(09-25-2016, 10:49 AM)Belschaft Wrote: RON: Under IRV elections can still default to FPTP, even with the inclusion of RON - the election ends as soon as a candidate has a majority of votes, and this can happen in the first round. Further, under OPV people can simply vote for one candidate if they wish, again enabling a default to FPTP in some cases.

That's fine, so long as this is communicated effectively to the people voting (I doubt this is obvious to anyone who's not familiar with the terms IRV, OPV, FPTP). I'd still prefer a restricted RON though, but I'm fine with the alternative.

(09-25-2016, 10:49 AM)Belschaft Wrote: EC: I'm concerned about practicalities here. I'm not sure that having a current official act as an election commissioner could compromise the process; there is no greater opportunity for corruption or manipulation with them, not greater incentive. As the EC consists of a justice, an admin and a CRS member we in effect have a limited pool of possible commissioners - establishing further limits seems counterproductive.

A cabinet member being involved in the election of the next cabinet would be suspicious af, in my mind. The screams of "Oligarchy" will surely ring loud.

(09-25-2016, 10:49 AM)Belschaft Wrote: EC2: The theoretical "permanence" of the EC does not reflect current practice, and lacks flexibility. As there is no appointment or election process for the EC - it being a self-selecting body - it further seems redundant to me. In regards to the Assembly's ability to remove an EC; this isn't really that important as the EC only exists during election periods, and isn't a standing body, but there is a general recall provision now rather than the previously limited one.

I actually disagree that the permanence does not reflect current practice - in practice, Feirmont is the guy running the elections (and well!), with Res stepping in for the one election where Feirmont was not eligible to be EC. Still - I don't mind if it's gone, as I imagine it will remain the same in practice, though I still question the "why". 

On the recall provision, I wouldn't interpret it to apply to the EC if I were justice, as the EC is neither appointed nor elected. So, as I see it, there is no recall provision in your draft for the EC. I'm fine with the generalized language (I usually am ), so long as it's fixed to implicitly or explicitly include the EC.

(09-25-2016, 10:49 AM)Belschaft Wrote: IRV: I'm not sure about this; I don't really see the logic of making our laws longer by replicating information that is already readily available elsewhere. It seems redundant to essentially copy and paste wikipedia and stick it in our laws. However, if there is general agreement that this is desirable it's something I can do.

Well, let's get an informal poll I'm for including the definitions, appropriately simplified and tailored, in the law.