write-in candidate

[Guest Karen Jensen]

The write-in candidate received 80% of the vote and was declared the winner on Voting Day by the Election Chair and Presiding Officer. There were three times the quorum required. The vote 'takes effect' in a few weeks, at the final meeting of the year.

The side that lost wants to throw out the write-in candidate because the official ballot - one candidate per office using the outdated approve/ disapprove method, but no space for a write-in - was 'altered' according to them by adding a few typewritten lines in the tiny space available: "I vote for the following write-in candidates: President: Mary; Vice-President: Julie, etc.

Do write-ins have to be handwritten?

[jstackpo]

Buncha sore losers... grasping at straws

Seems to me that -- unless your bylaws forbid write-in votes - do they? -- somebody just corrected the (parliamentary) error made in the initial preparation of the ballot by pointing out that write-in votes were proper.

Note this: ANY write in vote, whether there is space on the original ballot or not, "alters" the "official ballot". Obviously that does not invalidate the ballots or the election.

[Trina]

The write-in candidate received 80% of the vote and was declared the winner on Voting Day by the Election Chair and Presiding Officer. There were three times the quorum required. The vote 'takes effect' in a few weeks, at the final meeting of the year.

The side that lost wants to throw out the write-in candidate because the official ballot - one candidate per office using the outdated approve/ disapprove method, but no space for a write-in - was 'altered' according to them by adding a few typewritten lines in the tiny space available: "I vote for the following write-in candidates: President: Mary; Vice-President: Julie, etc.

Do write-ins have to be handwritten?

Are you saying that the ballots, as handed out to the voters, had the actual names of the 'write-in' candidates pre-typed on the ballot? If so, how did that come about?

[jstackpo]

One thing does concern me, your phrase "There were three times the quorum required."

The quorum has nothing to do with winning an election (as long as a quorum was present at election time). All that matters is that someone gets a majority of the votes cast (could be 1 to 0 for example).

With your write in person getting 80% it is apparent that he/she won the election.

[Guest Edgar]

Are you saying that the ballots, as handed out to the voters, had the actual names of the 'write-in' candidates pre-typed on the ballot? If so, how did that come about?

I'm a bit troubled by the whole process but I don't think anything rises to the level of a continuing breach. More, I think, a case of "do it better next time".

The standard, as I understand it, in determining the validity of a ballot is whether the intent of the voter is clear.

[Gary Novosielski]

The write-in candidate received 80% of the vote and was declared the winner on Voting Day by the Election Chair and Presiding Officer. There were three times the quorum required. The vote 'takes effect' in a few weeks, at the final meeting of the year.

The side that lost wants to throw out the write-in candidate because the official ballot - one candidate per office using the outdated approve/ disapprove method, but no space for a write-in - was 'altered' according to them by adding a few typewritten lines in the tiny space available: "I vote for the following write-in candidates: President: Mary; Vice-President: Julie, etc.

Do write-ins have to be handwritten?

No, they don't, but are you saying that they were typed on every ballot? Or only on 80% of ballots, or what? This might matter.

But based only on what you've said, if the intent of the voters was clear, the ballots should count.

And if the chair announced the result and nobody objected at the time, and there is no continuing breach (and I don't see one) the election is complete.

Of course someone is free to raise a Point of Order at the NEXT meeting, but if I were presiding I believe I would rule it not well taken.

[Guest Edgar]

. . . are you saying that they were typed on every ballot?

Which is another head-scratcher. Did they actually use a typewriter? (The youngsters out there can Google that unfamiliar term.)

md52Pn

[David A Foulkes]

Which is another head-scratcher. Did they actually use a typewriter?

Which I believe is the longest word one can spell on the qwerty row of the modern keyboard. For whatever that might be worth. Though I might not bet my asdfjkl; on it.

[Guest Karen Jensen]

Thank you for all your informative answers! The bylaws refer to Robert's Rules and have nothing on write-ins. They do however have a clause on a method for getting an alternate candidate added to the ballot - two weeks before elections. As for the 'typewritter', ballots are distributed beforehand by mail and website download, so people simply added the lines and printed them. It would have been very hard to do it by hand in the small blank space available.

"Buncha sore losers... grasping at straws" couldn't agree more! They repeatedly act like the rules, bylaws, Robert's Rules don't apply to them, but after losing the election by a landslide, call in lawyers and see if there isn't something, anything they can do to overturn the democratic process and result.

[Guest Edgar]

The bylaws refer to Robert's Rules and have nothing on write-ins. They do however have a clause on a method for getting an alternate candidate added to the ballot - two weeks before elections.

And, we're off!

gdaMk6

[David A Foulkes]

..... call in lawyers and see if there isn't something, anything they can do to overturn the democratic process and result.

If anyone can find it, they will.

[J. J.]

Thank you for all your informative answers! The bylaws refer to Robert's Rules and have nothing on write-ins. They do however have a clause on a method for getting an alternate candidate added to the ballot - two weeks before elections. As for the 'typewritter', ballots are distributed beforehand by mail and website download, so people simply added the lines and printed them. It would have been very hard to do it by hand in the small blank space available.

The fact that someone can be placed on the ballot by a different method does not preclude write-in votes.

Write-in in votes on ballots are permitted unless prohibited by the bylaws.

[Guest Edgar]

The fact that someone can be placed on the ballot by a different method does not preclude write-in votes.

Not necessarily but it does suggest that there are more to these bylaws than meets the eye. And it's not clear whether these candidates were actually write-in votes or whether they were improperly placed on the ballot in violation of the bylaws. So, as I said, we're off (as to the races).

[J. J.]

Not necessarily but it does suggest that there are more to these bylaws than meets the eye. And it's not clear whether these candidates were actually write-in votes or whether they were improperly placed on the ballot in violation of the bylaws. So, as I said, we're off (as to the races).

The simple fact that there is multiple methods for placing someone on the ballot does not, in itself, preclude write-in votes.

There may be more in the bylaws, but just having multiple methods of nominating has nothing to do with the ability or inability to cast write-in votes.