Secret Ballot on Election of Org Officers

[Guest Mike Gleason]

Laws of the org dictate that when two officers run against each other a secret ballot shall take place. The Chair appoints two counters to count the vote. Upon completion the Chair asks the counters to deliver to him the winning name. Here is where the question lies, doe the Membership attending the vote have the right to know what the vote count was? In my estimation its secret, and we need not hurt anyone feelings. whay is your opinion or ruling, thanks

[Dan Honemann]

6 minutes ago, Guest Mike Gleason said:

Laws of the org dictate that when two officers run against each other a secret ballot shall take place. The Chair appoints two counters to count the vote. Upon completion the Chair asks the counters to deliver to him the winning name. Here is where the question lies, doe the Membership attending the vote have the right to know what the vote count was? In my estimation its secret, and we need not hurt anyone feelings. whay is your opinion or ruling, thanks

The tellers report should show the number of votes cast, the number of votes necessary for election, and the number of votes received by each of the candidates. This report is read in full to the assembly by the reporting teller, and then again by the chair when he announces the result of the election.

"The tellers' report is entered in full in the minutes, becoming a part of the official records of the organization. Under no circumstances should this be omitted in an election or in a vote on a critical motion out of a mistaken deference to the feelings of unsuccessful candidates or members of the losing side."

RONR, 11th ed. page 418

[jstackpo]

15 minutes ago, Guest Mike Gleason said:

 In my estimation its secret, and we need not hurt anyone feelings.

Imagine the outcry if the South Carolina primary numerical results were "kept secret" (other than just announcing the rankings of the candidates) even though, I rather suspect, Jeb Bush's "feelings" were indeed hurt by the outcome.

Here's some other reasons, in case you get arguments from members of your organization:

Indeed it is the proper thing to do, to read out the numerical vote results for the members to hear -- see p. 417, line 18 ff. - and to include them in the minutes

Consider some possibilities:

1)  The winner got nearly all the votes and the loser has had a long history of fruitlessly running for office.  Reading the vote count might send him a message, that it is time to quit making a fool of himself.

2)  The vote is "reasonably" close.  This way the loser will be encouraged to try again, as it seems, by the vote, that he has a good deal of potential, and many friends, but just went up against a better person this time.  This may help to keep a good candidate in the game.

3)  The vote is "extremely" close - one or two votes different.  The assembly may very well want to order a recount (RONR p. 419, line 1, see index also) just to be sure of the result.  This way there are no (or fewer) hard feelings.

4)   The president, when declaring who won, makes a simple mistake and names the wrong person, or he does not understand the vote required to adopt the motion (majority, 2/3, &c.) and states the "wrong" outcome.

5)   The tellers make an error.  Reading the results out loud may not help to catch this but studying the printed documentation in the minutes at leisure probably would.  The documentation would also serve as evidence if there were serious questions about the outcome.
 
Without the teller having read the numbers, how will anybody (except the teller, if he is paying attention) know to correct this?

6)   The winner of the election (or partisans of the winning side of a critical issue) could weigh the numerical results in terms of whether they have a "mandate" to proceed at full bore, or whether there might be some fence mending to look after first.

If the vote results were not made immediately available to the membership, none of the above good things could happen.

And this listing doesn't even mention the myriad possibilities for knavery or outright fraud that are available when vote counts are kept secret.

[Richard Brown]

Good, informative answer, John, as to reasons for not keeping the results secret.