View Topic

As pointed out recently (I think by Chanku), if there is a tie with regards to UH procedure, it can't pass to the OH, so it's basically just a bust then.

http://wintreath.com/forums/index.php?topic=2295.0

What happened there then?

This whole "tie" thing was settled in the last amendment to the procedural rules.

5. Once brought to a vote, a proposal shall remain at vote for seven days or until the requisite number of Underhusen representatives have voted in favor of or against the proposal.
(a) In the event that a vote is tied, the bill will be passed directly to the Overhusen for a vote.

Actually, and this is embarrassing to admit, it appears there's a discrepancy in the procedural rules. The above is section 5, and below is section 10.

10. The Speaker will close votes after seven days of voting, or if enough votes have been cast to decide the outcome of the proposal.
      (a)  In order for a proposal to pass (excluding amendments to the Fundamental Laws), the number of "Aye" votes cast during the voting period must exceed the number of "Nay" votes.

Ahem, it's not that there isn't procedure, there ALWAYS has been. However it's the fact that ties are not very good to have.

Ahem, it's not that there isn't procedure, there ALWAYS has been. However it's the fact that ties are not very good to have.

If legislation is controversial enough to warrant a tie, then there's nothing wrong with one; we have two houses for a reason.

As pointed out recently (I think by Chanku), if there is a tie with regards to UH procedure, it can't pass to the OH, so it's basically just a bust then.

http://wintreath.com/forums/index.php?topic=2295.0

What happened there then?

This wasn't UH procedure. UH procedure is something like the next seating act for the UH (minor example), or limiting the power of the Speaker or what have you. In other words, everything related to the UH's own separate conduct from the OH. I think you can see why this type of thing wouldn't pass to the OH.

While I normally would not suggest it, I don't like the idea of having candidates just take seats, so unless we happen to get six people perhaps four people would be enough.

As pointed out recently (I think by Chanku), if there is a tie with regards to UH procedure, it can't pass to the OH, so it's basically just a bust then.

http://wintreath.com/forums/index.php?topic=2295.0

What happened there then?

Laurentus is speaking more of things such as amendments to Procedural rules for the UH specifically, or things that affect just the UH.  Those don't go to the OH for a vote since they're strictly UH business, so a tie would put it at a standstill.

If people want a competitive election, I would suggest getting more people to run.

Depending on how many people run this time, due to real life issues, I may not be running again. If you need someone to fill a spot, I'll take it, but otherwise, I'll be concentrating on my issues.

You should probably decline your nomination then Aragonn.

I won't decline my nomination just so I'll still be running, but if I'm not needed, then I'll step down from the election.

Technically you aren't running...you need to accept it to run or decline it to not run....right now you are a potential candidate....

I do believe "won't" is the combination of "will not" which refers to the possibility of it happening, or in this case not happening, in the future.

I understand, you said, "So I will still be running", however unless you actually accept the nomination you won't be running . It's just a technical distinction. :3

I see that. But with the statement of "I won't decline my nomination," there leaves two possibilities; I won't say anything or I will accept, the latter being much more likely.