Yay. I am the representivie of myself!

Hoorah, I am a representative of the people! (Or Alex, rather)

Well, this is the last day you can propose anything, for tomorrow, Nick takes over.

So how should we change it then?

Well, Duncan is usually more active. He is away. What would you suggest? We just elect you and Nick on the nod each time? This is where you make suggestions to amend the Constitution.

And as we know that this is how it is always going to be then we need to alter/make clearer the constitution.

The system is only flawed because there is not enough participation.

No, anyone could have voted. Acting as a member of the general population, I chose Nick over you. Last time I chose you over Nick. Anyone else was free to vote for you, thereby countering my vote. I only have complete control if only the three of us participate, because, if that is the case, I will always have the casting vote, as I will never nominate myself.

So basically you now have complete control over who gets elected to the CCHoIR because of your interpretation of the consitution. Some how I don't think that is at all really in the peoples interest.

Yes, but you were exceedingly unlikely to vote for anyone else. So you didn't really make a choice. You were not acting on the behalf of the people, you were acting on behalf of yourselves. And, anyway, you still lost the election.

Including me and nick.

But I was not a candidate. You were candidates. Any member of the people should have an interest in the outcome.

But you are not a true representitive of the people either as you are the Permanent Secretary of the CCHoIR which also means that you have an interest in the outcome of the electionsand so you can not bea proper representive of the people.

No it isn't. There were two canditates. You came first in the voting, Nick came second. he still came second out of two whether people voted for him or not. Really, nobody voted for you (In both senses). The only representative of the people was me, so I get to decide who is elected.

But there was only one vote that time and this time is different more like the election before that one.

Prior to your election

What time?

Well, there was nobody else there at the time.

How was there nobody to vote with?

Just thinik, if this had been us and Nick, the CC would have collapsed by now...

Well, there was nobody (small n) to vote with. Except me. So I did.

Thats why I started this talk here. The whole point of this House is so that these discusions can happen and not manage to tear the CC apart. Also if that is the interpretaion that you want then there should have been a vote on it not just first come first serve as to how the consitution is enforced.

And I already have. We can't have mixed messages from this House!

No. Because you haven't done it before.

But that also means that I can choose to interpret the consitution how I want to as well.

Because of that most revered of things, tradition. I have done, so I will, and can, do so again. I have precedent, which is what the British constitution and legal system is based upon.

Because why do you get to choose how the consitution is interpreted?

Alright.

Surely we should have a vote on that then.

I am interpreting the Constitution, as I interpreted it before. The winner of the election gets a seat at this table. The loser does not. Until next time. Without any implying that I can fix the elections.

So...

It doesn't not.

But it does not give you the right to chose how many are elected.

The Constitution does not specify that everyone that is voted for is elected.

That was why the consitution was changed so that it would be possible for less than 3 members to be elected if there were not enough people elected/nominated to fill the three spaces.

No one voted for him.

What about your election? Surely nick should have been elected?

A quick change to the consitution then so only one other member of the CCHoIR at a time.

Look at every other election.

Read the vote. It only called for one.

Why?

No.

So technically I am elected as well.

So?

Just to say on the recent vote that the consitution says up to 3 members not just 1 member.