Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I interpret the application of the translation slightly differently for the North America situation.

The law says: "Any remaining seats shall be assigned to those lists for which the division calculations have produced the highest remainders."  I think that the significant thing is the use of the plural 'lists' and 'remainders', which implies to me that one seat each will be given to the two highest, ie L'Unita and Forza.

That also has somewhat more logic & fairness attached to it!

by canberra boy (canberraboy1 at gmail dot com) on Tue Apr 11th, 2006 at 05:04:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think your interpretation would leave the allocation process underdefined. At any rate, the next sentence implies otherwise:

In the case of identical remainders, the seats shall be assigned to the list with the highest electoral number;

The plural in "lists" could either be a translation error, or mean "those lists [in each overseas zone]".

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Tue Apr 11th, 2006 at 05:11:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Agree it could be a translation error.
by canberra boy (canberraboy1 at gmail dot com) on Tue Apr 11th, 2006 at 05:26:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That also has somewhat more logic & fairness attached to it!

Logic, FAIRNESS?!?!?!?!?

Remember, this crazy election law was made by B to suit himself!

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Tue Apr 11th, 2006 at 05:23:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Logic and fairness may however be what a court will apply.  Also, it is unlikely that Berlusconi or henchpersons could have foreseen the way the numbers might fall in the overseas electoral regions to have dreamed up the plurality-takes-all interpretation as likely to suit themselves.
by canberra boy (canberraboy1 at gmail dot com) on Tue Apr 11th, 2006 at 05:55:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series