(Dismissed) Legal Clarification Request to the WASC

View previous topic View next topic Go down

(Dismissed) Legal Clarification Request to the WASC

Post  UnitedStatesOfScouting on Thu Apr 09, 2015 9:25 pm

Greetings!

It's great to be back.... well kind of.

I seek legal clarification from the WASC as a whole as to what procedure we should use to determine the outcome of a vote.

Currently, the most logical -at least in my opinion- is to use the standard percentages calculation.

For example, if 4 out of 6 people vote "in favor", the percentage ends up being: 66% or .66666666666666 (and so on). We get to this conclusion by dividing 4 into 6. Therefore, the vote passes.

Ex. if 2 out of 5 people vote ""in favor", the percentage ends up being: 40%, or 0.4. We get to this conclusion by dividing 2 into 5. Therefore the vote fails.

This is the way that I've always concluded my votes, and it makes the most sense. Think about it this way, you have 10 gallons of water and you need to transfer it to another location. You are given containers that can hold 4 gallons of water each. How many containers do you need? 3, because you couldn't take all of the water with only 2 containers, could you? Well, this is the logic I see being applied to the current voting system by the Presidency, and I cannot reasonably consider this to be "Logical", or even "Legal".

As stated in the forcefully passed Compulsory Arbitration against Xolox by the WASC President,


With all due respect to the Vice Presidency and after a series of consultations with his office, the WA Presidency hereby reverses the initial and contested outcome of the voting of the concerned resolution and consider the same as, PASSED.
Section 3 - Functions

The WASC shall have the de facto supranational powers over the executive, legislative, and judicial matters in the WA which shall be enforced through a sixty six percent concurrence of all its voting member states.

It is in the strong belief of this office, by virtue of the clear language of the quoted provision of international law above, that with a total of five "voting member states" whose "sixty six percentage" is three point three (3.3), which cannot be rounded off since the .3 fraction cannot represent a full single vote, and whereas in the final voting tally there are "three member states" concurring with the resolution, the motion has technically passed.
The WA Presidency hopes that the disputes between Scouting and New Korrea over this issue and matter has been addressed accordingly.
Thank you.

(For the full proceedings and quote, check: http://worldalliance.postalboard.com/t775p30-passed-compulsory-arbitration-of-xolox )


Essentially, I look to the people of the WASC and the World Alliance as a whole, to understand which voting system you would like to be governed by.

Thank You.
avatar
UnitedStatesOfScouting
Emerging Power

Posts : 970
Join date : 2014-11-03

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=scouting

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) Legal Clarification Request to the WASC

Post  Great Eurussia on Thu Apr 16, 2015 8:51 am

UnitedStatesOfScouting wrote:
Essentially, I look to the people of the WASC and the World Alliance as a whole, to understand which voting system you would like to be governed by.

Thank You.

Eurussia suggests that we should come up instead of a clarificatory law determining a formula, that is final, which will bring halt to our endless debate on this issue. We wish to know the view of the Scouting Government.
avatar
Great Eurussia
Superpower

Posts : 5336
Join date : 2013-02-04

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=great_eurussia

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) Legal Clarification Request to the WASC

Post  UnitedStatesOfScouting on Thu Apr 16, 2015 9:28 am

Great Eurussia wrote:
UnitedStatesOfScouting wrote:
Essentially, I look to the people of the WASC and the World Alliance as a whole, to understand which voting system you would like to be governed by.

Thank You.

Eurussia suggests that we should come up instead of a clarificatory law determining a formula, that is final, which will bring halt to our endless debate on this issue. We wish to know the view of the Scouting Government.

Well it's very simple in my opinion, if a vote doesn't meet or pass the percentage required, 66% (2/3rds), it doesn't pass.

Percentage is calculated by dividing the number of people who voted in favor into the total number of people who voted.
avatar
UnitedStatesOfScouting
Emerging Power

Posts : 970
Join date : 2014-11-03

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=scouting

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) Legal Clarification Request to the WASC

Post  Great Eurussia on Thu Apr 16, 2015 9:54 am

UnitedStatesOfScouting wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:
UnitedStatesOfScouting wrote:
Essentially, I look to the people of the WASC and the World Alliance as a whole, to understand which voting system you would like to be governed by.

Thank You.

Eurussia suggests that we should come up instead of a clarificatory law determining a formula, that is final, which will bring halt to our endless debate on this issue. We wish to know the view of the Scouting Government.

Well it's very simple in my opinion, if a vote doesn't meet or pass the percentage required, 66% (2/3rds), it doesn't pass.

Percentage is calculated by dividing the number of people who voted in favor into the total number of people who voted.

Well, it has been also a clear understanding during the deliberations of the Emergency Action to amend the voting system that the 75% voting requirement will simply be reduced to the 66% voting cap and with the agreed removal of non-voting nations on the final count. Thus, the same system of counting, during the 75% voting era was understood to be the same as well with the 66% voting era. Therefore, the same has been exercised to this day.
avatar
Great Eurussia
Superpower

Posts : 5336
Join date : 2013-02-04

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=great_eurussia

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) Legal Clarification Request to the WASC

Post  UnitedStatesOfScouting on Sun Apr 19, 2015 1:23 pm

So no one else is going to provide input on this?
avatar
UnitedStatesOfScouting
Emerging Power

Posts : 970
Join date : 2014-11-03

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=scouting

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) Legal Clarification Request to the WASC

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum