New answers tagged

9

In Sweden sometimes you get ballots in the mail from parties eager to gain your vote. There are also ballots in the voting place. You pick these 'publicly' from a stand and it is normal to pick many of them and bring several into the voting station (behind curtain) and then pick privately among them. You can leave the ones you don't use in there or put them ...


0

Yes, there is. Recently, there are two newspaper articles published that deal with this (referencing each other). In one of them, the minister of justice of the state of Hamburg has called to write the two-thirds majority into the Constitution for that matter. (Translations are mine) "Ein Volkskanzler" [A chancellor of the people], Maximilian Steinbeis, ...


0

You can fix this by internally counting it like a Ranked Choice Instant Run off and elimintating the lowest performing candidate each round. If you have 6 candidates and one spot, candidates A, B, C, D, E, F. The ballot will display each candidate with six radio boxes and the voter will choose most favorite to least favorite from left to right (if you ...


4

One key feature of elections is trust in the counting method. Which makes choosing your own system a bit of an issue - not least given the flaws people are picking up on. There are bodies (such as the UK Electoral Reform Society) with >100 years experience of doing this. They publish a guide on using STV including detailed instructions on how to run a count....


1

North Dakota does not, and uses federal case law reasoning as a basis, which may form a national consensus of some sort, with California perhaps being an outlier (emphasis mine): On Monday, A.G. Jackley announced that he had issued the requested opinion, explaining that, as I suspected, “vote-trading” is not just perfectly legal but standard operating ...


8

No. It's usually expected that somebody has read it, and this is supposed to happen in the committee stage. It's not formally required by the process. Very few votes are free votes: most are to some extent "whipped", where MPs are expected to follow the party line. The "three line whip" is where the statement of how they are expected to vote has been ...


3

Not in the least, to all three questions. In the case of a number of bills it would take longer than Parliament sits in a day to read through the whole thing. The phrase is basically a formality, and all it actually signifies is that the Member in charge of the bill is scheduled (but may in the end decide not) to move "That the bill be now read a second ...


Top 50 recent answers are included