LSCHelper

Election of Directors

13 posts in this topic

Small non-profit corporation with a 9-member board of directors.

Our process of election is a 'home made' version of a plurality that has caused confusion and has become a popularity contest.

When the slate of candidates is presented to the voting members, they can vote for any or all.

The votes are counted and each candidate is announced as a new member if the board regardless of the number of votes received. This count only comes into use if the number of candidates is greater that the number of positions available, which seldom happens. If it does happen, the top vote getters are reported as elected. The votes are counted at the Annual Membership Meeting. At the time of ballot counting our rules (by-laws) state “a plurality vote elects”.  Based on the definition of plurality, this provision of the by-laws is ignored.

I would like to introduce the preferential voting system. During my reading on pages 425-428, I cannot determine the process after elimination by redistribution. If the elimination reduces the number of candidates to less that the number of positions available, what is the procedure for filling the remaining positions. Do these eliminated candidates remain as candidates to be presented to the voting members to fill the remaining positions? Should the eliminated candidates along with nominations from the floor be presented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, LSCHelper said:

Small non-profit corporation with a 9-member board of directors.

 

Our process of election is a 'home made' version of a plurality that has caused confusion and has become a popularity contest.

 

When the slate of candidates is presented to the voting members, they can vote for any or all.

 

The votes are counted and each candidate is announced as a new member if the board regardless of the number of votes received. This count only comes into use if the number of candidates is greater that the number of positions available, which seldom happens. If it does happen, the top vote getters are reported as elected. The votes are counted at the Annual Membership Meeting. At the time of ballot counting our rules (by-laws) state “a plurality vote elects”.  Based on the definition of plurality, this provision of the by-laws is ignored.

This is called approval voting, and while it has its merits, it does violate the fundmental principle of parliamentary law that each member only gets one vote on each question, so it requires bylaws authorization explicitly.

50 minutes ago, LSCHelper said:

I would like to introduce the preferential voting system. During my reading on pages 425-428, I cannot determine the process after elimination by redistribution. If the elimination reduces the number of candidates to less that the number of positions available, what is the procedure for filling the remaining positions. Do these eliminated candidates remain as candidates to be presented to the voting members to fill the remaining positions? Should the eliminated candidates along with nominations from the floor be presented.

The procedure there is meant more as an example than as a bulletproof set of rules, but I would look at p. 427, ll. 26-31, which provides that, in this case, the tie is broken in favour of whoever was strongest on the first preferences rather than eliminating both candidates. Since it does not specify how to handle a further tie here, it would be up to the assembly to determine how to deal with it: the tellers should explain the situation to the chair, and the chair should then explain it to the assembly in a way that does not tell them who is affected. At that point, the assembly can decide how to proceed---the most likely choices being to either hold another ballot between just the tied candidates, or to look at number of second preferences, then third preferences, and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, LSCHelper said:

Small non-profit corporation with a 9-member board of directors.

 

Our process of election is a 'home made' version of a plurality that has caused confusion and has become a popularity contest.

 

When the slate of candidates is presented to the voting members, they can vote for any or all.

 

The votes are counted and each candidate is announced as a new member if the board regardless of the number of votes received. This count only comes into use if the number of candidates is greater that the number of positions available, which seldom happens. If it does happen, the top vote getters are reported as elected. The votes are counted at the Annual Membership Meeting. At the time of ballot counting our rules (by-laws) state “a plurality vote elects”.  Based on the definition of plurality, this provision of the by-laws is ignored.

I'm afraid that I don't understand this at all.

Why are voters being told that they can vote for more persons than the number of positions to be filled? If this didn't happen, it seems to me that there is nothing indicating that your bylaw provision that “a plurality vote elects” is being ignored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/16/2017 at 4:11 PM, Alexis Hunt said:

This is called approval voting, and while it has its merits, it does violate the fundmental principle of parliamentary law that each member only gets one vote on each question, so it requires bylaws authorization explicitly.

Quote

I disagree.  "One person one vote" means that you cannot express multiplicity of preference.  Approval voting no more violates it than does allowing people to select 5 candidates for 5 seats.  However, I agree that bylaws approval is needed for another provision here:  that a plurality elects.

On p. 441, lines 11-24, a form of approval voting is described, with the added requirement that a majority is required to elect.  This is the default method where there are multiple seats to be filled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

I disagree.  "One person one vote" means that you cannot express multiplicity of preference.  Approval voting no more violates it than does allowing people to select 5 candidates for 5 seats.  However, I agree that bylaws approval is needed for another provision here:  that a plurality elects.

On p. 441, lines 11-24, a form of approval voting is described, with the added requirement that a majority is required to elect.  This is the default method where there are multiple seats to be filled.

Joshua, what makes you think the quoted provision on page 441 is referring to approval voting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

Joshua, what makes you think the quoted provision on page 441 is referring to approval voting?

"...every ballot with a vote for one or more candidates is counted as one vote cast, and a candidate must receive a majority of the total of such votes to be elected...if more than the prescribed number receive a majority vote, the places are filled by the proper number receiving the largest number of votes."

What else can this refer to but approval voting?  A ballot is valid if it contains a vote for at least one candidate.  If there are, say, 6 seats, and I select 10 candidates, my ballot is valid - and gives one vote to each of those candidates, but counts as one vote cast for the purpose of determining majority.  Since no upper limit is specified on how many candidates I may select, I don't see what else would be needed to describe this as approval voting (with a majority requirement).  

I belong to an organization which frequently mixes its ideology with its rules of order, to confusing effect.  They insist on allowing people to select "none of the above" even when voting in this manner, so that a ballot with no candidates selected counts as a vote.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

"...every ballot with a vote for one or more candidates is counted as one vote cast, and a candidate must receive a majority of the total of such votes to be elected...if more than the prescribed number receive a majority vote, the places are filled by the proper number receiving the largest number of votes."

What else can this refer to but approval voting?  A ballot is valid if it contains a vote for at least one candidate.  If there are, say, 6 seats, and I select 10 candidates, my ballot is valid - and gives one vote to each of those candidates, but counts as one vote cast for the purpose of determining majority.  Since no upper limit is specified on how many candidates I may select, I don't see what else would be needed to describe this as approval voting (with a majority requirement).  

I belong to an organization which frequently mixes its ideology with its rules of order, to confusing effect.  They insist on allowing people to select "none of the above" even when voting in this manner, so that a ballot with no candidates selected counts as a vote.  

If there are six seats and you vote for ten candidates, your ballot would be counted as an illegal vote. See RONR, 11th ed., pg. 416.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

If there are six seats and you vote for ten candidates, your ballot would be counted as an illegal vote. See RONR, 11th ed., pg. 416.

Then how does RONR here envision more than the correct number receiving a majority?  If there are 5 seats, and each person is limited to 5 candidates, and there are 10 voters, there will be no more than 50 candidate selections.  A majority is 6, so for 5 candidates to receive a majority will require 30 selections.  The remaining 20 are not sufficient to give another candidate a majority.  More generally, if more than half vote for any 5 candidates, the other voters cannot give anyone a majority.  Yet the text here clearly envisions more than 5 candidates receiving a majority, as defined here.  

Edit:  Nevermind, the remaining 20 are sufficient to give another candidate a majority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

Then how does RONR here envision more than the correct number receiving a majority?  If there are 5 seats, and each person is limited to 5 candidates, and there are 10 voters, there will be no more than 50 candidate selections.  A majority is 6, so for 5 candidates to receive a majority will require 30 selections.  The remaining 20 are not sufficient to give another candidate a majority.  More generally, if more than half vote for any 5 candidates, the other voters cannot give anyone a majority.  Yet the text here clearly envisions more than 5 candidates receiving a majority, as defined here.  

It's quite possible.

Play around with the numbers for awhile, and you'll see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suppose there are three people up (A, B, C) for election for two seats. The votes are split evenly: one third for A and B, one third for B and C, one third for C and A. Then each candidate receives two-thirds of the possible votes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

Loading...