Electoral Amendment

Haor Chall

Haor Chall

The Power of the Dark Side
TNP Nation
Haor Chall
Article 1:
9. Election of the Delegate and Vice Delegate shall require a majority vote of the Assembly.
Click to expand...

To:

9. Election of the Delegate and Vice Delegate shall require a majority vote of the Assembly. of votes cast.
 
I'll support this.

Is this what caused the re-election? Although we're correct to make it clearer, it could've actually been interpreted as a "majority of votes cast" anyway.

A majority vote *of* (or belonging to) the Assembly. This can be interpreted to mean that a majority vote may be conducted "of" (or belonging to) the Assembly that will determine the Delegate's election, rather than being interpreted to mean that the "majority of ALL members in the Assembly" must approve of a candidate.

Sorry for the pickiness lol...but I think this could have been avoided. :pinch:
 
I concur with Rhindon's interpretation but support HC's clarification.

I do, however, seem to recall that the framers of this law intended it to require a majority of sitting assembly members because of the importance of electing such high officials. The fear was that during a time of little activity or potentially after the forum had been hijacked by sinister forces that a delegate could be elected with two or three votes and not truly represent the wishes of the citizens. I personally don't fear such an occurrence.
 
If that interpretation were correct then there would be no need to distinguish the vote for Delegate and Vice Delegate separately from the other offices as each position would be selected by plurality.
 
Gracius Maximus:
If that interpretation were correct then there would be no need to distinguish the vote for Delegate and Vice Delegate separately from the other offices as each position would be selected by plurality.
Click to expand...
This is The North Pacific sir! Not having a reason to enact legislation has never stopped us before!
 
Gracius Maximus:
If that interpretation were correct then there would be no need to distinguish the vote for Delegate and Vice Delegate separately from the other offices as each position would be selected by plurality.
Click to expand...

Not quite Chief.

With a plurality the highest vote earner would win- which if you had more than 2 candiates might not be a majority. By requiring a majority (50%+1) a rerun would be required if, for instance there were four candiates for Delegate and the highest candidate got 39% of the vote. Under a plurality that candidate would be elected. That is the difference.

If you remember we've had that situation before in the past when more than 2 people have run for a position. This amendment wouldn't remove that problem,(if you consider it such), it just affects the problem in the most recent election.
 
You are correct, except that in this situation there are only two alternatives which equates plurality to majority rule if the given interpretation is accepted.
 
The current language was designed to impose a fixed minimum proportion of votes cast in order to elect a candidate.

I think the proposed language from Haor Chall would inadvertently open a new ambiguity that I'm sure was not intended. "majority of votes cast" by whom? by removing the reference to the Regional Assembly.

The way to prevent this would be:

Constitution Article I Section 3:
9. Election of the Delegate and Vice Delegate shall require a majority of the votes cast in vote of the Assembly.
Click to expand...

Another approach that would not require a Constitutional amendment, would be to include a definitional statement to thelaws that would govern elections. I'm more than willing to add a definitional statement to my proposed Election Law proposal.
 
No, I believe Grosseschnauzer is quite right. Although I do support the changes...I believe that it merely makes the wording clearer - it can indeed still be interpreted conveniently as it is.
 
I think we should take the French stance, in a way.

If there are more than two candidates and one fails to reach majority, run a second election with only two candidates so one candidate must come out on the other end with a majority.
 
That would still happen with this amendment.

Grosse is probably right so this is the updated version of the amendment:

9. Election of the Delegate and Vice Delegate shall require a majority of the votes cast by in vote of the Assembly.
 
Haor Chall, is this the correct final version of your proposal?

Amend Article I Section 3, Clause 9 of the Constitution to read:
9. Election of the Delegate and Vice Delegate shall require a majority of the votes cast by in vote of the Assembly.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top