Osiris Fraternal Order

First Amendment to the Procedure Act

Section 1: Amendment

1. Section 1.5 of the Procedure of the Deshret will be amended to read as follows:

5. The Pharaoh and Vizier of Osiris will be non-voting, ex officio Councilors of the Deshret for the duration of their term(s) in office. The Vizier will vote only in the event of a tie, as mandated by Sections 2.3(b) and 3.3(b) of this Procedure.

2. The following will be added to the Procedure of the Deshret as Section 2.3(b):

(b) In the event of a tie, the Vizier will vote to break the tie.

3. The following will be added to the Procedure of the Deshret as Section 3.3(a):

(a) No candidate will be elected Keeper without receiving a simple majority of votes cast. Should no candidate receive a simple majority of votes cast in the election, the two candidates with the most votes (or, in the case of a tie for most votes between more than two candidates, those candidates) will participate in a run-off election following the same process as established by Section 3.3 of this Procedure.

4. The following will be added to the Procedure of the Deshret as Section 3.3(b):

(b) In an election or run-off election involving only two candidates, in the event of a tie the Vizier will vote to break the tie.

I have drafted this to deal with the problem we've already seen and may see again with tie votes. This amendment to the Procedure gives the power to break ties to the Vizier, which seemed consistent with the Vizier presiding over the Deshret if the Keepership if vacant, but I'm open to having ties broken by the Pharaoh if the Deshret would prefer.

I'm glad you wrote this so I didn't have to. It's exactly what I would've proposed.

Looks good.

Seems solid.

I like the idea

Same for me, looks good.

Tweaked the amendment in Section 1.3 to deal with a tie for most votes between more than two candidates, and tweaked Section 1.4 to clarify that the Vizier breaks ties between two candidates in run-off elections as well.

I think the language is still clunky and problematic in the amendment in Section 1.3, which is a problem I'm also having with the State Code draft, so suggestions for better language are welcome.

Looks good on the whole to me.

(a) No candidate will be elected Keeper without receiving a simple majority of votes cast. Should no candidate receive a simple majority of votes cast in the election, the two candidates with the most votes(or, in the case of a tie for most votes, those candidates) will participate in a run-off election following the same process as established by Section 3.3 of this Procedure.

Something like that might work. If we can work out a few of the small issues I'd like to see us move this to vote today.

Revised with the above suggested language. I also removed Section 2, which allowed retroactive application of these provisions to votes or elections currently in progress. That was mostly to allow for these provisions to apply to the ongoing Keeper election, which has now concluded.