Election Looming For Two Places On Legislative Council

[Chinahand 3,284]

Can our politicitians make a decision - it seems NOT. 7 goes - Pathetic!

 

Manxonline story

 

Another unsuccessful LegCo vote

THE seventh effort at electing a new member of the Legislative Council has failed.

Energy FM radio boss Juan Turner came within one vote of claiming the seat with 11 votes.

 

Head of the Isle of Man Bank's Premium Banking division David Saunders received four votes and former police inspector Derek Nicholson three.

 

There were 23 votes cast in total - five papers were left blank.

 

The next attempt will be held on May 22 and nominations must be in by 5pm on Friday.

[Theodolite 188]

This isn't about making a decision though is it. You can't blame the MHKs for this scenario. It is the system that is obviously wrong and that is simply what is being demonstrated - either intentionally (5 MHKs) or unintentionally.

 

I cannot see any need why there is a Legislative Council consisting of the President of Tynwald, the Bishop , the Attorney General and EIGHT others elected by the House of Keys. EIGHT??? It is, after all, only a self styled revising chamber. For a population of 80,000 we have far, far too many politicians.

 

Incidentally, Juan Turner did not come "within 1 vote of claiming the seat" as reported. A candidate needs 13 votes to be elected. By a simple process of mathematics using the principle of deduction . . . . . . that comes to 2. So therefore I would say the reporting is actually 100% wrong.

[spermann 146]

This isn't about making a decision though is it. You can't blame the MHKs for this scenario. It is the system that is obviously wrong and that is simply what is being demonstrated - either intentionally (5 MHKs) or unintentionally.

 

I cannot see any need why there is a Legislative Council consisting of the President of Tynwald, the Bishop , the Attorney General and EIGHT others elected by the House of Keys. EIGHT??? It is, after all, only a self styled revising chamber. For a population of 80,000 we have far, far too many politicians.

 

Incidentally, Juan Turner did not come "within 1 vote of claiming the seat" as reported. A candidate needs 13 votes to be elected. By a simple process of mathematics using the principle of deduction . . . . . . that comes to 2. So therefore I would say the reporting is actually 100% wrong.

 

 

One of the MHK's, David Anderson was not there to vote, therefore 12 would have been enough and he would have been within 1 vote of claiming the seat!

[Grumble 50]

Incidentally, Juan Turner did not come "within 1 vote of claiming the seat" as reported. A candidate needs 13 votes to be elected. By a simple process of mathematics using the principle of deduction . . . . . . that comes to 2. So therefore I would say the reporting is actually 100% wrong.

 

Doesn't a successful candidate just need a simple majority?? So 12/23 would have done the trick, shurely offisher?

[spermann 146]

Incidentally, Juan Turner did not come "within 1 vote of claiming the seat" as reported. A candidate needs 13 votes to be elected. By a simple process of mathematics using the principle of deduction . . . . . . that comes to 2. So therefore I would say the reporting is actually 100% wrong.

 

Doesn't a successful candidate just need a simple majority?? So 12/23 would have done the trick, shurely offisher?

 

 

Yes but he only got 11. One short of the seat.

[Theodolite 188]

This isn't about making a decision though is it. You can't blame the MHKs for this scenario. It is the system that is obviously wrong and that is simply what is being demonstrated - either intentionally (5 MHKs) or unintentionally.

 

I cannot see any need why there is a Legislative Council consisting of the President of Tynwald, the Bishop , the Attorney General and EIGHT others elected by the House of Keys. EIGHT??? It is, after all, only a self styled revising chamber. For a population of 80,000 we have far, far too many politicians.

 

Incidentally, Juan Turner did not come "within 1 vote of claiming the seat" as reported. A candidate needs 13 votes to be elected. By a simple process of mathematics using the principle of deduction . . . . . . that comes to 2. So therefore I would say the reporting is actually 100% wrong.

 

 

One of the MHK's, David Anderson was not there to vote, therefore 12 would have been enough and he would have been within 1 vote of claiming the seat!

 

 

Incidentally, Juan Turner did not come "within 1 vote of claiming the seat" as reported. A candidate needs 13 votes to be elected. By a simple process of mathematics using the principle of deduction . . . . . . that comes to 2. So therefore I would say the reporting is actually 100% wrong.

 

Doesn't a successful candidate just need a simple majority?? So 12/23 would have done the trick, shurely offisher?

 

 

Incidentally, Juan Turner did not come "within 1 vote of claiming the seat" as reported. A candidate needs 13 votes to be elected. By a simple process of mathematics using the principle of deduction . . . . . . that comes to 2. So therefore I would say the reporting is actually 100% wrong.

 

Doesn't a successful candidate just need a simple majority?? So 12/23 would have done the trick, shurely offisher?

 

 

Yes but he only got 11. One short of the seat.

 

No offisher, it would not have done the trick. Not quite.

 

Whereas it has to be said that indeed 12 is a simple majority of 23 , Standing Orders 8.3 (9) states:

 

If, on the first ballot, a candidate receives a majority of the votes of

the Members of the House present and voting, but less than

thirteen votes, then the name of that person shall be voted on once

more and if that person then receives the votes of at least thirteen

Members he or she shall be declared elected; “voting” includes

submitting an invalid voting paper.

 

It's all here I tell thee : House of Keys Standing Orders

 

Now.....the disparaging replies to my assertions are actually quite relevant. The current Speaker is certainly a man for detail and Standing Orders is Standing Orders, otherwise what is the point of having them if you can make it up as you go's along?. In the past it has not been unbeknownst for the Speaker to just say, well, we'll have another ballot, then another, then another. Until, you see the MHKs must have got hungry for their tea and just got someone - anyone - in just so's they could get home.

 

Now I - and my anorak is pretty big in this respect - would respectfully suggest that there have been people given the job of MLC who should strictly speaking not have. And those people have been given important jobs and made important decisions etc.

 

Which all illustrates that the whole shebang can be looked on as a bit of an outdated farce. Hence the protests to change the system.

 

 

Edited to delete a bit here - I'll save it for further discussion.........

Edited May 8, 2007 by Theo

[Theodolite 188]

I love it when Roxanne gets going -- its brillo

[Grumble 50]

Or a dyke?

 

Well, I happily stand corrected. I done wrong Offisher, and I'll cop the rap.

[Theodolite 188]

Thank you Glumble.

 

I shall just wait for a similar reply from spermann and then I will tell you's all about my solution to the whole thing. And it will be called Theo's Theorem

[spermann 146]

Thank you Glumble.

 

I shall just wait for a similar reply from spermann and then I will tell you's all about my solution to the whole thing. And it will be called Theo's Theorem

 

One of the members was not present to vote, or submit an invalid paper, therefore reducing the majority by one. If you struggle to make sence of it all give Peter Karran a call. He will make everything perfectly clear for you....

[Lonan3 1,790]

give Peter Karran a call. He will make everything perfectly clear for you....

[thesultanofsheight 9,453]

I don't know what the hell is going on any more.

 

The Waterloo turning into Starbucks and Juan Turner standing for LEGCO.

 

We're all going to hell in a hand cart!!!!!

 

What really gets me on the latest round of nominations that none have even sought public office before. I mean if your that keen to be part of the political process why have you not previously stood for MHK or at least as a Commissioner?

 

-- and no Juan 2 minutes of local radio coverage don't count as being involved in the political process.

Edited May 8, 2007 by thesultanofsheight

[Amadeus 2,454]

Nominate Me! Nominate Me!

[Theodolite 188]

Thank you Glumble.

 

I shall just wait for a similar reply from spermann and then I will tell you's all about my solution to the whole thing. And it will be called Theo's Theorem

 

One of the members was not present to vote, or submit an invalid paper, therefore reducing the majority by one. If you struggle to make sence of it all give Peter Karran a call. He will make everything perfectly clear for you....

 

Hmmm, that was just the sort of reply I didn't want. Here we go.........

 

Irrespective of how many MHKs are present and how many make up an ackshul majority, there is a requirement under the rules (Standing Orders) that

 

8.3 (7)

If on the first ballot a person receives not less than thirteen votes

that person shall be declared elected.

 

but I think you knew that already.

[Theodolite 188]

........

What really gets me on the latest round of nominations that none have even sought public office before. I mean if your that keen to be part of the political process why have you not previously stood for MHK or at least as a Commissioner?

 

-- and no Juan 2 minutes of local radio coverage don't count as being involved in the political process.

 

I would suggest that 11 members of the House of Keys do consider that 2 minutes of local radio coverage does indeed count as being involved in the local political process.

 

Although it is a secret ballot so we will never know for sure, I would imagine that the block vote of the Council of Ministers has supported Juan Turner here. I certainly wonder why David Saunders did not receive their vote.

 

Can anyone tell us who nominated and seconded the candidates today.