View Topic

Title
1) This act shall be titled the "Speaker Election Amendment Act".

Amendments and Additions:
2) The "Procedural Rules of the Underhusen Act" shall be amended to add a section 8 (c) which shall read as follows:
Quote
8. (c): Should, after 3 ballots, the election for Speaker remain tied then The Monarch shall have the tie breaking vote for Speaker.

Something to close a potential loophole with Speaker Elections.

Yep, that sounds good.

Found an error. Let's take an example underhusen of a, b, c, d:
1st election: tie a and b
2nd: tie b and c
3rd: tie c and d.
Who can the monarch vote for?

Whomever he wants from the third ballot. He gets the tie breaking vote.

Whomever he wants from the third ballot. He gets the tie breaking vote.

Then you should specify this in the document.

Title
1) This act shall be titled the "Speaker Election Amendment Act".

Amendments and Additions:
2) The "Procedural Rules of the Underhusen Act" shall be amended to add a section 8 (c) which shall read as follows:
Quote
8. (c): Should, after 3 ballots, the election for Speaker remain tied then The Monarch shall have the tie breaking vote for Speaker in the third ballot.

I'm a bit confused both at Syraj's analogy and how North's solution fixes that analogy. Isn't there only one ballot? What happens if more than 2 people tie?

I'm a bit confused both at Syraj's analogy and how North's solution fixes that analogy. Isn't there only one ballot? What happens if more than 2 people tie?

Currently, the law says if there is a tie, then elections shall just continue. The amendment says that after the 3rd election, the monarch will pick one of the tied members from the 3rd ballot to be speaker. North's solution defines who can be picked by the monarch, and the monarch can pick one person, no matter the number of candidates. I hope this answers your question.

I'm a bit confused both at Syraj's analogy and how North's solution fixes that analogy. Isn't there only one ballot? What happens if more than 2 people tie?

Currently, the law says if there is a tie, then elections shall just continue. The amendment says that after the 3rd election, the monarch will pick one of the tied members from the 3rd ballot to be speaker. North's solution defines who can be picked by the monarch, and the monarch can pick one person, no matter the number of candidates. I hope this answers your question.

What precedent is there for having multiple election rounds? Sure we could implement that, but I don’t remember reading anything about more than one ballot.

Title
1) This act shall be titled the "Speaker Election Amendment Act".

Amendments and Additions:
2) The "Procedural Rules of the Underhusen Act" shall be amended to add a section 8 (c) which shall read as follows:
Quote
8. (c): Should, after 5 days from the beginning of the Speaker Election, the election for Speaker remain tied then The Monarch shall have the tie breaking vote for Speaker.

What about this?

I do have some worries about the legality of this solution. The Fundamental Laws requires that the Underhusen elects one of its own. While the exact Procedure is left up in the air, the Monarch is not, and can not, be of the Underhusen.

Yes, and most of the time the Underhusen does elect one of its own. This is for when they cannot. The legal issue does not seem to hold much water since, as you said, the procedure is left up in the air.

Wait what? What possible situation would the Underhusen not be able to elect one of its own? We could just invalidate the final vote if there is a tie, or give the overhusen tie-breaking powers. I don't think giving a free vote to someone who isn't even in the Underhusen makes any sense.

But a member of the Underhusen is still going to be the Speaker. Nothing about that has changed. When I said that most of the time they do, I was referencing the possibility I am trying to fix, an unbreakable tie vote. If we invalidate the final vote in the event of a tie, then nothing is changed and another vote will have to happen.

Another ballot, if you will.

And if you do not want to give a tie breaking vote to someone who is not in the UH, why would giving a tie breaking vote to the entire OH be better?

And we are not giving a free vote to some random guy, we are giving the tie breaking vote to the Monarch. In my opinion, no one else would be suitable.

I do have some worries about the legality of this solution. The Fundamental Laws requires that the Underhusen elects one of its own. While the exact Procedure is left up in the air, the Monarch is not, and can not, be of the Underhusen.

I agree with you here. This cannot be done because the monarch is not part of the Underhusen. Can you think of another solution, though?