Somewhat related question: are term-sharing agreements allowed, in which the term for a position is split between two members? It can be used in the event of a tie, and elsewhere too (though mainly the former).

It's not explicitly stated, though it's implicitly implied that is not allowed. Past judicial precedent on joint candidacies also ruled against them.

Reply

Somewhat related question: are term-sharing agreements allowed, in which the term for a position is split between two members? It can be used in the event of a tie, and elsewhere too (though mainly the former).

It's not explicitly stated, though it's implicitly implied that is not allowed. Past judicial precedent on joint candidacies also ruled against them. 

Oh, I see. But may I ask where this is implied?

The Sakhalinsk Empire, Legislator of the South Pacific
Currently a citizen and legislator of TSP. I am active as Sverigesriket in Europe.

Complete Conflict of Interest

Reply

I don't think splitting a term due to a tie is a viable option. How would we decide who goes first and second (thereby getting the benefit of incumbency in the next election)?

I'd say we for was Nakari said:

If in-game voting is tied, we go by who has most approvals on the forums.

*IF* that is also tied, I'd suggest we'd revisit the votes and see who reach the number of approvals *first*, meaning, if Candidate A got 5 approvals from the first five voters and Candidate B got 5 approvals from voters 1-4 and 6, Candidate A would win since their votes came in first.

It's not an ideal situation — and would take some effort on the part of the EC if it came to that — but, I think it would be a better solution than making it random chance.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

I don't think splitting a term due to a tie is a viable option. How would we decide who goes first and second (thereby getting the benefit of incumbency in the next election)?

I'd say we for was Nakari said:

If in-game voting is tied, we go by who has most approvals on the forums.

*IF* that is also tied, I'd suggest we'd revisit the votes and see who reach the number of approvals *first*, meaning, if Candidate A got 5 approvals from the first five voters and Candidate B got 5 approvals from voters 1-4 and 6, Candidate A would win since their votes came in first.

It's not an ideal situation — and would take some effort on the part of the EC if it came to that — but, I think it would be a better solution than making it random chance.

I don’t think your final tie-break method works, as there’s no reason why an early vote should be worth more than a later vote.

Statistically speaking the odds of having a tied vote in both the regional and forum rounds are minuscule, but in the event that it does happen there really isn’t a fairer way to determine a winner than random chance. It’s either that or identifying someone as a designated “casting vote”, either an individual (ie; the Incumbent Delegate) or an institution (ie; the Assembly).

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

---

PREVIOUS ROLES

Former Delegate (x2.5)
Former Member of the Committee for State Security
Former Chief Justice of The High Court (x3)
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs (x2)
Former Chair of the Assembly (x3)
Former Minister of Security (x2)
Former Local Councillor (x2.5)
Former Forum Administrator
Former Minister of Media

Reply

I don't think splitting a term due to a tie is a viable option. How would we decide who goes first and second (thereby getting the benefit of incumbency in the next election)?

I'd say we for was Nakari said:

If in-game voting is tied, we go by who has most approvals on the forums.

*IF* that is also tied, I'd suggest we'd revisit the votes and see who reach the number of approvals *first*, meaning, if Candidate A got 5 approvals from the first five voters and Candidate B got 5 approvals from voters 1-4 and 6, Candidate A would win since their votes came in first.

It's not an ideal situation — and would take some effort on the part of the EC if it came to that — but, I think it would be a better solution than making it random chance.

I don’t think your final tie-break method works, as there’s no reason why an early vote should be worth more than a later vote.

Statistically speaking the odds of having a tied vote in both the regional and forum rounds are minuscule, but in the event that it does happen there really isn’t a fairer way to determine a winner than random chance. It’s either that or identifying someone as a designated “casting vote”, either an individual (ie; the Incumbent Delegate) or an institution (ie; the Assembly). 

You're right at the small chance here.

What if, in this scenario, the Cabinet, the outgoing delegate and the LC each get a vote? That would automatically be odd.

Normally, I'd say the Assembly, but they would be the people who just deadlocked.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

I think perhaps stipulate that should the incumbent Delegate not be a contender in the election, they should refrain from voting in it, and if need be, cast the deciding vote. Should they, however, be contesting the election, the PM shall take their place as the deciding vote.

Reply

I’d give the decision to the Assembly; whilst Legislators did take part in the (tied) first round, this would now been a direct head to head election under FPTP - it would likely to produce a different result - and if necessary give the Chair of the Assembly the casting vote if we have a third tie.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

---

PREVIOUS ROLES

Former Delegate (x2.5)
Former Member of the Committee for State Security
Former Chief Justice of The High Court (x3)
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs (x2)
Former Chair of the Assembly (x3)
Former Minister of Security (x2)
Former Local Councillor (x2.5)
Former Forum Administrator
Former Minister of Media

(This post was last modified: 07-25-2019, 08:32 AM by Belschaft.)

Reply

I’d give the decision to the Assembly; whilst Legislators did take part in the (tied) first round, this would now been a direct head to head election under FPTP - it would likely to produce a different result - and if necessary give the Chair of the Assembly the casting vote if we have a third tie.

This is a sound idea.

Reply

I don’t get why we’re even considering doing away with the coin flip? All other choices are giving certain people more than one vote. That’s not reflective of the entire region’s support.

There’s no trust issue involved with a coin flip. Things like random.org exist, and if you can’t trust the EC to give us the randomly picked choice, there’s no reason to trust any other aspect of the election in the first place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reply

I don’t get why we’re even considering doing away with the coin flip? All other choices are giving certain people more than one vote. That’s not reflective of the entire region’s support.

There’s no trust issue involved with a coin flip. Things like random.org exist, and if you can’t trust the EC to give us the randomly picked choice, there’s no reason to trust any other aspect of the election in the first place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I personally just don't like the chance aspect here. And, I'd be far more supportive of giving someone an extra vote rather than it being random.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply