Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, ais523 wrote: >> On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 15:15 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: >>> I think what happens is that in R208, "exactly one collector...defaulting >>> to the initiator" forces the latter part of the paragraph to not work when >>> the office is vacant (some combination of common sense and R2240 there). >>> So at that instant I was in fact the vote collector. If the office is >>> re-filled, the IADoP would be the vote collector. >> >> I disagree, I think; AFAICT, the election can only be resolved by >> deputisation at this point (and it makes sense to intend to deputise for >> it now, in case there's a tie). To me, the implication is "initiator >> specified as a person - that person collects; initiator specified as an >> office - that office collects", which is a nice simple common sense >> rule. > > Except for the "exactly one" bit. That implies very strongly that there > can't be zero.
Does it have to be exactly one /natural person/? Or can the vote collector be "the IADoP"?
