Fwurg

[Nehket Aeka]

"Fellow senators,

I commend Chancellor Bolv'ar on his decisiveness with regard to the ambiguous basic voting law.

He justly pointed out that article 7 paragraph III of the Union Voting Laws is ambiguous with respect to the way options are passed on to the next round. Though I see no fault with the chancellor's decision, I think it is important that we clear op this ambiguous law text for future votes.

I propose the interpretation adhered to from now on is as follows: first the top half of the options is selected, then all options which have received zero votes are removed. So, in effect, options that have received zero votes will still be counted as options to determine what 'the top half of the options' constitutes."

[Senator Danar Tassar]

"The Teprogrenaian Consensus second this proposal."

[Senator Harek]

"As 'the top half of the options' stands at the beginning before the subdivisions this would mean that first the top half is selected of all the options and the you continue with the subdivisions and selecting the final options. So it is not ambiguous, but it is not explicitly clear either. So we agree that text should be adjusted."

[Representative Anselim of the Free Peoples of Wrarrbo]

"We support adding clarity here but we oppose the resolution proposed by the Veolian Commonwealth.

The reason is simple and easily demonstrated by the current vote regarding the Safety of the Union Act. If followed as indicated by Senator Nehket Aeka, the first round of votes would have resulted in a new round of votes with four options. Those four options would include all options that received any votes, and as a result the vote would likely be identical, wasting time and money.

We would propose that all options with zero votes be eliminated first and then at least half the options be kept. This eliminates the chances of a 'useless' voting round. We are open to hearing alternatives, however we believe we should not waste time and money with voting rounds that will likely leave identical results."

[Nehket Aeka]

"In principle, I concur with you, senator Anselim. There are however, cases where his interpretation creates a situation where a useless voting round is required as well. Let me explain with an example; a vote with four options. Options A, B, C and D. Options A and B both received eight votes. Options C and D have received none.

In this case, your interpretation would cull options C and D, leaving only A and B to be considered for the next round. As per the current law, the chancellor has to decide which option passes into the next round, because article 7.IV only applies to votes with exactly two options. However, this would require the chancellor to open a vote with only a single option, which is prohibited by article 2.

In my interpretation, the vote would be openend again with only options A and B, allowing those that abstained to reconsider their opinion.

The example I put forward puts the chancellor in a difficult position, as the only option is to act unlawfully; either open a vote with a single option, which is decidedly un-democratic; or cast the tie-breaking vote on a vote with more than two options."

She looked around in the senate.

"It seems that our voting law is unwieldly in either interpretation."

[Representative Anselim of the Free Peoples of Wrarrbo]

"Indeed, this is a very fair point and relevant example, Senator. May I propose that a committee be formed to write a proposal which can then be put to a vote by the next Chancellor?"

[Nehket Aeka]

"I agree that it is best if a committee is formed. Open debate on this will only delay the more important issues.

Senator Anselim, would you be willing to lead this committee?"