Dan Honemann Posted February 6, 2012 at 04:17 PM Author Report Share Posted February 6, 2012 at 04:17 PM When the chair is standing there reviewing the teller's report, does he have any other proper option, other than proceeding with the announcement in approximately the way you suggest?In other words, granting that the announcement that E is elected is indeed correct, is it the only right answer under the circumstances?It's the only right answer that I can think of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Hunt Posted February 6, 2012 at 07:20 PM Report Share Posted February 6, 2012 at 07:20 PM It's the only right answer that I can think of.This reflects my feelings perfectly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted February 6, 2012 at 07:46 PM Report Share Posted February 6, 2012 at 07:46 PM I would have to disagree with your disagreement. Chris -- are you any closer to agreeing with Mr. Honemann's disagreement yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted February 6, 2012 at 08:25 PM Report Share Posted February 6, 2012 at 08:25 PM Chris -- are you any closer to agreeing with Mr. Honemann's disagreement yet?I acknowledge that RONR disagrees with my answer but I still disagree on principle. I find it pretty disconcerting that if someone had raised a Point of Order five seconds after the Chair had announced that D had won that we would have went from E winning the seat to D's election being null and void and having another ballot to complete the election. So while RONR says E would get the 4th seat this is a situation where what RONR p. 456 ll. 13-18 says should be taken into account in order to accurately reflect the will of the assembly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted February 6, 2012 at 08:44 PM Author Report Share Posted February 6, 2012 at 08:44 PM I acknowledge that RONR disagrees with my answer but I still disagree on principle. I find it pretty disconcerting that if someone had raised a Point of Order five seconds after the Chair had announced that D had won that we would have went from E winning the seat to D's election being null and void and having another ballot to complete the election. So while RONR says E would get the 4th seat this is a situation where what RONR p. 456 ll. 13-18 says should be taken into account in order to accurately reflect the will of the assembly.The difference is that I think that "if someone had raised a Point of Order five seconds after the Chair had announced that D had won", the point of order would be upheld, negating the chair's previous declaration, and the chair would then declare E elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tina Marie Posted February 6, 2012 at 10:05 PM Report Share Posted February 6, 2012 at 10:05 PM It's the only right answer that I can think of.Now granted this is just a hobby for me-- wouldn't the voters present have the ablility to request a new election with the ones that are elegible for election and move forward with a new election. D apologizes for any confusion and a new election is conducted.Problem solved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted February 6, 2012 at 10:14 PM Report Share Posted February 6, 2012 at 10:14 PM Now granted this is just a hobby for me-- wouldn't the voters present have the ablility to request a new election with the ones that are elegible for election and move forward with a new election. D apologizes for any confusion and a new election is conducted.Problem solved. Sounds pretty logical to me. But alas that doesn't seem to be in the cards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted February 6, 2012 at 10:29 PM Author Report Share Posted February 6, 2012 at 10:29 PM Sounds pretty logical to me. But alas that doesn't seem to be in the cards. Well, since what was thought might happen in the circumstances described in post #29 would not, and should not, in fact happen, what could be more logical than following the rules? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted February 6, 2012 at 10:36 PM Report Share Posted February 6, 2012 at 10:36 PM It's the only right answer that I can think of.In that case, I have a suggestion. :-)I think there is still the issue of fairness to the voters. Let's assume that D was nominated. When the chair announced, at a meeting, that Mr. D is nominated for the officer of Director, he effectively ruled that D is eligible for the office and that votes cast for him would be legal votes.It is with this knowledge that members cast their votes. It would not be fair to then revise the vote count after the fact to declare that legal votes will be counted as illegal votes and not credited to the candidate (for the purpose of determining which persons received the largest number of votes).Of course, D cannot be declared to have been elected, either, since it is now known that he is not, in fact, eligible for office. But neither should anyone else be declared elected, since the erroneous entrance of Mr. D as a candidate clearly could have affected the outcome, by taking away votes from other (eligible) candidates.I think it would be quite reasonable to just do the election over again from the beginning -- announcing who the nominated candidates are (the eligible ones, this time), allowing additional nominations if there is a motion to do so, and taking a new ballot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted February 7, 2012 at 06:18 PM Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 at 06:18 PM How are we to treat the arguments that appear in ephemeral posts? Are they to be treated as if they were never here at all? Discounted by 50% or so?Just asking...---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------In response to Mr. Gerber's suggestion, what would be the mechanism for carrying out the suggested course of action? What should the chair do, in your view? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted February 7, 2012 at 07:42 PM Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 at 07:42 PM How are we to treat the arguments that appear in ephemeral posts? Are they to be treated as if they were never here at all? Discounted by 50% or so?Just asking...---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------In response to Mr. Gerber's suggestion, what would be the mechanism for carrying out the suggested course of action? What should the chair do, in your view?Just regard that post's disappearance as a belated recognition of the fact that it is always wise to mull things over a bit before responding to posts by Mr. Gerber.Feel free to stay tuned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted February 7, 2012 at 09:21 PM Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 at 09:21 PM I'm still trying to find a quibble with post #30 and I can't. S.G.'s dazzling display of logic and reasonableness just leaves me with more questions. This will be a great thread to learn from if it can ever be summed up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted February 7, 2012 at 10:03 PM Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 at 10:03 PM Of course, D cannot be declared to have been elected, either, since it is now known that he is not, in fact, eligible for office. But neither should anyone else be declared elected, since the erroneous entrance of Mr. D as a candidate clearly could have affected the outcome, by taking away votes from other (eligible) candidates.Under that logic, if this a ballot vote (it is) and write-in votes are not prohibited, and candidate G was improperly excluded from nomination, you could make the same argument. G's presence on the ballot might have effected the result, even if it wasn't caught until a later meeting. That would, of course, never prevented any of G's supporters from writing in the name of G.There are a lot of factors that might effect an election, including ballot position. If the guy printing up the ballot is a supporter of J, and he puts J's name on top, even though J was nominated next to last, is that sufficient to invalidate the election?I would not say that any of these things would be subject to a point of order after the voting has started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted February 13, 2012 at 12:17 PM Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 at 12:17 PM In response to Mr. Gerber's suggestion, what would be the mechanism for carrying out the suggested course of action? What should the chair do, in your view?...it is always wise to mull things over a bit before responding to posts by Mr. Gerber.Feel free to stay tuned. I'm still trying to find a quibble with post #30 and I can't. S.G.'s dazzling display of logic and reasonableness just leaves me with more questions. This will be a great thread to learn from if it can ever be summed up ...There are a lot of factors that might effect an election, including ballot position....I would not say that any of these things would be subject to a point of order after the voting has started.I've been hoping this thread wouldn't end in limbo like this... Mr. Gerber? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted February 13, 2012 at 03:04 PM Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 at 03:04 PM I've been hoping this thread wouldn't end in limbo like this... Mr. Gerber?I think Dan is still mulling, but that doesn't mean anything is going to change. :-)I would revise my own suggestion by striking out "But neither should anyone else be declared elected, since the erroneous entrance of Mr. D as a candidate clearly could have affected the outcome, by taking away votes from other (eligible) candidates." and inserting "But neither should anyone else be declared elected, since that cannot be done without revising the number of votes credited to D." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted February 13, 2012 at 03:34 PM Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 at 03:34 PM I think Dan is still mulling, but that doesn't mean anything is going to change. :-)I would revise my own suggestion by striking out "But neither should anyone else be declared elected, since the erroneous entrance of Mr. D as a candidate clearly could have affected the outcome, by taking away votes from other (eligible) candidates." and inserting "But neither should anyone else be declared elected, since that cannot be done without revising the number of votes credited to D."If that is the case, I think Dan's initial answer is correct, based on p. 416, ll 2-6. I think the chair could rule that D is ineligible. I don't believe that the tellers would, ultimately, have the authority to determine eligibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted February 13, 2012 at 06:25 PM Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 at 06:25 PM I think Dan is still mulling, but that doesn't mean anything is going to change. :-)I would revise my own suggestion by striking out "But neither should anyone else be declared elected, since the erroneous entrance of Mr. D as a candidate clearly could have affected the outcome, by taking away votes from other (eligible) candidates." and inserting "But neither should anyone else be declared elected, since that cannot be done without revising the number of votes credited to D."Are you saying the chair should not rule that the votes credited to D (in the teller's report) are, in fact, illegal votes? Even if D is clearly ineligible, and in this scenario was without doubt ineligible at the time the votes were cast?Does the chair have the option of putting the question back in the hands of the assembly, and, if so, on what basis? What exactly could he claim to be doubtful about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted February 14, 2012 at 04:32 PM Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 at 04:32 PM Are you saying the chair should not rule that the votes credited to D (in the teller's report) are, in fact, illegal votes? Even if D is clearly ineligible, and in this scenario was without doubt ineligible at the time the votes were cast?Does the chair have the option of putting the question back in the hands of the assembly, and, if so, on what basis? What exactly could he claim to be doubtful about?Trina,I don't want to sound mysterious, but I haven't said anything other than what I've said. I was making a suggestion for Mr. Honemann's consideration, since he is the one who posed the question. But (as always) he apparently already knew the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted February 15, 2012 at 02:03 AM Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 at 02:03 AM Are you saying the chair should not rule that the votes credited to D (in the teller's report) are, in fact, illegal votes? 1. No, Shmuel is not, since that is untrue, and Shmuel neither likes to say what is untrue nor to advise chairs to. Even if D is clearly ineligible, and in this scenario was without doubt ineligible at the time the votes were cast? (2. Moot, or already covered. Unless that's what "moot" means. In which case, strike "moot." insert "lunch.")Does the chair have the option of putting the question back in the hands of the assembly, and, if so, on what basis? 3. That is a succinct statement of what the thread is about, isn't it? It's no-how any new kind of question, is it?What exactly could he claim to be doubtful about?4. What the chair (representing us, who are the ones who are thinking about the issue at Mr Honemann's instigation) could be doubtful about, to any degree that would have any effect --i.e., at the level of a continuing breach --) is whether the chair's implicit assurance and implied ruling to the electorate that D is an eligible candidate is sufficiently intolerable that it fatally taint the election. (Clearly, J. J. and Dan don't find it intolerable at all, merely unpleasant, if I read them right. Oh, and that mind-reading warning goes for Shmuel too, and anyone else I spoke for without his endorsement, and maybe without his agreement.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted February 15, 2012 at 12:25 PM Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 at 12:25 PM ...I would revise my own suggestion by striking out "But neither should anyone else be declared elected, since the erroneous entrance of Mr. D as a candidate clearly could have affected the outcome, by taking away votes from other (eligible) candidates." and inserting "But neither should anyone else be declared elected, since that cannot be done without revising the number of votes credited to D."Trina,I don't want to sound mysterious, but I haven't said anything other than what I've said...Fair enough, but I always tend to think in terms of implementation... so I wonder what actually happens if your suggested rule is to be followed -- "neither should anyone else be declared elected, since that cannot be done without revising the number of votes credited to D."Does the chair have the option of putting the question back in the hands of the assembly, and, if so, on what basis?...That is a succinct statement of what the thread is about, isn't it? It's no-how any new kind of question, is it?Perhaps not new... although by "the question" I just meant the specific question about how/whether to revise the number of votes credited to D; not the larger question of the whole election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted February 16, 2012 at 03:57 PM Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 at 03:57 PM Fair enough, but I always tend to think in terms of implementation... so I wonder what actually happens if your suggested rule is to be followed -- "neither should anyone else be declared elected, since that cannot be done without revising the number of votes credited to D." Hmm. What would be the point of holding a new election, if not to allow for revising the votes credited to D?Perhaps not new... although by "the question" I just meant the specific question about how/whether to revise the number of votes credited to D; not the larger question of the whole election.I apologize, Trina: I conflated two thoughts of yours.I'm now a little more on the fence, having alarmingly trifled with the possibility of making up my mind. As Dan and J. J. have posited (if I read their minds correctly): since voters, theoretically, could have cast their ballots for D knowing that these would be illegal votes and that D would not (because he could not) be elected, those votes should stand. Come to think of it, we cannot say for a conclusive fact that everybody, every single body, who voted for D, did so under the misapprehension: it is possible that at least one of the voters for D did know that he was ineligible and could, and would, not be elected.Why, one might ask, might they do that? Why deliberately cast an illegal vote? Well, perhaps some obscure political-cum-arithmetical strategy, analogous to those old votes for Mickey Mouse. Stop asking me to read people's minds, I do it too much anyway.So if we want to throw out the election in order to fix the disenfranchisement of those who voted for D because the chair told them, or implied, that such votes would be effective (i.e., not illegal), can we do so without disenfranchising those who voted for D knowing that they were casting illegal votes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted February 16, 2012 at 04:05 PM Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 at 04:05 PM So if we want to throw out the election in order to fix the disenfranchisement of those who voted for D because the chair told them, or implied, that such votes would be effective (i.e., not illegal), can we do so without disenfranchising those who voted for D knowing that they were casting illegal votes?They can still vote for D if they wish to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted February 16, 2012 at 04:38 PM Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 at 04:38 PM Hmm. What would be the point of holding a new election, if not to allow for revising the votes credited to D?I apologize, Trina: I conflated two thoughts of yours.I'm now a little more on the fence, having alarmingly trifled with the possibility of making up my mind. As Dan and J. J. have posited (if I read their minds correctly): since voters, theoretically, could have cast their ballots for D knowing that these would be illegal votes and that D would not (because he could not) be elected, those votes should stand. Come to think of it, we cannot say for a conclusive fact that everybody, every single body, who voted for D, did so under the misapprehension: it is possible that at least one of the voters for D did know that he was ineligible and could, and would, not be elected.Why, one might ask, might they do that? Why deliberately cast an illegal vote? Well, perhaps some obscure political-cum-arithmetical strategy, analogous to those old votes for Mickey Mouse. Stop asking me to read people's minds, I do it too much anyway.So if we want to throw out the election in order to fix the disenfranchisement of those who voted for D because the chair told them, or implied, that such votes would be effective (i.e., not illegal), can we do so without disenfranchising those who voted for D knowing that they were casting illegal votes?I think it is still too early for me to be getting back into this, but I do not want to have my previous posts misinterpreted, either. I do not think that it matters one whit whether or not the members who voted for D knew that he was ineligible at the time they cast their votes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted February 17, 2012 at 09:08 AM Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 at 09:08 AM I think it is still too early for me to be getting back into this, but I do not want to have my previous posts misinterpreted, either. I do not think that it matters one whit whether or not the members who voted for D knew that he was ineligible at the time they cast their votes.If that doesn't matter, then, Dan, you don't share Shmuel's concern (Post 34) about fairness, and hte sub-discussions of Post 13, 14, 17 &c, and Bruce Lages's (if that isn't covered) have been put to bed. Do you agree that this follows from what you said? Does anyone? Why not, this time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted February 17, 2012 at 11:24 AM Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 at 11:24 AM If that doesn't matter, then, Dan, you don't share Shmuel's concern (Post 34) about fairness, and hte sub-discussions of Post 13, 14, 17 &c, and Bruce Lages's (if that isn't covered) have been put to bed. Do you agree that this follows from what you said? Does anyone? Why not, this time?Well, I wouldn’t want to be understood as having no concern for fairness, either. If I recall correctly (you can look back at post #1 and tell me if I’m wrong), up to the time the votes were cast, no point of order had been raised by anyone concerning D’s eligibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.