The draft amendments maintain the process whereby if the CEC chairperson is not elected by two-thirds of CEC members within a given time frame, the President shall submit the same candidate to the Parliament which shall then elect the CEC chairperson. The Venice Commission and ODIHR recognise that there has to be a method to overcome an impasse if the first method does not result in the election of a chairperson. That said, in the absence of a requirement that the election by parliament should take place at qualified majority, this effectively means that the chairperson will represent the ruling party. It must be stressed once more that consensus around the CEC chairperson is an important matter for Georgian democracy. Therefore, every attempt should be made to find as wide a consensus as possible on the CEC chairperson. It should be noted that this concern may also apply even in a non-boycott situation, if the nominee for CEC chairperson does not receive any support from the opposition but can, in any case, be appointed by majority vote. Moreover, the draft does not provide for the case that Parliament does not approve the candidate proposed by the President. To guarantee broader consensus on CEC leadership, consideration should be given to introducing a qualified (e.g. two-thirds) parliamentary majority vote or a double majority requirement (requiring a majority among MPs both of the ruling parties and the opposition parties) for the election of the CEC chairperson, with a final anti-deadlock mechanism.