Talk:2019 Micronesian parliamentary election

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Micronesia: Federated States of Micronesia Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Micronesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Micronesia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicronesiaWikipedia:WikiProject MicronesiaTemplate:WikiProject MicronesiaMicronesia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Federated States of Micronesia (assessed as High-importance).

This article was created or improved during WikiProject Oceania's "10,000 Challenge", which started in November 2016 and is still continuing. You can help!

Quorum[edit]

Despite what the Hawaii Free Press source claim, a referendum on the calling of a Constitutional convention does not require quorum, only a majority of valid votes, according to the constitution [1] and precedent in 1989 : 1989 Micronesian parliamentary election. The 75 % quorum in three out of four state apply to amendment proposals the convention will later made, that will be put to their own referendum. Cordially. --Aréat (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aréat: The source is actually reprinting a government press release, which can be found on an official website here. This is the kind of incompetence I would expect from the British government, but not others! Number 5 7 17:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Either the constitution has been modified without anyone knowing about it - which I doubt considering how difficult and necessarily public the process is-, or that's some level of incompetence, indeed. I'm not worried about the British governement, though, they sure seem focused on making a new high score by the end of this month.--Aréat (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: I sneered, but it look like the micronesian government is really invalidating the referendum result on these grounds. I fail to see why, except if the government interpret the constitution as meaning a majority in more than two states. But I don't see where such a quorum would be specified, and the lack of data doesn't allow comparison with previous referendum. --Aréat (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How bizarre. Where did you find this out by the way? I can't find any useful news sources. Cheers, Number 5 7 21:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In a seemingly updated version of the official results : [2]. Searching further on, the Direct Democracy website has more detailled result of the previous ones. It appear the referendum convention of 1989 and 2001 had at least three states for it, so I would assume that's the quorum. But this is only a guess. I can't seem to find why the 2011 one, which was valid and positive, didn't led to any constituant election. The lack of source on this country is a bit frustrating. --Aréat (talk) 23:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've emailed the election office (actually, the guy quoted in that article) to ask what is going on. It's pretty clear on the constitution that it's only a simple majority of ballots required. Number 5 7 11:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aréat: So Tony Otto (National Election Director) responded to my email and stated that the convention is going ahead! Number 5 7 09:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Damn you're efficient for sure! --Aréat (talk) 09:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]