Retry: Amendment III

[notyoueither]

Just one point Trip. Starting on the 12th and ending on the 16th is 4 days.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Just one point Trip. Starting on the 12th and ending on the 16th is 4 days.

12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th.

IIRC, that's 5.



Don't worry, I had the same problem at first too.

[notyoueither]

Unless it's 12.01am on the 12th till 11.59pm on the 16th.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Trip
12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th.

IIRC, that's 5.

You are born in 2012. What birthday do you celebrate in 2016?

I think you set polls to go so many days from when posted. If you say 5 in the set up, it will go until the 17th.

[Jon Shafer]

Who cares, the thing is 5 days long.

[notyoueither]

That's a very peculiar meaning for a duration of 5 days.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by notyoueither
That's a very peculiar meaning for a duration of 5 days.

People have said it ends on the 16th, and some have said it ends on the 17th. That's why I post the # of days instead of the date it ends, since it seems that no one really knows.

[notyoueither]

All elections must last 5 days

That would be 120 hours, right?

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by notyoueither
All elections must last 5 days

That would be 120 hours, right?

Technically, yes...

[notyoueither]

Technically, the date of the start and finish are irrelevant for this point, since it is subject to where the reader is. The important bit would be the duration.

Or just change it to say 4 days.

[Papa Chubby]

I would vote for this amendment. I still believe that having the "officials", ministers that is, pick the one that should hold the post to be stupid, but there has not been offered any good alternative. Also it should state ministers, because it could be debated that the court "officials", other wise known as the judges, would be allowed to vote.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Papa Chubby
I would vote for this amendment. I still believe that having the "officials", ministers that is, pick the one that should hold the post to be stupid, but there has not been offered any good alternative. Also it should state ministers, because it could be debated that the court "officials", other wise known as the judges, would be allowed to vote.

I purposely changed it to officials. Otherwise, then people could seriouly argue that the President/VP has no say, since it specifically says "Ministers". See what I mean?

[Kuciwalker]

[mumble]stupidnitpickinglawyers[/mumble]

[GodKing]

In case of a tie, keep the court out of any such decision UNLESS there is a controversy regarding the legality of said election. Else sounds good.

[Kuciwalker]

Of course. Having the court decide a tie would be effectively giving each Justice a second vote.