CoL Proposal - Section X (Elections)

[zorven]

I propose the following amendment to our CoL:

Section X.V.B

In the case that an election between only 2 candidates ends in a tie,
the current Senate shall vote to decide the winner of the election. 
   1. If the Senate vote is tied, the Vice President shall cast the
      deciding vote.
   2. If the election is for the 1st Term, the newly elected Senate shall    
      fulfill the requirements of this section. 
   3. A candidate involved in the contested election may not vote 
      under the requirements of this section.
      a. If a contestant in the election is the Vice President and the Vice
         President is required to vote under this section, the tie breaking
         vote shall pass to the President.
      b. If a contestant in the election is the President and the 
         President is required to vote under this section, the tie breaking
         vote shall pass to the Executive Council.

[edit: added section 3]

 

[zorven]

I think that our current option of re-running an election between 2 candidates is a poor alternative. Lets give this some thought and discuss any alternatives, or at least tell me that I must have been smoking something when I wrote it

 

[Furiey]

Zorven - I agree that when an election between only two candidates is tied, just running it again with no changes is not a run-off but a re-run. Unless there are significant debates to allow people to better form their opinion, then changes in the voting are likely to be due to absences, tactical voting or apathy. Worthwhile additional debates take time, and when it comes down to it we’re here to play a game, not argue about who’s going to play the game. So what’s to be done?

You’ve suggested using the Senate to have the deciding vote. That puts it in the hands of a group of elected individuals, which I think is probably better than just one person and which will allow the game to keep moving. But most of your proposal (ie: all the numbered stuff after the initial statement) appeared to me to be making up for deficiencies in the CoL dealing with the Senate – who has the deciding vote when the Senate is tied (hence my very confused post in the CoL Section D discussion). 3 I felt wasn’t necessary as someone can’t hold 2 positions, so they couldn’t be in the Senate and in the election under dispute, and if it was one of the senate positions or President, or VP under dispute, then until that was settled they wouldn’t be elected anyway so still couldn’t vote.

I was hoping that more would post their thoughts here as I am struggling to come up with anything helpful to suggest, not having been involved long enough in the demogames to have seen how it all works over a long period of time.

 

[DaveShack]

Lack of comment on this probably indicates that it's a bad idea but nobody wants to be the first to point it out.

I don't like the idea of changing this, in part because it seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to the CJ election. It would be fairest and safest to just stick with a runoff election. It has pretty much always worked in the past.

 

[zorven]

Originally posted by Furiey
Zorven - I agree that when an election between only two candidates is tied, just running it again with no changes is not a run-off but a re-run. Unless there are significant debates to allow people to better form their opinion, then changes in the voting are likely to be due to absences, tactical voting or apathy. Worthwhile additional debates take time, and when it comes down to it we’re here to play a game, not argue about who’s going to play the game. So what’s to be done?

I agree with your analysis about re-running the election, hence my proposal.

You’ve suggested using the Senate to have the deciding vote. That puts it in the hands of a group of elected individuals, which I think is probably better than just one person and which will allow the game to keep moving. But most of your proposal (ie: all the numbered stuff after the initial statement) appeared to me to be making up for deficiencies in the CoL dealing with the Senate – who has the deciding vote when the Senate is tied (hence my very confused post in the CoL Section D discussion). 3 I felt wasn’t necessary as someone can’t hold 2 positions, so they couldn’t be in the Senate and in the election under dispute, and if it was one of the senate positions or President, or VP under dispute, then until that was settled they wouldn’t be elected anyway so still couldn’t vote.

I don't see how I am trying to make up for defincies. It is true that you can't hold 2 positions. Here is an example to explain my number 3. We are currently in Term 2. An election for Term 3 involved a Term 2 Senator and a Term 2 Vice President. The election is tied and now goes to the Term 2 Senate for the tie break.

@ DaveShack - you are right that this could be a bad idea. However, I don't think it is knee-jerk. We had a situation that I thought highlighted a weak part of our law, that is the re-running of an election between 2 citizens. I thought this is a better alternative not only because of the issues related to re-running the election but it would also be a quicker resolution.

 

[Furiey]

Zorven - ah yes, your example explains it - I was too fixed on the current situation. I think 1 is covered in the CoL section D.1.A.2. though.

I also do not think this is knee-jerk, we have highlighted a weakness, we should discuss ways of improvement. We may decide that although it's weak, we can't think of anything better, but we should still discuss it.

I'm still trying to make up my mind whether it is better or not (I'm currently veering towards yes, if there is going to be no further debate between the 2 involved, but I'm not convinced). I'm not having much luck with coming up with other suggestions though either.

 

[zorven]

Originally posted by Furiey
Zorven - ah yes, your example explains it - I was too fixed on the current situation. I think 1 is covered in the CoL section D.1.A.2. though.

I thought you might be

For section 1, you are right. I just wanted to be explicit. I suppose section 1 could read that any Senate vote that is tied shall be handled per CoL D.1.A.2.

 

[Raven1er]

Nice ideas, zorven