I mean...maybe I should explain how I'm reading the bill and let you confirm if I'm reading it correctly to begin with:

--
Under majority vote the winning candidate would be the one who has a majority of the vote. If there is no candidate with an outright majority, the two candidates with the highest number of votes would proceed to a runoff.
--

My confusion is as to why we need a separate provision within Section B clarifying that if the election is between two candidates, then the one with the higher number of votes would win. If there are only two candidates, wouldn't the one with a higher number of votes, by definition, be the one with a majority, which is already what majority vote requires anyway? I wonder why we wouldn't just say that the candidate with a majority of the vote is the winner, without any other distinctions.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

Reply

Yes, that's what the bill should do. My issue is just that if a majority was required to win the runoff too, then in an - arguably unlikely - situation where only two candidates, who are exactly equally popular, remain, and nobody wants to tactically switch their vote to break the tie, we could end up in a series of endless runoffs, where nobody ever reaches the 50%+1 to win, and the two candidates just always proceed to another runoff (because currently, the definition of the voting system would mean that new runoff rounds of voting are called recursively whenever no winner can be named in the current round) - there wouldn't be a definite point to stop and just proceed with the general tie-breaker. Perhaps, making it clear that there should only be one runoff (in which a resulting tie would then get broken like any other tie) would solve this problem - how about the following:

b. If a candidate has received an absolute majority of votes, they are the winner; otherwise, the two candidates who have received the most votes advance to a runoff, held under the same rules as this round of voting. Should this runoff result in a tie, then the tie shall be broken according to the general tie-breaking procedure.

(This post was last modified: 01-17-2022, 06:13 AM by anjo.)

Reply

If there are no more comments on this, I motion to vote.

Reply

I'll second it

-Griffindor/Ebonhand
-Current Roles/Positions
-Legislator 2/24/20-
-High Court Justice 6/7/20-
-South Pacific Coral Guard 11/17/20-
-Minister of Engagement 6/17/22-

-Past Roles/Positions
-Legislator 7/3/16-4/10/18
-Secretary of State 4/3/20-2/24/21
-Chair of the APC 9/24/16-5/31/17
-Vice-Chair of the APC 6/1/17-4/10/18
-Local Council Member 7/1/17-11/17/17
-Citizen 5/2012-12/2014 and  2/26/16-7/3/2016

Reply

This is now at vote.

Reply

This has passed.

Reply