View Topic

Coming to that time again! With the August Underhusen elections coming up and per The Fundamental Laws of Wintreath:

I2. 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.

Looks like a pretty routine process to me. Any suggestions for number of seats?

With a quieter term and not as many standing candidates, I'd probably lean towards 5 candidates. A smaller number, but still odd, which helps with any ties or whatever that may come up. Thoughts?

I've been informed that the Default Seating Act actually sets the seats at 5 seats if no act is passed. After speaking with Tau however, I would rather that the Act be passed, even if we end up agreeing on 5 seats.

I know that there is no impact if this act is passed or not if the goal is 5 seats, but I think it sets a good precedent for the future. If the role for the UH is to set the number of seats for the next election, I think the UH should take that responsibility seriously and make an attempt at doing so. Like Tau said last night, the DSA should be viewed as more of a 'fail safe' or backup. In the future, I think it also leads to less confusion as to whether the UH intentionally didn't pass an Act because they agreed on 5 seats, or whether they just forgot. Just my two cents!

Since nobody else is posting here.

With a little over a day left in nominations, I'm a little concerned that we won't have 5 people stand for election. I'm hoping to get at least 4 so we don't have a constitutional question, but...do you worry that 5 might be optimistic?

I just stood! So hopefully we will have at least 4. I am open to increasing it to 5 if we see someone else enter the race, or else I am fine at keeping it at 4.

Title
1. This shall be titled the Seating Act for the Forty-First Underhusen.

Seats
2. The Forty-First session of the Underhusen shall be composed of four (4) seats.

I'm hoping to get at least 4 so we don't have a constitutional question, but...do you worry that 5 might be optimistic?

I yearn for that constitutional question.

Title
1. This shall be titled the Seating Act for the Forty-First Underhusen.

Seats
2. The Forty-First session of the Underhusen shall be composed of four (5) seats.

Please note this says 'four (5)'. Please amend that accordingly.

Oops. I copied and pasted from the last one and was afraid that that would happen. Fixed!

Well, having done my due diligence there, I must come out strongly against this bill, because I want the constitutional crisis that having less putative UH members than there are seats would cause, in order to highlight the increasingly marginal utility this institution has in the region.
If I didn't, I'd be running for UH myself.

Since the 48 hours have passed and there's been no objections (Other than Doc's!!) I motion to vote.

I motion to table.

Unfortunately, I will second the motion to vote.

The default otherwise would be five, which we'd have to throw special elections to fill that final seat since we already have 4 candidates who won by default.  But because of the fact that we only had 4 interested candidates in the regular election, it makes me worry that we're not going to really pull any interested people in Special elections that wouldn't have already stepped forward and been a part of the team of people from this current election.

Therefore I'm going to just say we settle for what we have rather than potentially running special election after special election and not netting anyone else interested.

That, and it'd be interesting to see a 4 person term where ties may be extraordinarily common and just would give credence to burning down the UH if the candidates can't agree on anything and we have constant ties without a tie breaker 5th person.

The default otherwise would be five, which we'd have to throw special elections to fill that final seat since we already have 4 candidates who won by default.  But because of the fact that we only had 4 interested candidates in the regular election, it makes me worry that we're not going to really pull any interested people in Special elections that wouldn't have already stepped forward and been a part of the team of people from this current election.

Therefore I'm going to just say we settle for what we have rather than potentially running special election after special election and not netting anyone else interested.

It is precisely for this reason that I think we should keep it at 5!