Conversation
The ties page states the principle -- the body running the election is responsible for agreeing a tie-breaking rule beforehand -- and then leaves the reader to work out how. This is the page that helps them do it. Audience is a committee secretary writing or amending bylaws, before any election exists, not an admin reacting to a tie that already happened. Covers what happens if you choose nothing (BetterVoting's built-in protocol applies, ending in a deterministic published shuffle), then six realistic options with the specific way each one fails: the built-in protocol, casting vote of the chair, repeat ballot, drawing lots physically, seniority or another objective attribute, and status quo prevails. Deliberately does not push the built-in protocol as the only sensible answer -- an organisation that prefers the chair's casting vote is not wrong, and a page that implies otherwise stops being useful the moment a reader has already decided. Also covers what 'random' has to mean in a written rule (who tosses, who witnesses -- vague rules fail exactly when they are needed), the multi-winner last-seat case that rules routinely forget, example wording to adapt, and a note that organisations under statute or a governing document may not have the choice at all. Not legal advice, and says so. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
✅ Deploy Preview for bettervoting ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration. |
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 5 minutes Limit details: You’ve used all 1 included review currently available under your plan. You've used all free OSS reviews for now. Wait for the free limit to reset to keep reviewing this public repository. How can I continue?After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews. How do review limits work?CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability. For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window. Please refer docs for additional details. Review details⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
|
I don't think it's worth having this article in addition to ties article, so I'll close this for now but feel free to push back if you disagree. |
2 participants
Description
Adds
docs/help/choosing_a_tie_breaking_rule.md.The ties page states the principle — the body running the election is responsible for agreeing a tie-breaking rule in advance — and then leaves the reader to work out how. This is the page that helps them do it.
Audience: a committee secretary writing or amending bylaws, before any election exists. Not an admin reacting to a tie that already happened.
Covers:
One deliberate editorial choice: it does not push BetterVoting's built-in protocol as the only sensible answer. An organisation that prefers the chair's casting vote isn't wrong, and a page implying otherwise stops being useful the moment a reader has already decided.
Not legal advice, and the page says so.
Verification. Local build (
github-pages, Jekyll 3.9): renders, sits under theBetterVoting Documentationparent, no unrewritten.mdhrefs. Links only to pages onmain.Screenshots / Videos (frontend only)
n/a — documentation.
Related Issues
Companion to #1553 (ties page rewrite); independent, can merge in either order.