Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Fewer nominees than seats = all elected?


Guest Phil Davidson

Recommended Posts

Guest Phil Davidson

Our nominating committee has nominated fewer persons than there are open seats on our board. There is a procedure to add more nominees by petition before the election. But if there are no more nominees, must all the nominees be elected? Or is there a way for voters to specify "I want Candidates A and B but not C"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Phil Davidson

Our nominating committee has nominated fewer persons than there are open seats on our board. There is a procedure to add more nominees by petition before the election. But if there are no more nominees, must all the nominees be elected? Or is there a way for voters to specify "I want Candidates A and B but not C"?

To be clearer: of course, people may vote for as few candidates as they wish. But is there a way to cast a vote in favor of leaving a seat open, when a qualified candidate is on the ballot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But is there a way to cast a vote in favor of leaving a seat open, when a qualified candidate is on the ballot?

Yes. -- Cast a vote for a fictitious person.

"Mickey Mouse" is a popular choice. (You can also vote for yourself. The net effect is the same.)

It will be counted as an "illegal ballot". Nonetheless, it will count as a vote cast.

Get enough people to write in fictitious characters or dead characters ("Abe Lincoln"? "Publius"?) and you might achieve a high enough total to have the lousy nominee fall short of a majority of votes cast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. -- Cast a vote for a fictitious person.

"Mickey Mouse" is a popular choice. (You can also vote for yourself. The net effect is the same.)

It will be counted as an "illegal ballot". Nonetheless, it will count as a vote cast.

Get enough people to write in fictitious characters or dead characters ("Abe Lincoln"? "Publius"?) and you might achieve a high enough total to have the lousy nominee fall short of a majority of votes cast.

Although it is true that the current edition of RONR says that a ballot cast for a fictional character is treated as an illegal vote (p. 402, l. 14-16), and is therefore counted as a vote cast, that certainly does not mean that to do so deliberately is appropriate. To do so deliberately is clearly irresponsible. The right which members have in this connection is a right to cast write-in votes for "other eligible persons" (p. 427. l. 23-25).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But is there a way to cast a vote in favor of leaving a seat open, when a qualified candidate is on the ballot?

Yes. -- Cast a vote for a fictitious person.

Although it is true that the current edition of RONR says that a ballot cast for a fictional character is treated as an illegal vote (p. 402, l. 14-16), and is therefore counted as a vote cast, that certainly does not mean that to do so deliberately is appropriate. To do so deliberately is clearly irresponsible. The right which members have in this connection is a right to cast write-in votes for "other eligible persons" (p. 427. l. 23-25).

I habitually crawl out on limbs like this but..... whether voting for a fictitious character, or even arranging with "the rest of the gang" to vote for enough of a variety of other eligible persons in such a manner as to make it so no one candidate receives a majority of votes to win, you would (I think) end up with an incomplete election and have to re-vote anyway. So, might as well point your efforts at getting someone a majority can agree on onto the list of nominees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Phil Davidson

Yes. -- Cast a vote for a fictitious person.

"Mickey Mouse" is a popular choice. (You can also vote for yourself. The net effect is the same.)

It will be counted as an "illegal ballot". Nonetheless, it will count as a vote cast.

Get enough people to write in fictitious characters or dead characters ("Abe Lincoln"? "Publius"?) and you might achieve a high enough total to have the lousy nominee fall short of a majority of votes cast.

Aha! The word "majority" is crucial here. When there are (for instance) three open seats and two nominees, where is the requirement that a candidate requires a majority of votes cast? In general, what number of votes is required when there are multiple candidates running for a collection of equivalent offices (such as board seats)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aha! The word "majority" is crucial here. When there are (for instance) three open seats and two nominees, where is the requirement that a candidate requires a majority of votes cast? In general, what number of votes is required when there are multiple candidates running for a collection of equivalent offices (such as board seats)?

The default under RONR is that each person, in order to be elected, must receive a majority (more than half) of the votes cast. In the situation you describe, it may take multiple rounds of voting to fill all the offices. For example, if 10 people are running for 4 positions, only one of them might get a majority vote on the first round. Another round of voting is then held, with the remaining 9 candidates running for the 3 remaining positions. And so on, possibly ad nauseum, until all the positions are filled with people who have received a majority vote. Abstentions are not counted when determining the total number of votes cast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Phil Davidson

The default under RONR is that each person, in order to be elected, must receive a majority (more than half) of the votes cast. In the situation you describe, it may take multiple rounds of voting to fill all the offices. For example, if 10 people are running for 4 positions, only one of them might get a majority vote on the first round. Another round of voting is then held, with the remaining 9 candidates running for the 3 remaining positions. And so on, possibly ad nauseum, until all the positions are filled with people who have received a majority vote. Abstentions are not counted when determining the total number of votes cast.

Suppose there are three candidates for three equivalent open positions. Each voter would be able to vote for up to three candidates, right? Suppose there are 100 voters and that they generally want candidates A and B but not C. That is, they would rather have an empty seat than elect candidate C. Further, suppose in the first ballot they cast 90 votes for A, 90 for B, and 40 for C -- that is, some voters voted only for one or two of the three names. What would be the result of the first ballot? Is the majority based on 220 votes cast? If so, then no one has a majority in the first ballot. Or is the majority based on the number of paper ballots cast (some showing one vote, some showing two, and some showing three votes)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The majority is based on the number of actual ballots cast with any number of votes/check-marks on them. A completely blank ballot (or one with no Xs or check-marks in any of the boxes) is an abstention - not counted at all, equivalent to the member not bothering to put the paper in the ballot box at all. RONR, p. 427.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> The majority is based on the number of actual ballots cast with any number of votes/check-marks on them. <

>> ...suppose in the first ballot they cast 90 votes for A, 90 for B, and 40 for C -- that is, some voters voted only for one or two of the three names... <<

So, in your hypothetical situation, somewhere between 90 and 100 ballots must have been cast. Candidates A and B both received a majority on the first round of balloting, and they are elected. Now another round of balloting should be held for the remaining seat. The voters, clearly realizing the fact that the unpalatable C is the only candidate left, may re-open nominations. They may write in someone else's name (write ins are allowed by default, unless your bylaws specifically prohibit them). They may decide C isn't that terrible after all.

In any case, C should not be considered elected on the first round (with 40 votes) -- which is an easy error to fall into when no one else is running, and the assembly just assumes the election must be over once people have turned in their ballots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Phil Davidson

> The majority is based on the number of actual ballots cast with any number of votes/check-marks on them. <

>> ...suppose in the first ballot they cast 90 votes for A, 90 for B, and 40 for C -- that is, some voters voted only for one or two of the three names... <<

So, in your hypothetical situation, somewhere between 90 and 100 ballots must have been cast. Candidates A and B both received a majority on the first round of balloting, and they are elected. Now another round of balloting should be held for the remaining seat. The voters, clearly realizing the fact that the unpalatable C is the only candidate left, may re-open nominations. They may write in someone else's name (write ins are allowed by default, unless your bylaws specifically prohibit them). They may decide C isn't that terrible after all.

In any case, C should not be considered elected on the first round (with 40 votes) -- which is an easy error to fall into when no one else is running, and the assembly just assumes the election must be over once people have turned in their ballots.

Okay, thank you. This much is clear. Per JDStackpole's reply, I see that RONR pages 424-427 spell it all out. The case I am interested in is case 1 on page 425: nominations and a single ballot for multiple offices are prepared in advance.

Suppose now that (as described above) A and B are elected on the first round. For the second round, now there would be only one seat open. Nominations can be reopened; also names of other eligible candidates can be written in. If a candidate receives a majority of votes cast, the election is complete. But is there any way for the assembly to choose to leave the seat open?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a candidate receives a majority of votes cast, the election is complete.

But is there any way for the assembly to choose to leave the seat open?

Yes. - To leave a seat open, have the MAJORITY of those casting a ballot vote for someone OTHER THAN a person who is likely to get nearly a majority.

(You don't want a majority of the ballots cast to go to a single common candidate, but to go to a disparate spread of candidates.)

You know, 0% to 50% of the vote is not enough for a candidate to win.

So, get at least 50% of the voters to cast a vote for an unlikely person. - e.g., a new member? A retired member? The spouse, sibling, or child of a member?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A longer term solution (maybe) would be to amend the bylaws, reducing the number of Board members.

You could do that even if your undesirable C is elected. Just specify in the proposed bylaw amendment a proviso stating which board member goes when the number is reduced.

This is a tad heavyhanded, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But is there any way for the assembly to choose to leave the seat open?

You could postpone the pending election to the last seat till after all other business was completed for the meeting, and when that time comes, move to adjourn. If adopted (majority vote needed for both postpone and adjourn), that tactic merely puts it off till the next meeting, but it might give you time to recruit someone else more to a majority's liking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could postpone the pending election to the last seat till after all other business was completed for the meeting, and when that time comes, move to adjourn. If adopted (majority vote needed for both postpone and adjourn), that tactic merely puts it off till the next meeting, but it might give you time to recruit someone else more to a majority's liking.

But is there any way for the assembly to choose to leave the seat open?

The answer is still the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. - To leave a seat open, have the MAJORITY of those casting a ballot vote for someone OTHER THAN a person who is likely to get nearly a majority.

(You don't want a majority of the ballots cast to go to a single common candidate, but to go to a disparate spread of candidates.)

But doesn't this "at best" create an incomplete election...

So, get at least 50% of the voters to cast a vote for an unlikely person.

... and "at worst" elect this unlikely person should this one person in fact receive at least 50% of the votes cast (assuming no other one candidate gets the other 50%, in which case you're back where you started)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...