When you think about it, in some ways it’s not that unreasonable of an assumption. 300 - 110 (who couldn’t get into the building) = 190 (who voted to end martial law)
If you could the votes of those who were actually present, then you could say it was unanimous.
That said, a PPP delegate who was going to vote against probably didn’t have a whole lot of incentive to try and get into the building (suggesting the possibility that it might be reasonable to count at least some of the “unable to get in” folks as no votes).
Voting to end martial laws was not unanimous.
It was 190 out of 300, 110 of which weren’t able to get in the building.
Impeachment in South Korea requires 2/3 supermajority, then it goes to the Supreme Court.
The president’s party has 108 members in the national assembly. They’d need 8 defectors from the party to impeach.
Then it goes to the Supreme Court, which is probably the easier step compared to 2/3 of legislature.
Ah my bad, when I read the vote was 190-0, I assumed that was everyone.
When you think about it, in some ways it’s not that unreasonable of an assumption. 300 - 110 (who couldn’t get into the building) = 190 (who voted to end martial law)
If you could the votes of those who were actually present, then you could say it was unanimous.
That said, a PPP delegate who was going to vote against probably didn’t have a whole lot of incentive to try and get into the building (suggesting the possibility that it might be reasonable to count at least some of the “unable to get in” folks as no votes).