The Run-Off Bill
- Thread starter Alunya
- Start date
Note: A majority of votes is not required in all elections.
Precisely. Those offices that require a majority and those offices that require merely a plurality are specified in the Constitution.SillyString:
This defines what a run-off is, and does so with reference to a required majority of votes.
It also defines who the eligible candidates are if a run-off is required.
>^,,^<
Alunya
I would prefer "the required percentage" of the votes, since majority has very specific meaning in elections.
For the second bit, that's definitely a good idea. I think it might be better phrased like this:
For the second bit, that's definitely a good idea. I think it might be better phrased like this:
I see your point -- I hadn't considered the possibility of a tie for the most votes in an election where a plurality is permissible.
I've revised the original to include this possibility.
In the definition, I have still included the phrase "required majority," which addresses all elections where a majority is specified, whether it be a simple or a super-majority (by either fraction, fraction plus one, percentage, or percentage plus one.) The second part addresses the event of a tie in an election where a plurality is permissible.
As for candidate eligibility, subclause (a) should be sufficient to cover a run-off in an election where a plurality is permissible as well as a tie for first in an election where there is a required majority. Subclause (b) has been modified to make clear that it is only applicable in instances where a required majority is specified, all other conditions having been met (one candidate with the most votes, a tie for second, and the required majority not having been attained.)
I hope this covers all the boundary conditions. I think this is equivalent to the common law that The North Pacific has been following, but now makes it explicit in a Positivist Law manner. It isn't strictly necessary in that we have so far managed with common sense, but common sense being not so common at times, it might be prudent to put it in writing once and for all.
If you or someone else would be kind enough to introduce it for consideration in the Regional Assembly, I would greatly appreciate it. You are, of course, welcome to make modifications as you see fit -- it isn't my bill, after all!
>^,,^<
Alunya
I've revised the original to include this possibility.
In the definition, I have still included the phrase "required majority," which addresses all elections where a majority is specified, whether it be a simple or a super-majority (by either fraction, fraction plus one, percentage, or percentage plus one.) The second part addresses the event of a tie in an election where a plurality is permissible.
As for candidate eligibility, subclause (a) should be sufficient to cover a run-off in an election where a plurality is permissible as well as a tie for first in an election where there is a required majority. Subclause (b) has been modified to make clear that it is only applicable in instances where a required majority is specified, all other conditions having been met (one candidate with the most votes, a tie for second, and the required majority not having been attained.)
I hope this covers all the boundary conditions. I think this is equivalent to the common law that The North Pacific has been following, but now makes it explicit in a Positivist Law manner. It isn't strictly necessary in that we have so far managed with common sense, but common sense being not so common at times, it might be prudent to put it in writing once and for all.
If you or someone else would be kind enough to introduce it for consideration in the Regional Assembly, I would greatly appreciate it. You are, of course, welcome to make modifications as you see fit -- it isn't my bill, after all!
>^,,^<
Alunya
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
The revised edition is very well and very tightly constructed, and clears up any ambiguities in the present legal construction.
And it eliminates several potential possibilities for chronic 'run-on-itis'.
And it eliminates several potential possibilities for chronic 'run-on-itis'.
falapatorius
TNPer
I'm in the process of drafting Legal Code legislation, so I could incorporate this. However, I wouldn't want this to fail because of disagreement over the changes I'm proposing. It could always be introduced at another time. The next election cycle is a couple of months away so..
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
I was going to comment, but discretion being the better part of valour. 