View Topic

Title
1. This law shall be titled the Prevention of Unfilled Seats during Elections Act.

Prevention
2. Should,  the number of candidates be less than the amount of seats the Underhusen had previously set, upon voting being open, then the seats shall be changed to that number except in cases where it would be below the limit allowed. In the case of the number being lower than the legally allowed minimum then the number of seats shall be lowered to said amount.

3. An acceptable time-frame shall be defined as being within two weeks since the end of the initial election.

4. This shall only apply to the regular elections for the Underhusen as defined within the Fundamental Laws

I just realized that the Underhusen could technically be prevented from starting until twenty-one days until the next regular election.

Well, if/when a final version of this is decided on before the elections start, I'll be happy to present this to The Underhusen.

technically we have until elections end to propose this, and I doubt that it will be an issue for us...

I have a question about section 2:

2. Should,  the number of candidates be less than the amount of seats the Underhusen had previously set, upon voting being open, then the seats shall be changed to that number except in cases where it would be below the limit allowed.

What happens when the number of candidates is below 4 (the lowest allowed limit)? The law does give exception to this, saying that the number of seats won't be changed to the number of candidates when it is that low... But it doesn't give an alternative or solution just says it can't happen, so how should this be addressed? 

The lowest limit is 3 Hannah....that's a constitutional mandate.

OK, maybe it was a bad idea to post something like that as soon as I have got up in the morning 

But I honestly thought it was 4  I am sure section 2 of the fundamental laws says "no less than 4"...  it must be amended somewhere that I haven't read properly, I shall go look

Anyway speaking of: doesn't the end of section 2 of the fundamental laws already cover this?

2. The Underhusen shall be comprised of no less than four and no more than seven Skrifa elected by the Citizens of Wintreath. The exact number of Skrifa shall be determined by the Underhusen prior to Underhusen elections opening. Should the number of candidates not exceed the determined number of Skrifa, all candidates shall be considered elected by default.

Doesn't the " Should the number... ...considered elected by default" part cover what this new act is suggesting? 

OK, maybe it was a bad idea to post something like that as soon as I have got up in the morning 

But I honestly thought it was 4  I am sure section 2 of the fundamental laws says "no less than 4"...  it must be amended somewhere that I haven't read properly, I shall go look

Sorry, it is 4. I confused it with the OH. (I was also tired when I posted that so :/)

Anyway speaking of: doesn't the end of section 2 of the fundamental laws already cover this?

2. The Underhusen shall be comprised of no less than four and no more than seven Skrifa elected by the Citizens of Wintreath. The exact number of Skrifa shall be determined by the Underhusen prior to Underhusen elections opening. Should the number of candidates not exceed the determined number of Skrifa, all candidates shall be considered elected by default.

Doesn't the " Should the number... ...considered elected by default" part cover what this new act is suggesting? 

No, here is why: This act RELIES ON section 2 to function, however if you look at Section 3, which this focuses on. You see at this current time, if the seats are unfilled the Underhusen can not start with business, and if we have 5 seats but only 4 Skrifa then we have to wait until we elect a 5th, until it is within twenty-one days of a regular election. This is designed to prevent that from occurring, as long as we have enough Skrifa running.

The only exception is if there isn't, in which case it CAN'T be lowered to that amount.

OK I see, now it makes sense, thank you for the explanation Chanku

In that case I definatly support this!

I can also see what was confusing about what I was originally talking about, though it might still be prudent to add more to this act  but I'll think about that myself in the mean time this will be fine.