GriffGraph: Balance of Power Comparisons (Past 60 Days)

[Napoleon]

And the Northeast's Lieutenant Governor is Labor now, having received three votes in the election.

*slow-clap* Good for you, citizens.

Actually, Goldwater is supposed to be the Lieutenant Governor. A mistake was made.

[Napoleon]

And the Northeast's Lieutenant Governor is Labor now, having received three votes in the election.

*slow-clap* Good for you, citizens.

Actually, Goldwater is supposed to be the Lieutenant Governor. A mistake was made.

And what mistake would that be?

It appears Goldwater won the most votes (3). You won 2.

[Napoleon]

Have you though about including presidential numbers in these?

[Napoleon]

That seems to be what happened but Earl wrote himself in and therefore it would count as a vote for himself. With three votes, Goldwater is also elected before Earl's elimination.

Although, I don't know how the situation works out now that the count is certified and everyone is sworn in.

[Napoleon]

OK, Nix says that the Constitution says that the count is determined in the final round (or at least, not necessarily the first one), and that he's prepared to defend his decision if you intend to challenge him, Mr. President.

Im not too familiar with the Constitution but I don't see that provision in there.

Someone should challenge this, not as a slight against him or you, but because if the Governor is going to open up a new interpretation, its validity should be tested. Now, I cannot do it because I am a Northeasterner.

Regardless of how one feels about the Constitution, I think the tie breaker was odd to say the least. Why wouldn't the candidate with more first preferences win? When Nathan and Cincinnatus tied with 48 votes, Nathan won because he had more first preferences. I do think you make a great Lieutenant Governor and hopefully Speaker though.

[Napoleon]

I hate to be the party pooped for a second time in this thread, but Goldwater, I think your amendment causes more problems than it solves. The candidate with the most first preferences is always supposed to win. Therefore, a tie would mean each candidate has the same number of first preferences so the tie would be solved by going to second preferences. Here, there never really was a tie to begin with.

[Napoleon]

I hate to be the party pooped for a second time in this thread, but Goldwater, I think your amendment causes more problems than it solves. The candidate with the most first preferences is always supposed to win. Therefore, a tie would mean each candidate has the same number of first preferences so the tie would be solved by going to second preferences. Here, there never really was a tie to begin with.

Really? The Constitution just says votes, which I assumed to mean votes in the final round, and in that case me & Alfred were tied.

In the final round there would be many tied candidates because once you reach the quota the surplus votes are transfered. It is near impossible for the most votes clause to refer to the final round of a PR-ST election.