A quick question on procedure

[Spartan Termopylae]

Evening folks. Just a quick question.

During the last officer challenge, a second officer resigned, and so far as I can tell, nothing has been actioned on this.

In some circumstances, when there are two positions and only two candidates, we simply have a confirmation vote.

As things stand, we've had an empty spot since the 16th, three days before the election result was called. Should not both candidates have become officers? I know there is probably technically nothing to say so otherwise, but as I say, we have been down an officer for over a week, and it appears that either nobody has noticed, or nobody cares.

I'm not suggesting we legislate, but we could at least set a precedent for this situation. Should we have declared both candidates victorious? Should the already active electing have been morphed into a confirmation vote?

We need to decide something. If we decide its doing too be a fresh electing, can somebody challenge soon, please? This is bothering me

[Gorundu]

I'm not the Speaker but I can tell you how I interpreted the law to apply in this case, which I think is probably also how the Speaker and most other people thought about it.

Article 8, Clause F of the Constitution says: "Subject to this Clause and Clause K, each Officer election is for a single position. If there are multiple vacant Officer positions, each challenge for Officer is taken to be for all vacant positions."

In this case, Salem resigned when the voting period has already begun for the existing Officer challenge. So although there were multiple vacancies, no one could have challenged for the both vacancies since voting has already begun for one of them. Therefore, the election remained for the single vacancy that occured before the voting period began.

Adding to the legal considerations, it would have been unfair to modify the election in any way after the voting period has started. Potential candidates would have considered the number of vacancies and the vacant portfolios as factors when deciding whether they would run, and as of the start of voting there was one vacancy for the WA portfolio. That means someone interested in Culture (which was the portfolio that became vacant afterwards) would have had no reason to run. If the election was turned into a confirmation vote without a new challenge period, it would have prevented an actual Culture candidate from running. And certainly it would be ridiculous and illegal to declare both candidates winners without a vote - no such thing is allowed for in the Constitution.

As for the position that has been vacant for over a week, I'm sure that people have noticed, but there is simply no suitable candidate who has stepped up to run, and it's not something we can force. It's better to leave an office vacant than to have an incompetent Officer, and I know there are members of the Cabinet who have the ability to keep the office running in the interim.

[BowShot118]

Sorry for the delayed response, what Gor said pretty much. The vote was already underway.