View Topic

Title
1. This act is to be cited as the Underhusen Election Protection Act

Amendments
2. Article I, Section 2 of the Fundamental Laws is amended to read as follows:
"The Underhusen shall be comprised of no fewer than four and no more than seven Skrifa elected by the Citizens of Wintreath. The exact number of Skrifa is to be determined by the Underhusen prior to Underhusen elections opening. Should the number of candidates be fewer than or equal to the determined number of Skrifa, all candidates are be considered elected by default, if the number of candidates is at least four. Should the number of candidates be less than four, all candidates are elected by default and a Special Election begins to fill the remaining seats until there are at least four Skrifa. If the seats are not filled and it is twenty-one days to the next regular election, that Underhusen is dissolved and the prior Underhusen is to continue."

3. Article I, Section 4 of the Fundamental Laws is amended to read as follows:
"Upon all seats of the Underhusen being filled, the new Underhusen is to, under the supervision of the Monarch, select a member of its own to preside over the Underhusen as Speaker, the procedure for which is to be declared in the Procedural Rules of the Underhusen. After the Speaker is selected, the prior Underhusen is dissolved."

So I've been working on this a bit since the start of this session, so here it is. It's a way to protect Underhusen elections if there are less candidates than the amount of seats.

If it's above 3, then all people are elected by default, otherwise the seats are filled and a Special Election is held. The prior Underhusen continues until the election of a Speaker, as well. If the Special Election is still ongoing at a certain point, then that Underhusen is dissolved entirely. The reason for this is to prevent one or two person Underhusens.

Very interesting! I like it. The only issue I have is why are we setting an *upper* bound? Why should that be necessary?

Edit: "remaning" in Section 2 should be "remaining"

Very interesting! I like it. The only issue I have is why are we setting an *upper* bound? Why should that be necessary?

Edit: "remaning" in Section 2 should be "remaining"

Thanks for that, although with the upper bound, there has to be an upper bound at some point, either at the start of the next elections *OR* some other time. I decided at some other time because after about 21 days until the next election, there isn't much that UH can do, beyond pass a seating act. So I just had the new UH dissolved and let the old UH manage the next UH details.

I think we may have to shorten this period. I'd be more comfortable if the old UH continues 14 days after the stalemate couldn't be resolved, and if a clause could be added that allows for the people who ran for the session that didn't end up having enough people to volunteer to take the place of any people from the previous session who didn't wish to run again, in the first place.

I think we may have to shorten this period. I'd be more comfortable if the old UH continues 14 days after the stalemate couldn't be resolved, and if a clause could be added that allows for the people who ran for the session that didn't end up having enough people to volunteer to take the place of any people from the previous session who didn't wish to run again, in the first place.

That would be a bit more complicated to word, and would probably require working on Article I some more, perhaps even adding a new section. I will say that there are reasons I went with what I did though, first it's the simplest solution to add in (primarily in the interim to discuss a more permenant and perhaps complete solution), next is that it does actually clarify exactly when a term ends and begins, and does permit the enactment of laws prior to the election of the Speaker (which removes the awkward several days that occurs before the UH can do things).

I have toyed around with permitting the prior UH to dissolve itself with a vote (under certain circumstances), and perhaps permit a vote within the Citizenry to dissolve it if the UH refuses or something, and do some stuff with that.

I feel that some issues haven't been resolved on the end of some other Skrifa, especially @Laurentus.

I move to extend debate.

I motion to table. The next session can deal with this, we've only two days left in this session, I'd only feel comfortable passing a seating act if we do that.

I second.

Third.

@Laurentus the Speaker would like to requires that the Honourable Skrifa clarify if they intended to second the motion as well, or not.

I intend to second the motion to table.

Very well, Motion Passes.