J(16) 19.i.98

Call for Judgement

According to 339(0) [Changing a Vote], the Speaker has no _counting_ vote (emphasis mine), but according to 439(2) [Speaker's Proposal] the Speaker has the right to vote on every 25th proposal. Therefore I call for Judgement on these statements:

1. The vote allowed for the Speaker by rule 439(2) is a counting vote.
2. The vote allowed for the Speaker by rule 439(2) is not a counting vote.

If Judgement is found in favour of option 2, and records show that the fate of any proposal has been altered by the Speaker's vote, then I request that under rule 454(0) [Breaking the Rules] this state of affairs be altered.

[Records exist for the two proposals which have so far fallen under this rule, namely, P25 and P50, against both of which the Speaker voted as a cynical points-gaining exercise]

Judgement

The Judge selected was Helen Broadie, who judged:

I judge that

1. The vote allowed for the Speaker by rule 439(2) is a counting vote.

Reasoning

By 439, which takes precedence over 339, the Speaker is not just able to vote on every proposal divisible by 25, but becomes an honorary Voter with full rights for these proposals. By 207, the rights of Voters include having a vote, which is defined to be a counting vote, therefore he has an honorary counting vote for these proposals. For all other proposals only 339 applies and he has no counting vote.