runoff.
B - If the second-highest candidate position is tied, the candidates so tied shall enter into a runoff with the highest-placed candidate.
C - If there is a tie for the highest-placed candidate position, only those candidates so tied shall enter into a runoff election.
D - The runoff election shall utilize the same procedures as for the initial round of elections. A plurality shall determine the winner of the runoff election.
E - In the event of a tie in any office other than the UN Delegate, the incoming UN Delegate has the right to cast a vote to break the tie, pursuant to Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. In the event of a tie in a runoff election for UN Delegate, the incoming Cabinet shall vote to break the tie, pursuant to Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution.
Click to expand...
 
I understand that this makes me sound like an arse, but why didn't we restart the election when he announced he wasn't going to be able to run? Feel free to punch me in the gut over the ether.

I rest my case! It's very tired.
 
Consider yourself punched.

At the request of the Election Comission, the Court, such as it is, will be examining the relevant passages of the Law pertaining to the irregularities of this election, and issuing an opinion, that the commission may know how best to proceed.

In light of this, and due to the lack of precedent or history in the matter, the Court is also issuing an injunction preventing the initiation of voting in any runoff elections until it can be determined exactly what elections will be needed, and who will be running. In addition, we will address the matter of the Candidates which have removed themselves from the running.

(OOC - I am off work tomorrow, so it'll be quick. Hopefully.)
 
I have no desire to challenge Court authority in the matter, and indeed if anyone should be saying what is going on, it should be the Justices.


However, I don't understand what's so confusing about what the Constitution says. Nor do I think there's any room for people to knee-jerk challenge...

There are a couple of categories where no single candidate got over 50% of the vote. Runoffs between the top two candidates, starting at a time the Constitution SPELLS OUT seems to be clear.


I also believe there is no question regarding Nam and the C&E position. Since the election was already underway, there is basically no candidate for this position. Hence, there is no new election or anything of the sort. After runoffs occur and a PM is selected, he has the power to appoint someone to the post.
 
The Legal Code is quite clear, the majority requirement was thrown at me last election by those claiming abstentions counted!!

I didn't see anyone asking for a court verdict on the matter at all, so lets cut the crap and get on with it!!

And thank you to Eras and Heft for running the elections so smoothly!!
 
Poltsamaa:
The Legal Code is quite clear, the majority requirement was thrown at me last election by those claiming abstentions counted!!

I didn't see anyone asking for a court verdict on the matter at all, so lets cut the crap and get on with it!!

And thank you to Eras and Heft for running the elections so smoothly!!
Click to expand...
Interesting point:

Prime Minister (38) -
Flemingovia (17)
Poltsamaa (10)
Romanoffia (7)
Abstain (4)
Click to expand...

38 votes were cast - 17 votes are not a majority of the total votes cast. The wording of the constitution is wishy-washy as it doesn't clearly define what type of majority of needed. Is it a plurality? Is it a majority of the votes cast?

Since, in the past, a majority has always been defined as 50% + 1, and 17 votes are not a majority of the votes cast, it should be forwarded to a run-off.

R
 
The word :majority" without an adjective means a simple majority, that is anything over 50 per cent.
The only surprising thing is that in three races, the leading candidate got 50 per cent exactly -- absentions are not counted.
Even if absentions were counted it still does not change the need for runoff elections. In the runoff round, it takes a plurality, not a majority, and if there is, heaven forbid, a tie, then the new delegate breaks the tie.
Meanwhile, those of us who were elected can go ahead and take our oaths of office.
 
Eras...after we spoke before in regards to the election...I started to write a guide to being an election commisioner. I haven't posted it because I have been at my other comp for most of the week. Soon as I get a chance, I will forward it to u and Heft to add any tips.
 
Poltsamaa:
The Legal Code is quite clear, the majority requirement was thrown at me last election by those claiming abstentions counted!!

I didn't see anyone asking for a court verdict on the matter at all, so lets cut the crap and get on with it!!

And thank you to Eras and Heft for running the elections so smoothly!!
Click to expand...
Actually Polts... *I* asked for Byardkuria to make a ruling. I'm tired of not knowing what I'm supposed to be doing and then getting told I'm doing it wrong. If I can't interpret what I'm supposed to do, then we should get something official.

I've already had to ask for an opinion earlier, and I'm going to ask for that one to be brought up here too. Now... since I'm really tired and cranky, I'm going to stop right here and go to bed.
 
Sorry, I did not see and still do not see a formal request for a Judicial review or enquiry into this matter!! Hence biting my head off for not seeing it would seem rather an over-reaction!!

To me, the constitution is quite clear and I'm amused that those that understood it so well last election are now suddenly confused about it!!

50% is not a majority...if we had two candidates and both had 50% of the vote, would they both have the majority?! No, of course not!!

The second part clearly says that a run-off is required should a majority not be obtained by one of the candidates!! That run-off should be between the two highest vote getters or the top three if the runner-up is tied!!

However, if a judicial review is deemed necessary then I guess we can all sit around twiddling our thumbs until we decide which interpretation of the constitution will best suit us!!

*waits*
 
Well, this is interesting. Seems the procedure is (unusually) straight forward however- we do need to get this moving as soon as possible- because we do need a Prime Minister some point this term.

My only thought on this is that if a majority is defined as +50% or whatever, then as the number of candiates for a position goes up (looking to the future, optimistically perhaps) to three, four or higher- the likehood of one person getting more than half the vote is very unlikely. Whether that means we need to rethink the way this works or just accept that in elections with more candiates we're going to have run-off elections.
 
The law was clearly designed so that only people who had the support of the majority of voters would be elected to office!! Not an ideal situation as Haor Chall has pointed out, but for the time being it is the system we have in place!!

I'm unsure as to the reasonong of the judicial review but as I said, I'll wait and see what comes of all this!!
 
I withdrew from my race prior to the end of voting. I'm wondering quite heavily why my wishes were not acknowledged.

:eyebrow: now I need to have a little chat with my brother. Perhaps he failed to clearly communicate my wishes with the right people.
 
Deikura:
I withdrew from my race prior to the end of voting. I'm wondering quite heavily why my wishes were not acknowledged.

:eyebrow: now I need to have a little chat with my brother. Perhaps he failed to clearly communicate my wishes with the right people.
Click to expand...
No, your wishes were acknowledged, but they were not realistic or legal.

And Polts dear... :hug: I wasn't trying to bite your head off. I was trying to refrain from it. I was cranky from several other things, and this was a completely unexpected hassle. Oh... and I never felt I understood the Constitution last election. I don't think I understand it now. That's why I keep asking questions about what certain things mean.
 
Excuse me, can someone show me the way to the congratulation topic? I would like to congratulate the elected candidates, but nobody has done this here, so I assume it's the wrong thread. :unsure:
Just tell me the way and you folks can continue the bickering about legal stuff. :yes:
 
I agree with polys, a new vote for pm is both necissary and the right thing to do. And in the mean time as polts is the incumbent can he not still nominate a candidate for the empty position?
 
Don't say I didn't warn you....

IMO (not that it matters much), an Abstention is, by definition, choosing not to vote. Therefore, one would assume that they would not count towards the ballots cast, which would mean we do have a majority for these elections. But of course, it's not my decision to make. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top