Humanities desk
< December 16	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 17

What happens if there's a tie vote in the Israeli Cabinet?

I asked this question before several months ago and didn't get any responses, but maybe I'll get luckier this time around:

What happens if there's a tie vote in the Israeli Cabinet on some issue or motion? Does the relevant motion pass or fail in such a scenario?

Are there any Israelis here who can answer this question of mine? Futurist110 (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a virtually universal rule that a motion that receives a split vote is defeated unless the rules of order provide for a tie-breaking method. In deliberating executive bodies, one would expect that the presiding officer, in this case the prime minister, has a casting vote to break the deadlock. I do not know if this is the actual rule for the Cabinet of Israel. The Basic Law: The Government specifies in section 31.(f): The Government will set work and debate procedures, and decision-making processes in the Government, whether permanent or for a specific matter. It is possible (and, I think, plausible) that their rules are not public; since the deliberations themselves are not public, there is no need for that, and the law allows for ad hoc adjustments to the usual rules anyway. --Lambiam 12:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What about if the Prime Minister's initial vote in the cabinet contributed to the tie? Does he or she then get a second vote, or what? Futurist110 (talk) 02:41, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In bodies that have embraced the use of casting votes, the custom is that the presiding chair is the last to cast their vote, so then the issue does not arise. In the US Senate, the presiding veep even only gets to vote if otherwise there would be a tie. --Lambiam 10:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the Cabinet of the United Kingdom, the prime minister also has the casting vote (which by definition is "a vote that someone may exercise to resolve a deadlock"). I can't find a reference, but as the Israeli constitution was originally based on the Westminster system, [1] [2] one might expect a similarity of function. Alansplodge (talk) 12:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does the British Prime Minister actually have any votes if there is NOT a tie in the British Cabinet, though? Futurist110 (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reality in many Westminster-type governments is that the Prime Minister leads the debates, and his/her position is the one that mostly prevails, as ministers want to keep in the PM's good books and not be seen to be dissenting too frequently. Debates would rarely be so evenly divided as to require the PM's casting vote, but if that were the case, the PM would still be getting his way, just as he mostly does in other cases. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Party discipline is more strict in parliaments than in America innit? Though with how polarized/tribal American politics is getting now who knows lol. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Congress

I think I read that the new U.S. Congress begins on January 3rd (2021). And the Georgia senate elections (run-off) are January 5th (2021). Is this correct? It seems odd. If correct ... why wouldn't the Georgia legislature (or whoever) pick an election date that is before the new term of Congress begins (i.e., before January 3rd, 2021). Is there some logic behind all this? Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 02:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 3rd is a Sunday, January 5th is a Tuesday. Elections are usually held on Tuesdays. And they've probably concluded that the number of weeks between Election Day and the Tuesday before the new Congress is seated isn't long enough to allow campaigning, printing of ballots, etc. The fact is that it's not really essential that every single seat be filled on the first day of the new term of Congress. 199.66.69.107 (talk) 03:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It says in this newspaper article that the runoff is 9 weeks after the main election "because federal law requires time for overseas voters to return ballots in federal elections". --174.95.161.129 (talk) 03:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remember also that if they have it the previous Tuesday, voting day will be during the Christmas - New Year period. Nil Einne (talk) 06:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are both excellent points. It's entirely possible that overseas ballots could swing an election, and as such the law needs to build in a buffer for those to arrive before a runoff is held. And, of course, expecting a government to do anything substantial the last week of December is insanity (that and a lot of people wouldn't make it to the polls). 199.66.69.107 (talk) 13:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nine weeks? Must have been from ye olde times. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The mail has been pretty slow lately. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:54, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doctrine of Election and a satire article

The Babylon Bee just ran an article with the title, "Romans 9 Now Includes Disclaimer That Doctrine Of Election Is Disputed". As with many of their gags that require a level of understanding that goes beyond that of a lapsed Catholic with a fully secular education, this one went straight over my head. I understand that they're poking fun at Facebook and Twitter for their notices on basically anything talking about election fraud, but I'm curious whether there's anything to the joke here other than the convenient word "election". Doctrine of election is not at all enlightening. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 23:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's most elaborately developed by Calvinists, but you have to know to click on the word "unconditional" to see it... AnonMoos (talk) 01:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Romans 9 is sometimes titled God's Sovereign Choice^[3] (which may or may not be subject to dispute). 107.15.157.44 (talk) 01:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The doctrine is explained in our article Unconditional election. Romans 9 is one of several biblical passages that its proponents cite as supporting the doctrine. --Lambiam 09:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]