RWC 2023 Bid

One of the widely touted advantages of the Irish bid was that we had never hosted it before (at least not alone or as the principal host) whereas the others had, but if you look at the assessment criteria, that wasn't taken into consideration. I suppose you could consider it an element of Vision and Hosting Concept, but that's still a small proportion of the overall score. (Maybe it's all explained on one of the 138 pages I didn't read.)
Based on those criteria, you'd imagine that if England had bid again, they probably would have got it. In fact if they find a good host, no reason the same union can't keep winning it every time.

VISION AND HOSTING CONCEPT 10%
TOURNAMENT, ORGANISATION AND SCHEDULE 5%
VENUES AND HOST CITIES 30%
TOURNAMENT INFRASTRUCTURE 20%
FINANCE, COMMERCIAL AND COMMITMENTS 35%

That said I never quite understood how we were such raging favourites for so long.
Dick Spring has been known to pull off the odd surprise on polling day though so it mightn't be over yet

A big issue seems to be that they wanted primarily all-seater venues. If this was a known requirement, you'd have to wonder why the IRFU bothered.
Pearse and FitzGerald Stadiums were always going to be a hard sell in that context.

Article on the WR website says the host will be decided by a simple majority vote.
www.worldrugby.org/news/291551

"Independent auditors will oversee the process and the vote on 15 November, which will comprise a total of 39 votes, with a simple majority required to select the Rugby World Cup 2023 host."

However there doesn't seem to be a consensus on what constitutes a simple majority.
I always thought it just meant the largest number of votes, as in a UK election, and that's what Oxford gives: en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/simple_majority
But Collins has it as more than half of the total: www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/simple-majority with various other sources falling into either camp.

Couldn't spot a detailed explanation of the actual RWC voting process anywhere.
You'd imagine in a first past the post scenario, South Africa would be a shoo-in, but if there was a second round of voting in the event no-one gets to 20, one of the NH bids might sneak in.

According to Gerry Thornley it's first to 20 votes, if after a first round of votes no country has 20 votes the last team is eliminated and the countries vote again until a country reaches 20 votes

Tier 1 nations get 3 votes (England, Wales, Scotland, Italy, NZ, Argentina & Australia, countries bidding don't get to vote)
Regional associations get 2 votes (Europe, Africa, Oceania, N America, S America, Asia & Japan)
Smaller rugby nations get 1 vote (USA, Canada, Georgia & Romania)

greyingbeard wrote: According to Gerry Thornley it's first to 20 votes, if after a first round of votes no country has 20 votes the last team is eliminated and the countries vote again until a country reaches 20 votes

Tier 1 nations get 3 votes (England, Wales, Scotland, Italy, NZ, Argentina & Australia, countries bidding don't get to vote)
Regional associations get 2 votes (Europe, Africa, Oceania, N America, S America, Asia & Japan)
Smaller rugby nations get 1 vote (USA, Canada, Georgia & Romania)

France it is!

The bid committee are having a go at Scotland and Wales for not voting for us, but the way I add it up, one of them did.
England + US + Canada = 5. We got 8. So my guess would have been the other 3 were Wales.
The other alternatives don't make much sense (North America + Georgia?)