Guest Phil N Posted April 26, 2013 at 07:42 PM Report Share Posted April 26, 2013 at 07:42 PM My state organization's Constitution and By-Laws do not specify that an officer must be elected by a majority vote. In the past, we have made the selection based on a plurality in some years, a majority in others. However, I seem to recall reading awhile ago in RONR that if there is no provision stating otherwise, a candidate must receive a majority of the votes cast to be elected. When I went back to check, I could not locate the paragraph I wanted. Am I mis-remembering? If not, could you indicate which chapter/section (or even page number) of RONR I should find this information in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted April 26, 2013 at 07:44 PM Report Share Posted April 26, 2013 at 07:44 PM p. 405 ll. 2-4 (RONR 11th Ed.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted April 27, 2013 at 04:32 PM Report Share Posted April 27, 2013 at 04:32 PM In other words, a majority of votes cast is required to elect. So if only on person votes, that person elects whoever he/she voted for. Members have the right to abstain which does not factor into whether or not a member is elected.Edited on April 28th at 4:20 pm (EDT) to correct a typo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted April 27, 2013 at 04:48 PM Report Share Posted April 27, 2013 at 04:48 PM Members have the right to abstain which does factor into whether or not a member is elected.Umm.... is that what you meant to suggest (that abstentions do have an effect on elections)? Or am I misunderstanding your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted April 27, 2013 at 04:52 PM Report Share Posted April 27, 2013 at 04:52 PM In other words, a majority of votes cast is required to elect. So if only on person votes, that person elects whoever he/she voted for. Members have the right to abstain which does factor into whether or not a member is elected.First sentence: . . . whomever . . .Second sentence: Abstaining may factor into the election, in some abstract way, but an abstention has no effect in the tabulating of the votes (except to make it consume less time). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted April 28, 2013 at 08:21 PM Report Share Posted April 28, 2013 at 08:21 PM Thank you for catching my mistake - I have corrected it.First sentence: . . . whomever . . .What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted April 28, 2013 at 09:14 PM Report Share Posted April 28, 2013 at 09:14 PM Thank you for catching my mistake - I have corrected it.What?Apparently, I had trouble counting the sentences, but my point was that it should be "whomever," in place of whoever.I just wanted to point it out before Shmuel did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted April 29, 2013 at 11:05 PM Report Share Posted April 29, 2013 at 11:05 PM Apparently, I had trouble counting the sentences, but my point was that it should be "whomever," in place of whoever.I just wanted to point it out before Shmuel did. I don't think I would have pointed it out at all.I find it much more annoying when someone uses "whomever" instead of "whoever", or "I" instead of "me", than the other way around. But maybe that's just I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted April 30, 2013 at 12:13 AM Report Share Posted April 30, 2013 at 12:13 AM I find it much more annoying when someone uses "whomever" instead of "whoever", or "I" instead of "me", than the other way around. But maybe that's just I. Other than sculpting a witty reply, I'll just concur wholeheartedly . . . to the first sentence, not the last. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.