Instructions to Voters on Election Ballot

[Guest Ruth]

Good day,

 

 

I will begin by thanking you in advance for any guidance and advice that is offered. 

 

 

 

Let me set the stage:

 

Our Board is comprised of 9 Directors, each with staggered 3-year terms with three Director seats open for election each year.

 

In the past year, we have had two resignations.  The positions were appointed, but appoinment must be approved by the Membership through the Annual Election.  So, for the 2014 Election, we have three 3-year term seats open, one seat with 2-years remaining in the term, and one seat with 1-year remaining in the term.

 

The 3 Directors completing their current 3-year term are all running for re-election.  The 2 Directors that were appointed to the vacancies over the past year are also running for election.  No other candidates sought nominations, and no nominations have been received by petition.  We have 5 candidates for 5 Director positions.

 

Question:

 

Since we have 5 candidates for 5 positions, but 2 positions are to fill vacancies, what would be the appropriate instruction to voters?  Do we ask the members to vote for 3 candidates?  (We have 1 vote per member.  Directors are elected by plurality vote) 

 

 

If voting for 3 candidates is correct, then by plurality vote, the top 3 vote getters would receive the three 3-year terms, then the lower vote getters would fill the 2-year and 1-year term.

 

 

Thank you again!  Ruth

 

 

 

[Dan Honemann]

You will need to conduct three separate elections - one to fill the three open seats for a three year term, one to fill the open seat for a two year term, and one to fill the open seat for a one year term.

[Guest Edgar]

You need to treat the positions with different terms as if they're different positions (i.e. not just "directors").

 

So you'll direct the voters to vote for up to three people for the three-year terms, one person for the two-year term, and one person for the one-year term. You don't have to pre-print the names of nominees on the ballots (though it's pretty common to do so). Just provide enough spaces (3,1,1) for voters to write in their choices.

 

You could, for example, end up with the appointee to the two-year term being elected to a (brand new) three-year term.

 

Edited to add: When Mr. Honemann says "three separate elections" I don't think he means to suggest that the separate elections can't be conducted on one ballot.

[George Mervosh]

If voting for 3 candidates is correct, then by plurality vote, the top 3 vote getters would receive the three 3-year terms, then the lower vote getters would fill the 2-year and 1-year term.

 

As Mr. Honemann notes, you have this wrong.

 

Even though you must have 3 separate elections you can do it on one ballot.  Try something along the lines of this:

 

Three year term (vote for no more than 3)

 

________________

 

________________

 

________________

 

Two year term (vote for no more than 1)

 

________________

 

One year term (vote for no more than 1)

 

________________

[Guest Ruth]

Thanks for outlining the process.  Let me toss this out there.  If voters do a "write in" for the Three 3-year, Two 2-year and One 1-year on the same ballot, isn't it possible for a candidate to win more than 1 seat?

 

Is there anything that prohibits the seats being determined by a plurality vote?

[Guest Edgar]

Thanks for outlining the process.  Let me toss this out there.  If voters do a "write in" for the Three 3-year, Two 2-year and One 1-year on the same ballot, isn't it possible for a candidate to win more than 1 seat?

 

Is there anything that prohibits the seats being determined by a plurality vote?

 

Well, there's only one two-year seat, right?

 

And, yes, it's possible for the same person to be elected to more than one position (just as it's possible for someone to be elected as both, say, president and treasurer).

 

If the lucky (?) candidate is present he chooses which term he wants and you hold another round of voting for the other office. If he's not present, the assembly chooses the office for him (see p.440).

 

Plurality voting for elections is discouraged by RONR (see p. 405) and so must by authorized by your bylaws.

[Guest Ruth]

Hi Edgar, Thank you again!  I read the by-laws and it does specifically allow plurality. 

 

Let me add a new wrinkle as it relates to "another round of voting" if that would arise.  We are a credit union and our elections per the by-laws spans over several days.  We have members that may vote at the branch, and then members who attend the Annual Meeting may vote on that evening.  So if we would need a 2nd election, we miss the voter population.....unless it's not required to have the same voter population vote in the 2nd election.

 

So, since our by-laws allow plurality, then would we be able to instruct members to vote for 3 candidates and fill the seats by number of votes?

[Bruce Lages]

I'm not quite clear on what you mean by "The positions were appointed, but appoinment must be approved by the Membership through the Annual Election."  How do your bylaws define the term of office for someone appointed to fill a vacancy on the board?

[Guest Edgar]

Whether or not your rules permit election by a plurality vote you still need to treat the three different terms of office as three separate elections (even if on one ballot).

 

And RONR strongly advises against mixing absentee voting (e.g. voting at the branch offices) with in-person voting (e.g. at the annual meeting) for the very problems you suggest. But, no, those who voted in the first round needn't be the same "voter population" as those who vote in the second round. In RONR-Land, if you're present you can vote. If you're not, you can't. Beyond that you're on your own.

[Gary Novosielski]

Hi Edgar, Thank you again!  I read the by-laws and it does specifically allow plurality. 

 

Let me add a new wrinkle as it relates to "another round of voting" if that would arise.  We are a credit union and our elections per the by-laws spans over several days.  We have members that may vote at the branch, and then members who attend the Annual Meeting may vote on that evening.  So if we would need a 2nd election, we miss the voter population.....unless it's not required to have the same voter population vote in the 2nd election.

 

So, since our by-laws allow plurality, then would we be able to instruct members to vote for 3 candidates and fill the seats by number of votes?

No.  Your bylaws allow plurality voting, which means only that the winner need not receive a majority.  But you have five positions open, so voters should be allowed to vote for five, not three, people to fill them.

 

Plurality voting does not magically transform a one-year term, two-year term, and three-year term into the same thing.  You have three different types of seat being filled, and need to vote for each one separately. 

[Guest Ruth]

I'm not quite clear on what you mean by "The positions were appointed, but appoinment must be approved by the Membership through the Annual Election."  How do your bylaws define the term of office for someone appointed to fill a vacancy on the board?

Bruce, to clarify, the vacancies were filled by appointment and majority vote of the remaining Board of Directors.  The appointees fill the vacancy only until the next Annual Meeting of Members and Election.  Then, the Membership is required to vote on the appointee.  It appears from all the gracious replies, we will need to shake up our normal routine for elections. 

 

I am hopeful we can in the near future move to electronic ballots.  I will have to revisit this election process should we go that route and face a 2nd election.  Thank you, Bruce.

[Guest Edgar]

Then, the Membership is required to vote on the appointee. 

 

I'm assuming someone other than the appointee could be elected to the remainder of that term of office. No?

[Guest Ruth]

No.  Your bylaws allow plurality voting, which means only that the winner need not receive a majority.  But you have five positions open, so voters should be allowed to vote for five, not three, people to fill them.

 

Plurality voting does not magically transform a one-year term, two-year term, and three-year term into the same thing.  You have three different types of seat being filled, and need to vote for each one separately. 

Thank you, Gary.  Magical would be nice, but I don't have a wand.    So, if using the suggested format posted earlier, are ballots with fewer than 5 votes valid?  And would ballots with incorrect candidate names, or candidate named in multiple areas (3-year AND 2-year term for instance) be valid?

[Guest Ruth]

I'm assuming someone other than the appointee could be elected to the remainder of that term of office. No?

Yes, that is possible.  In past years, we have had appointees that were not affirmed by the members during the annual election.  And in other instances, an incumbent did not receive enough plurality votes and ended up with a term less than 3 years.  (And I now know that we did not handle the election properly based on what I learned today)

[Bruce Lages]

Thanks for the reply, Ruth. To be clear, since the appointees' terms are over as of the annual election, you won't be 'affirming' an appointee, or voting on 'the appointee' unless that person is the only candidate running. Otherwise you'll be conducting a regular election for all positions whose terms have expired, open to all eligible candidates.

 

 

  So, if using the suggested format posted earlier, are ballots with fewer than 5 votes valid?  And would ballots with incorrect candidate names, or candidate named in multiple areas (3-year AND 2-year term for instance) be valid?

 

Yes, ballots with fewer than the maximum number of votes are valid. A ballot with an incorrect candidate name should be counted if it is possible for the tellers - and, if necessary, ultimately the assembly - to determine which eligible candidate the vote is for. If it is not possible to identify the intended candidate, the ballot would be treated as an illegal vote for that office (see RONR, 11th ed. p. 416, ll. 2-9) Votes for the same candidate in more than one position are also valid. Edgar described what to do if one person gets elected to multiple positions in post #6.

[Guest Ruth]

Thanks for the reply, Ruth. To be clear, since the appointees' terms are over as of the annual election, you won't be 'affirming' an appointee, or voting on 'the appointee' unless that person is the only candidate running. Otherwise you'll be conducting a regular election for all positions whose terms have expired, open to all eligible candidates.

 

 

 

Yes, ballots with fewer than the maximum number of votes are valid. A ballot with an incorrect candidate name should be counted if it is possible for the tellers - and, if necessary, ultimately the assembly - to determine which eligible candidate the vote is for. If it is not possible to identify the intended candidate, the ballot would be treated as an illegal vote for that office (see RONR, 11th ed. p. 416, ll. 2-9) Votes for the same candidate in more than one position are also valid. Edgar described what to do if one person gets elected to multiple positions in post #6.

Terrific, thank you Bruce, Edgar, Gary, Daniel and George.  You have been helpful.  Glad to know this forum exists for those, like me, that don't work with RONR issues very often.  Ruth

[Guest Nancy N.]

So if the balloting to confirm the vacancy-filling directors and they are not the one-year-term directors, they are elected to finish out that term?

[Dan Honemann]

So if the balloting to confirm the vacancy-filling directors and they are not the one-year-term directors, they are elected to finish out that term?

 

Whoever wins the election to finish out the two-year term is elected to finish out the two-year term, and whoever wins the election to finish out the one-year term is elected to finish out the one-year term.

 

Ruth gets it, why don't you.

[Guest Nancy N.]

Ruth gets it, why don't you.

 

Oh, I just got lost.