Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

one candidate


rhammar

Recommended Posts

An organization uses a nominating committee to select candidates for office. The nominating committee presents only one name for each office for submission to the membership. Election requires a 2/3 vote. The question has arisen as to the correct way to proceed in the event that a candidate for one of the offices receives less than a 2/3 vote and is not elected. Some assume that the chair can call for one or more additional votes to see if a 2/3 vote is possible. Others contend that the matter must be sent back to the nominating committee for the selection of another candidate to be presented and voted on. I cannot find any specific guidance in RONR.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your organization should permit nominations "from the floor" or, at the very least, permit members to cast "write-in" votes for non-nominated candidates. Members should have the right to vote for anyone (and to elect any eligible candidate).

 

If you're stuck with the selections of your nominating committee, why vote at all?

 

Further, a two-thirds vote is an atypical election requirement. RONR recommends a majority vote requirement.

 

Rather than trying to live with these rules, why not change them?

 

Edited at 4:00 PM to add: If there's only one candidate for an office, how could he not receive a two-thirds vote (which is defined as at least two-thirds of members present and voting). One vote would do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does Mr. Hammar's organizational bylaws require a ballot vote in their election?

 

If not, then that one candidate IS  (it isn't an option any more, p. 443, as it seems to have been in the 10th Ed., p. 428) elected by acclamation and you are really stuck if the Nominating Committee put forth a turkey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The procedure is in the bylaws, so nominations from the floor are not an option. The two-thirds vote requirement, as I understand it, is to confirm the nominating committee's candidate. It's a ballot vote, yes or no. If a candidate receives less than 2/3 of those present and voting, he or she will not be elected. There is no precedent since this issue has never come up before. The question is how to proceed in the unlikely event that a candidate does not receive a 2/3 vote. Does the chair have the discretion to call another vote, which may cause some to change their vote. Or, does the nominating committee meet again to select another candidate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, this is not so much an election as it is the approval of an appointment (much as the U.S. Senate approves a Presidential appointment). If that's the case, if the first candidate is rejected, the so-called "nominating committee" should be instructed to come up with another candidate.

 

And the fact that these rules are in the bylaws doesn't mean that the bylaws can't be changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, this is not so much an election as it is the approval of an appointment (much as the U.S. Senate approves a Presidential appointment). If that's the case, if the first candidate is rejected, the so-called "nominating committee" should be instructed to come up with another candidate.

 

And the fact that these rules are in the bylaws doesn't mean that the bylaws can't be changed.

 

I agree.

 

This procedure mandated by the bylaws appears to give the nominating committee the power to appoint, subject to the membership's right to veto an appointment by a two-thirds vote. If this is, in fact, the case, the nominating committee should select and present another candidate if one is rejected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, this is not so much an election as it is the approval of an appointment (much as the U.S. Senate approves a Presidential appointment). If that's the case, if the first candidate is rejected, the so-called "nominating committee" should be instructed to come up with another candidate.

 

And the fact that these rules are in the bylaws doesn't mean that the bylaws can't be changed.

 

I agree.

 

This procedure mandated by the bylaws appears to give the nominating committee the power to appoint, subject to the membership's right to veto an appointment by a two-thirds vote. If this is, in fact, the case, the nominating committee should select and present another candidate if one is rejected.

I agree with the responses above, provided the procedure used is really what the bylaws require, especially as to the "yes/no" vote by ballot and whether the bylaws limit the nominating committee to one "nominee".  The procedure described is so unusual that I can't help but wonder if it is based more on custom  than provisions in the bylaws. 

 

Edited to add:  I also agree with post No 7 by Mr. Guest:  It appears to me that if more than one-third of the members voting vote against the nominee, they have vetoed his appointment.  Exactly one-third wouldn't be enough, but I'm not sure that one-third plus one is necessary, either.... just more than one-third.  one-third of 100 is 33 and a third, but 34 no votes would be sufficient for a veto.  That is only one-third plus two-thirds of a vote.  :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absent fractional shareholders, there's no such thing as two-thirds of a vote.

So?  Saying that to defeat a two thirds vote requires a no vote of one third plus one is just as wrong as saying that in order to have a majority, you need fifty percent plus one.  Both might be true in a particular case just as both might be wrong.  But it is certainly not correct to say, as a general rule, that in order to defeat a two thirds vote you need one-third plus one, just as it is wrong to say that in order to have a majority you need fifty percent plus one. 

 

Go back to the example I used of 100 members present and voting.   34 no votes will prevent the two-thirds vote necessary to confirm the nominee.  But 34 votes isn't one-third plus one.  it is one-third plus two-thirds of a vote.  lf you needed one-third plus one, it would take 35 no votes to defeat a yes vote of two-thirds, yet clearly only 34 no votes are needed.

 

Why is it that you think the answers to Frequently Asked Questions 4 and 5 are not applicable if there are 100 votes cast and the object is to stop a nomination requiring a two thirds vote for approval?  66 yes votes is not two thirds of 100.  http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The procedure is in the bylaws, so nominations from the floor are not an option. The two-thirds vote requirement, as I understand it, is to confirm the nominating committee's candidate. It's a ballot vote, yes or no. If a candidate receives less than 2/3 of those present and voting, he or she will not be elected. There is no precedent since this issue has never come up before. The question is how to proceed in the unlikely event that a candidate does not receive a 2/3 vote. Does the chair have the discretion to call another vote, which may cause some to change their vote. Or, does the nominating committee meet again to select another candidate.

Do the bylaws explicitly prohibit nominations from the floor?

 

Do the bylaws explicitly prohibit write in votes?

 

Do the bylaws explicitly demand a yes/no vote?

 

If so, then the problem is with the bylaws, and you're stuck with them until you change them, which in my view can't happen soon enough.

 

Under the rules in RONR (which are superseded if the answer to any of the questions above is Yes), ballots with a Yes/No choice for election are improper, write-in votes are allowed on all election ballots, and nominations from the floor are always in order after a nominating committee presents its report.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absent fractional shareholders, there's no such thing as two-thirds of a vote.

 

That's true, but thresholds can certainly be fractions of a vote.

 

In fact you could even set a threshold that was an irrational number, so that no combination of whole members and whole votes could ever give you exactly that number, but it would make a perfectly good threshold.

 

For example, there's nothing wrong with the local math club specifying in their bylaws that ordering the previous question requires a 2/π vote*..  Every actual vote result (as a fraction of those present and voting) will either be over or under 2/π, never equal, no matter how many Yes and No votes their are.  Yet there is no problem with determining whether any given vote count meets the threshold or does not.

 

When we're talking about a majority vote, we're actually in that same territory.  The minimum fraction of votes required to achieve a majority is the smallest fraction that is greater than 1/2.  But it's not possible to write that number down, since no such number exists.  For any number greater than one-half, there is a smaller number that is also greater than one-half, even if we stick to rational numbers.

 

__________

* approximately 63.661977236%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...