When a plurality vote does not reach a majority

[bescruggs]

Question: How to resolve a vote on a motion when a plurality vote does not reach a majority?

A motion will be made to choose by ballot one option from among four proposed choices. It is expected that no single choice will receive a majority vote. The assembly’s bylaws contain no rules about voting, deferring to the latest edition of Robert’s Rules for guidance. RONR (11th Ed, p. 4, ll. 3-5) states that in the absence of a written bylaw or rule “a proposition must be adopted by a majority vote.” Furthermore, “A plurality that is not a majority never chooses a proposition or elects anyone to office except by virtue of a special rule previously adopted” (pp. 405, ll. 2-4). When a majority vote does not emerge from such a vote, it seems RONR’s only recommendation to resolve the issue is to use “the normal procedure of repeated balloting until a majority is obtained” (p. 426, ll. 4-5). Repeated balloting is not likely to result in a majority vote in this case (or repeated balloting may be rejected as an option by the assembly). One suggestion for resolving this issue is, by way of a motion, to reduce the number of choices on the ballot by one or two, then vote again. If necessary, this can be repeated to reduce the choices to two. Is this suggestion valid? Are there any other ways to resolve this issue? Note: In an election, candidates are never removed during repeated balloting (p. 440, ll. 5-8), but this is a vote on a motion, not an election. Thank you.

[George Mervosh]

Question: How to resolve a vote on a motion when a plurality vote does not reach a majority?

 

A motion will be made to choose by ballot one option from among four proposed choices. It is expected that no single choice will receive a majority vote. The assembly’s bylaws contain no rules about voting, deferring to the latest edition of Robert’s Rules for guidance. RONR (11th Ed, p. 4, ll. 3-5) states that in the absence of a written bylaw or rule “a proposition must be adopted by a majority vote.” Furthermore, “A plurality that is not a majority never chooses a proposition or elects anyone to office except by virtue of a special rule previously adopted” (pp. 405, ll. 2-4). When a majority vote does not emerge from such a vote, it seems RONR’s only recommendation to resolve the issue is to use “the normal procedure of repeated balloting until a majority is obtained” (p. 426, ll. 4-5). Repeated balloting is not likely to result in a majority vote in this case (or repeated balloting may be rejected as an option by the assembly). One suggestion for resolving this issue is, by way of a motion, to reduce the number of choices on the ballot by one or two, then vote again. If necessary, this can be repeated to reduce the choices to two. Is this suggestion valid? Are there any other ways to resolve this issue? Note: In an election, candidates are never removed during repeated balloting (p. 440, ll. 5-8), but this is a vote on a motion, not an election. Thank you.

 

What exactly is the question being voted on?  Is it simply a proposal to fill a blank in a motion?  If so, the vote to fill the blank doesn't adopt the motion in question (the proposition) to begin with and my own view of it is the rules can be suspended to permit a plurality to fill the blank, but the book doesn't say that.

 

If it's something else, let us know.

[Josh Martin]

One suggestion for resolving this issue is, by way of a motion, to reduce the number of choices on the ballot by one or two, then vote again. If necessary, this can be repeated to reduce the choices to two. Is this suggestion valid?

 

Yes, I think this would be permissible in this case, but it would require a suspension of the rules.

[jstackpo]

Another "suspend the rules" suggestion:

 

Ask the voters to rank the four options and then tally the results by a weighted counting system.  My favorite is the Borda count, but other preferential systems exist as well.

[Rev Ed]

How about referring the issue to a Committee that can report back with a recommended course of action?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Here is a wild and crazy idea.

 

What is to prevent the organization from judging, "Hey, there was not enough support for any of the four. So all four options are to considered rejected!"?

 

Do you really have to pick one?

Can you go without?

 

If you were picking "school colors" or "favorite past president", is it possible that the assemby does not have a prefererence?

Can you go without a school color or go without a favorite past president?

 

Can you go with a 5th choice?

 

(Thus the need for a real life example of the motion in question. It is easy to dismiss all four options.)

[bescruggs]

Thank you for your replies. George Mervish: The motion is to choose a person to hire for an important position. A committee was charged with finding job candidates and providing a list of choices for the membership. The committee has completed its mission. The vote is still to come and my concern is to have a recommended plan of actions if no candidate receives a majority. I doubt it is proper or advisable to suspend the rule of majority to allow a plurality since majority rule is a "fundamental principle of parliamentary law " (RONR p. 263, ll. 15-16). Secondly, choosing the top vote in a nonmajority plurality has its weaknesses for reflecting the desires of the assemply.

 

Josh Martin: Do I need to suspend a rule to make a follow-up motion when the first one fails to produce a majority? Keep in mind, this is not an election of officers where candidates cannot be removed from the ballot.

 

JD Stackpole: Preferential voting, even though it is described by RONR as an option when voting by mail (p. 424), has some possibility as a resolution if the assembly agrees. Personally I did not care for the example in RONR, but I would be interested in exploring others, such as the Borda count you mentioned. Where can I learn about more about that and other types of preferential voting?

 

Rev Ed: As mentioned above, the committe has completed its assignment, and I would prefer that the entire assembly (approximately 40 members) make these final choices, not a select few. However, someone could move to send it back to committee.

 

Kim Goldsworthy: Yes, we really do need to make this important choice.

 

Thank you all, Brian Scruggs

[Gary Novosielski]

Wikipedia would be a good starting place.  You can follow up with the footnotes.  Try here.

[Josh Martin]

I doubt it is proper or advisable to suspend the rule of majority to allow a plurality since majority rule is a "fundamental principle of parliamentary law " (RONR p. 263, ll. 15-16). Secondly, choosing the top vote in a nonmajority plurality has its weaknesses for reflecting the desires of the assemply.

 

It is proper to suspend the rules requiring a majority vote. This does not violate the FPPL in question, since it takes a 2/3 vote to suspend the rules. If the majority does not wish to let the question be decided by a plurality vote, it doesn't need to.

 

But I agree with you that it is not advisable, especially now that is clear that the choices are people.

 

Do I need to suspend a rule to make a follow-up motion when the first one fails to produce a majority? Keep in mind, this is not an election of officers where candidates cannot be removed from the ballot.

 

You can make the motion to Suspend the Rules whenever you like. I might advise making it before the voting begins, so everyone is clear on the rules going in. You could move to Suspend the Rules so that the lowest-ranked candidate shall be dropped after each round of voting until only two candidates remain, or whatever.

 

I understand perfectly that this is not an election for office. If it was, this wouldn't be an option at all. (Technically, the rules may be suspended to remove a candidate from the ballot in an election for office, but this does not actually prevent members from voting for that person. Only a rule in the bylaws could do that.)

[jstackpo]

You can google "Borda Count" and be somewhat overwhelmed with instructions (and passionate arguments).

 

(But that is like everything else on the Internet.)