2. If no candidate has a majority of highest preference votes, the candidate with the fewest highest preferences shall be eliminated, and his or her votes redistributed according to the next-highest preferences of the voters.
3. If, after the implementation of Clause 2 of this Section, any candidate shall have a majority of the highest preference votes, then that candidate shall be declared the winner of the election. If no such candidate shall exist, then Clause 2 of this Section shall be implemented again until such a candidate does exist, or until all candidates have the same number of highest preference votes.
4. If two or more candidates are tied for the least number of highest preference votes, but none of those candidates are tied for the greatest number of highest preference votes, then the following procedure shall be used to determine which candidate is eliminated:
1. The candidate with the least total number of preferences expressed by voters shall be eliminated.
2. The Senate shall vote on which candidate to eliminate, with the Vice President being able to cast a tie-breaking vote if necessary.
If all three of Lief, Bore, and Matt are tied in first preferences, it immediately goes to a new runoff election with all three of them! Fun fact: the runoff part of CESRA says you can only vote for one candidate, and that a candidate must have a majority to win. Even in a three man race!
Also, say the vote spread ends up like it was on an earlier count: something like Lief 6, Matt 5, Bore 5. The first way to break the tie between Matt and Bore is to look at how many total preferences they got from every voter, no matter how low of a preference it might be.
So a vote like this doesn't count for Matt in this tiebreaker:
3-35: everyone else in the Northeast
36. Literally Hitler
However, a vote like this would
count for Matt to win the tie, even if all of Bore's votes will subsequently flow to Matt and cause Lief to lose:
of the votes below count for either candidate
in the tiebreaker
Basically the tiebreaker is literally just "whose voters were less likely to bother to fill out their ballot?" and not anything that's a substantially meaningful tiebreaker. Not even "who had more support in a previous round" (although that wouldn't be applicable here)
What if, in the above example, Matt and Bore are tied for second place, and also tied in their total number of preferences? You know who breaks the tie then? The Senate!
They would literally have to be rounded up so they can break the tie by voting for one of them over the other (so Senators from the Northeast would get two votes!) There are no further steps or anything- "part two" in breaking ties is literally "ok the other thing didn't work so the senate can pick a winner for us".
This all seems kind of ridiculous and we should probably change it. Assuming Lumine maintains his lead and wins, I will run in the Special Election to replace him and a bill fixing this silliness is the first thing I would propose.