The Other Gentlemen’s Agreement « NYU Development Research Institute

Voting patterns compared between the World Bank and the Vatican in electing a leader look similar – via William Easterly at The Other Gentlemen’s Agreement « NYU Development Research Institute.

Inside the Security Council deliberations on Palestine – By Colum Lynch | Turtle Bay

Will the Palestinians continue to press the case at the Security Council?  Meanwhile play the game that Colum Lynch suggests–and try to figure out whether each of the 15 members is vote yes, no, or abstain:

In the meantime, Turtle Bay, decided to post a copy of the latest report on the Security Council’s deliberations on Palestinian statehood. The report, which will be officially issued tomorrow, was first reported by Al Hurra….

A hint: Britain, Colombia, and France revealed they would abstain on the resolution. The United States, meanwhile, argued that Palestine could not be considered a “peace-loving” state so long as Palestinian militants were firing rockets across the border at Israeli communities.

via Inside the Security Council deliberations on Palestine – By Colum Lynch | Turtle Bay.

British Monarchy Scraps Rule of Male Succession in New Step to Modernization – NYTimes.com

A change of monarchical procedure from 500 years of history dating back to Henry VIII opens up to women, but not Catholics:

The decision to overturn the centuries-old tradition known as primogeniture was accompanied by the scrapping of a constitutional prohibition on the monarch’s marrying a Roman Catholic. But the rule that reserves the throne to Protestants will remain.

via British Monarchy Scraps Rule of Male Succession in New Step to Modernization – NYTimes.com.

Debating the Filibuster

Today, an arcane term in parliamentary procedure shared the spotlight with the swearing-in ceremonies of a new class of U.S. legislators.  Republicans should be happy: Ten of  President George W. Bush’s judicial nominees were filibustered–more than any other president.  But the Dems may have other ideas.

The plan would allow debate to begin on any measure with a simple 51-vote majority, rather than the 60-vote supermajority the minority party can currently insist upon. It would prevent senators from putting secret “holds” on nominations or legislation, and guarantee the minority party the right to introduce amendments to legislation on the floor of the Senate.Under the rules, lawmakers who want to prevent a vote on final passage of legislation would be forced to take the floor of the Senate to defend their stance – and would have to remain there as long as the bill was being debated.Finally, the package would seek to limit the time allotted for debate on the president’s nominations.

via Taking Aim at the Senate Filibuster – Washington Wire – WSJ.

Technically speaking, the filibuster isn’t a motion, but rather an informal term relating to “any attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter” through extended debate, procedural motion or other parliamentary strategies.  (See the U.S. Senate’s virtual reference desk for this definition and other related terms.)  As noted here, debate within the Senate is limited only under certain situations. These situations include the following:

• Cloture is invoked
• Debate is limited by unanimous consent
• The Senate operates under a unanimous consent time agreement
• The Senate considers a motion to table
• The Senate considers a measure governed by a rule-making statute

So why are Democrats finally taking aim at the filibuster?  Ezra Klein explains:

The increase in party unity helps explain why the filibuster has become so unmanageable: A minority senator’s individual incentives are often to collaborate with the majority on legislation so they can add items and rules that are important to constituencies back home. A minority party’s collective incentive is almost never to collaborate with the majority on legislation, because that makes the legislation popular and it makes the majority party look effective and it makes you less likely to win the next election.

via Ezra Klein – Party unity in two graphs.

(His WaPo column, “Wonkbook” references some other good reads, including CRS’s primer on the “nuclear” options for changing the Senate’s rules, George Packer’s article on the modern Senate, discussions of the Framer’s intent and the constitutionality—and more.)

You can see the current approach in Senator Udall’s legislation on Scribd.

Booklist | Numbers Rule: “The Vexing Mathematics of Democracy”

Getting to a simple majority is part of the job for diplomats, governing boards, and elected officials.  But the voting method used in the US, India, and Canada is largely based on the British approach (“winner takes all”)–which is undergoing a big change.  Recent history in the US shows that a serious reconsideration is needed….and a new book by George Szpiro is reviewed by Anthony Gottlieb, and helps us to do the math:

In a contest between two people for one job, first past the post seems to be merely common sense. But, as soon as there are three or more candidates on the slate, it can quickly go awry. The least popular candidate could easily win, if the opposition to him or her splits its votes between two or more other candidates. Say sixty per cent of voters are right of center and forty per cent are to the left. In a three-way contest with two equally popular right-wing candidates and one left-winger, a first-past-the-post vote will elect the left-winger, whom only a minority want. A dramatic variety of vote-splitting happens when a “spoiler” with no chance of winning manages to affect the outcome of an election by sucking away votes that could have reversed the positions of two front-runners in a close race. If several hundred Ralph Nader supporters in Florida had voted for Al Gore, the outcome of America’s 2000 Presidential election would have been different.

Add political parties to the picture, and the winner-take-all system looks even worse. A party’s share of seats in a parliament or a congress can diverge wildly from its over-all share of votes. In Britain’s 1983 election, the Liberal-S.D.P. Alliance won more than twenty-five per cent of the votes but fewer than four per cent of the seats in Parliament. In this year’s election, the Liberal Democrat Party won more than a fifth of the votes and less than a tenth of the seats. That’s because Lib-Dem supporters today, like those of the Alliance in 1983, are thinly scattered across the land.

via New voting methods and fair elections : The New Yorker.

Congressional Memo – As Senate Majority Shifts, So Does View of ‘Reconciliation’ – NYTimes.com

The tale of a parliamentary maneuver of the U.S. Senate:

Reconciliation in effect protects bills from filibusters and thus from the requirement for a 60-vote supermajority to end debate, and instead allows legislation with a budgetary impact to pass by a simple majority after limited debate. Minority parties — right now, the Republicans — tend to hate it.

via Congressional Memo – As Senate Majority Shifts, So Does View of ‘Reconciliation’ – NYTimes.com.

Harry Reed, Parliamentarian

If you are following the domestic health care policy bill/debate, you’re undoubtedly picking up the fact that the Senate Majority Leader is not only the political go-to guy for his party (along with the go-to gal, Nancy Pelosi in the House), but he’s also a strategist in Robert’s Rules—of necessity:

At some point, Mr. Reid will have to push for a vote to end debate. And to do that, he will once again need the support of 60 senators — either the entire Democratic caucus or some Republicans to make up for any defections.

At least four senators — three Democrats and one independent — who voted yes on sending the measure to the floor for debate have already publicly threatened to block any effort to get a vote on final passage.

Mr. Reid succeeded in getting the bill to the Senate floor with no clear path to a final vote to get it off the floor.

via Rough Race to the Finish for Senate Democrats – Prescriptions Blog – NYTimes.com.

The Greatest Filibusters – The Daily Beast

The filibuster isn’t allowed under general United Nations parliamentary procedure–but its still a great tactic in the U.S. Senate and worthy of major C-Span coverage each time its employed:

As Sen. Joe Lieberman threatens to filibuster the Senate health-care bill, The Daily Beast looks back on obstructionism’s greatest hits. From presumed poisonings and Roquefort salad dressing recipes to public urination and the 15 hours devoted to saving a typewriter company, the strange and twisted history of the Senate filibuster.

via The Greatest Filibusters – The Daily Beast.

 

 

 

How The Nobel Peace Prize Works | The New Republic

The big debate over Obama’s Nobel obscures an intriguing voting system that starts with broad nominations.  (Did you know Armand Hammer tried to buy the prize, but lost out to the Dalai Lama?):

“In 2009, a record 205 nominations were received. Unlike the Oscars or Golden Globe awards, The Committee keeps the nominations secret and asks that nominators do the same for several years. (When the past nominations were released, it was discovered that Adolf Hitler was nominated in 1939, as were Joseph Stalin and Benito Mussolini.)

“Nominations are considered by the Nobel Committee at a meeting by permanent advisers to the Nobel institute, which consists of the Institute’s Director and Research Director and a small number of Norwegian academics with expertise in subject areas relating to the prize. The 5-man Committee then selects the laureate. Even though it seeks a unanimous decision, the winner may receive a simple majority of 3 votes.”

via How The Nobel Peace Prize Works | The New Republic.

Unesco Voting Concludes

And we have a winner… and she’s from Bulgarian.  The voting was more interesting (perhaps) than the actual outcome; it all came down to the backroom, and this tantalizing tidbit (we heart anon sources!):

In the fourth round of voting on Monday night, the candidates were tied, 29 to 29. Two countries changed their votes overnight in the secret balloting, but it was not clear which ones, since some countries had promised support to Egypt in the first round, but shifted in later rounds, diplomats said.

One person close to the proceedings said that Spain and Italy had shifted their votes after learning new information about what is alleged to have been Mr. Hosny’s role, as an Egyptian diplomat, in protecting the perpetrators of a terrorist act involving an Italian cruise ship in 1985, but that could not be confirmed Tuesday night. The person spoke anonymously because of the delicacy of the matter.

The lastest on the round 4 of UNESCO voting:

In the fourth round of voting of Unesco’s 58-nation executive board, the two candidates were tied, 29-29. If the vote remains tied on Tuesday, the 193-member General Conference will choose a new director general next month, and Mr. Hosny is expected to win in the larger body, where Egypt is thought to have more influence.

The original field of nine candidates has been slowly thinned, with Ms. Bokova, who comes from a family that was prominent in the old Communist government, becoming the alternative to Mr. Hosny, 71, who has been Egypt’s culture minister for 22 years.

President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt has pressed hard for his candidate, who had hoped to win with 30 votes in the first round.

But some of the countries that had pledged to Mr. Mubarak to vote for Mr. Hosny — like France, Italy and even Israel — have not felt obliged to keep that commitment in later rounds.

Some American Jewish organizations and civil libertarians have fiercely opposed Mr. Hosny.

In the Egyptian context he is considered liberal, but last year, in a parliamentary debate, defending himself against charges that he was soft on Israel, he said he would personally burn any Israeli book found in the Alexandria library, Egypt’s most important.

Via NYT 21 September 2009

PREVIOUS STORIES:

With more voting on Friday, the game is on for Unesco:

The candidacy of the Egyptian culture minister, Farouk Hosny, left, to lead Unesco suffered a setback on Thursday when he failed to win in the first round of voting. Mr. Hosny had said he had more than the 30 votes required from the 58-nation executive board of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization to win outright. But he got only 22 votes, Unesco officials said, and some of the country votes pledged were for only the first round.

via World Briefing – United Nations – No Winner in First Round of Votes for Unesco Chief – NYTimes.com.

And my previous link to the Op-Ed making the case for Hosny.