|
| | 
sweetP
Last Seen:
8/15/2008 10:45 PM
Posts: 4,770
Visits: 8,246
|
| | This has been brought up in the Senate, and as Constitutional Ammendments need to be passed by the people, I thought it was best that it be presented here. From the Senate floor: http://1bcciv.com/Topic2240448-93-1.aspx Princep's Tie-Breaking Vote:
4. The Senate shall elect from their number, by simple majority, a Princeps, who shall:
- Hold votes among the Senators on such issues as presented before them, which require a decision by majority.- Confirm the outcome of votes among the Senators and present the outcome to the People and to those parties whom it may concern. - Receive one additional vote in the event the Senate is unable to reach a simple majority due to a tie.
- Take upon himself all duties of the Presidency, should the President and Vice President become absent, with the special responsibility of requesting that the Supreme Court hold new Presidential elections as soon as possible.
- Organize and oversee the elections of the Supreme Court, and execute the outcome thereof.
- Organize and oversee such plebiscites as necessary to approve alterations to the Articles of Constitution. President's Tie-Breaking Vote 5a. The President may veto the Senate once per term, on any one of the actions described in II_5, unless the Senate vote was unanimous.
5b. A Presidential veto must be made public before the President executes the action, allowing the Senate ample time to disband the office of the Presidency (per III_5).
6. The President must appoint for himself a Vice President, who shall take upon himself all duties of the Presidency, should the President become absent.
6a. The Vice President shall be considered a member of the Presidency, should the Presidency be disbanded.7a. In the event the Senate is unable to elect its Princep without simple majority due to a tie, the President will be included in the ballot and allowed one vote. 7b. This vote will only be used to determine the result of any tie and the President will be unable to abstain. 7c. The President must only vote for one of the candidates involved in the tie. Let the discussion commence! |
--
Emulator of Otto von Bismarck, Master of realpolitik, May he rest in peace.
But the liberals should be careful of screaming too loud ... of conspiring too well ... of undermining us too thoroughly. Because if they succeed, if they do get what they insist they want, then the result may well be something they never conceived ... "They have made a desolation, and they call it peace." ~Tacitus~ ... but a peace controlled by our former enemies.
--Tosk
 |   |  |
| |
| | 
General
Last Seen:
Yesterday @ 11:52 PM
Posts: 3,774
Visits: 5,091
|
| | |
| |
sweetP
Last Seen:
8/15/2008 10:45 PM
Posts: 4,770
Visits: 8,246
|
| Also, it's possible that a simple majority cannot be reached for other reasons than a tie, say that there are 4 seats and the leading candidate has 2 votes, his rival 1, and one senator abstained. That would not be covered under the proposed change.
True, but the Senate doesn't have 4 seats.  |
--
Emulator of Otto von Bismarck, Master of realpolitik, May he rest in peace.
But the liberals should be careful of screaming too loud ... of conspiring too well ... of undermining us too thoroughly. Because if they succeed, if they do get what they insist they want, then the result may well be something they never conceived ... "They have made a desolation, and they call it peace." ~Tacitus~ ... but a peace controlled by our former enemies.
--Tosk
| | | |
| |
| | Bismarcko' Magnifico
Last Seen:
Yesterday @ 3:27 PM
Posts: 1,006
Visits: 4,674
|
| Also, it's possible that a simple majority cannot be reached for other reasons than a tie, say that there are 4 seats and the leading candidate has 2 votes, his rival 1, and one senator abstained. That would not be covered under the proposed change. If there were four seats in the Senate, the one who received two votes would win in that scenario. Just because the fourth senator abstained, it doesn't mean his rival received the vote either (he just opted not to vote for either candidate). Thus, the final count would be 2 against 1 with 1 senator who opted not to have their vote counted for either candidate. I could see how someone could argue 'abstain' is the same as nay. However, even if we detracted one vote from each candidate, we would be left with the leading candidate winning. There would be no tie if someone chose to abstain. Candidate A: 2/4 votes = 50%
Candidate B: 1/4 votes = 25%
Neither, Abstain: 1/4 votes = 25% |
--
-Of course we must all fear evil men, but there is another evil that we must fear more… and that is the indifference of good men.
Edited: 7/27/2007 9:32 PM by Bismarck2990 |  | |
| |
| |
General
Last Seen:
Yesterday @ 11:52 PM
Posts: 3,774
Visits: 5,091
|
| | |
| | Bismarcko' Magnifico
Last Seen:
Yesterday @ 3:27 PM
Posts: 1,006
Visits: 4,674
|
| Oh no, I understood what you meant originally and I agree it brings up a valid point.  However, I think the main difference in our views, are that I consider the simple majority to be based on the vote's outcome instead of the number of Senators themselves. In your scenario, 2/4 of the Senators that didn't vote for Candidate A, also were not in agreement themselves and that leaves me semi-cautious in claiming 50% were not truly represent as opposed to 50% which were in agreement. Let me try to explain: 2/4 of the Senators were in agreement to vote for Candidate A.
1/4 of the Senators were in agreement to vote for Candidate B.
1/4 of the Senators were in agreement to vote for Candidate C. While 2/4 of the Senators did vote for Candidate A, 2/4 of the Senators didn't, however, that same 2/4 were not in agreement themselves and voted for separate candidates. Given that, I believe they should be considered separate percentages. It's probably my own way of looking at things... because if any other Senator was elected in that group besides candidate A, wouldn't the 2/4 against the winner change to 3/4? Then we would have 75% of the Senate against the choice instead of just 50%.
My opinion, with this observation based on this game, is that the best majority is the most that are represented in contrast to the entire body which is in disagreement their selves. Then again, that's just my view on the subject and it's very likely people would/could disagree with that observation I just made if such happened. All-in-all, I suppose I'm neither for nor against adding what you've mentioned to the Constitution, however, it might just be best included to avoid possible scenarios as you've mentioned. |
--
-Of course we must all fear evil men, but there is another evil that we must fear more… and that is the indifference of good men.
Edited: 7/28/2007 12:05 AM by Bismarck2990 | | | |
| |
| | 
G'day
Last Seen:
2 days ago @ 7:10 AM
Posts: 2,689
Visits: 6,567
|
| | |
| | Bismarcko' Magnifico
Last Seen:
Yesterday @ 3:27 PM
Posts: 1,006
Visits: 4,674
|
| | Well, in my mind, there was no winner. Unlike the other scenarios, the two people who chose 'abstain' in your scenario CD, were in agreement and that is 66% of the Senate that didn't want that specific Candidate to win. Question is, does the President just appoint Candidate A because he was the only Candidate despite that fact? Or, is the game forced to stagnate until one of the abstainers decide to run themselves? Personally, I don't see this type of scenario happening anytime soon, however, it's indeed better to cover our bases at any rate.
|
--
-Of course we must all fear evil men, but there is another evil that we must fear more… and that is the indifference of good men.
Edited: 7/28/2007 5:30 PM by Bismarck2990 | | | |
| |
| |
General
Last Seen:
Yesterday @ 11:52 PM
Posts: 3,774
Visits: 5,091
|
| | |
|
|
