Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Elections by less than a plurality


J. J.

Recommended Posts

Given: The First Society is electing a Treasurer, an officer position. It meets monthly. All meetings are quorate and properly noticed. The bylaws of the First Society are quite similar to those on pp. 583-588, with the following exceptions.

1. The annual meeting is in December, with nominations in nominations in November (p. 585, ll. 20-24) .

2. A ballot is not required to elect (p. 585, ll. 25-26). You can strike out the words "ballot" and "by ballot" in both lines.

The December meeting was long and tiring by the time they elected the treasurer, in all cases. Nobody was sharp, including the chair (J. J.). The meetings are recorded by video. It will give those of us commenting a reasonably accurate depiction of what happened.

The nominating committee reads the names of three nominees, all qualified to hold office, H, S, and M. In the following election, only present, eligible voters vote. The voice vote is inconclusive.

Scenario 1:

The chair says, "As many as are in favor of H for treasurer will rise. Be seated. Those opposed will rise. Be seated." Then he says, "The noes have it and H is not elected. Those in favor of S will rise...." The chair then goes on to S and makes a similar announcement.

When the chair says, "Those in favor of M will rise. Those opposed will rise. Be seated. The ayes have it, and M is elected treasurer.

No point of order is raised at the time.

In looking at the recording of the meeting, it is very clear that 25 stood for M and 26 stood against him. Both H and S had 40 people standing for them and 51 people standing against them. Even the chair will, upon looking at the tape, will agree that he made the wrong call.

Is the election subject to a point of order at the next (January) meeting?

Scenario 2: The only difference is that the chair counted the vote, and that it is recorded in the minutes.

The vote was for the election of treasurer:

H, 40 in favor, 51 against.

S, 40 in favor, 51 against.

M, 25 in favor, 26 against.

Is the election subject to a point of order at the next (January) meeting?

Please note, I'm asking about the Point of Order specifically, not a recount or recapitulation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

i think that a point of order can be made that once H and S lost M became the sole nominee and the chair should have just declared him elected.

M did not become the sole nominee. In fact, more people voted for either H or S. It is possible for no candidate to receive a majority (p. 442, ll. 28-32).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I don't see grounds for a future point of order. Unless this is back to a discussion of whether majority needed to elect is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law?

Also, the assembly seems to have had multiple chances to fix the mess while it was ongoing, but no one spoke up at the time. In situations where YSYL seems blatantly unfair, I'm more inclined to think a continuing breach is lurking somewhere. In the situation as described, the assembly did a whole lot of snoozing.

Where does the title of the thread come in? The assembly in your OP was attempting to conduct a regular majority vote, wasn't it? No desire expressed for plurality vote, and no attempt to implement plurality vote...

In Scenario 2, in particular, I can readily imagine an assembly upholding a point of order, even if the point of order is not well taken in the technical sense. Especially since it's the same assembly that showed such fine appreciation of proper procedure during the election itself :) .

edited to add:

If 'majority needed to elect' is a FPPL, then I suppose the assembly could choose to consider the evidence in the videotape in deciding whether the principle was violated (if that is the question behind the two different scenarios presented).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I don't see grounds for a future point of order. Unless this is back to a discussion of whether majority needed to elect is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law?

Also, the assembly seems to have had multiple chances to fix the mess while it was ongoing, but no one spoke up at the time. In situations where YSYL seems blatantly unfair, I'm more inclined to think a continuing breach is lurking somewhere. In the situation as described, the assembly did a whole lot of snoozing.

Where does the title of the thread come in? The assembly in your OP was attempting to conduct a regular majority vote, wasn't it? No desire expressed for plurality vote, and no attempt to implement plurality vote...

In Scenario 2, in particular, I can readily imagine an assembly upholding a point of order, even if the point of order is not well taken in the technical sense. Especially since it's the same assembly that showed such fine appreciation of proper procedure during the election itself :) .

edited to add:

If 'majority needed to elect' is a FPPL, then I suppose the assembly could choose to consider the evidence in the videotape in deciding whether the principle was violated (if that is the question behind the two different scenarios presented).

Well, yeah, if these scenarios simply involved the vote on any garden variety main motion (rather than the election of M), I think the answers would not be any different. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

M did not become the sole nominee. In fact, more people voted for either H or S. It is possible for no candidate to receive a majority (p. 442, ll. 28-32).

We start with 3 nominees H S and M a vote is taken on electing H he losses. There are now 2 nominees and a vote is taken on electing S and he losses. So how is M not now the sole nominee left?

By the way since a vote was taken on M if the chair had correctly declared the outcome of that vote he would have lost which means nobody would have been elected. I didn't think that was allowed.

And why did 40 member not vote either for or against electing M

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is YSYL situation also. However, I think that the chair's declaration is the key. The majority (which is needed) approved to the chair's declaration, at least tacitly. Had the majority not tacitly agreed, i.e. had someone raised a point of order that had been ruled well taken (or the decision was overruled on appeal), that would change my answer.

[i do think a recount could be ordered in both cases and the assembly could weigh the importance of the tape. but that isn't the question.]

I'll add a third scenario:

The voting continues for ten rounds, with the same result, as the first round. Debate takes place between each round.

Member G is recognized and says: "It is is very clear that the two first place candidates will never get the support of the other candidate's supporters. It is clear, from the debate, that M is the second choice of most of the supporters. M will make an acceptable treasurer for most of us. I move to suspend the rules and elect M to the office of treasurer. (seconded)"

Question 1. Is the motion in order?

Question 2. If the motion is in order, this is the result: 70 in favor , 26 against. Is M elected?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not? No candidate had a majority and the chair, who is awake in this scenario, didn't declare anyone elected?

If voting by this method is to continue, I think it will be necessary to reopen nominations so that the assembly can vote on one or more new candidates. I don't think that a voice vote can be retaken on a candidate who has already been rejected (except upon a reconsideration of the negative vote) Or, the assembly could adopt a motion to take a ballot vote, in which event votes could then be cast for any eligible candidate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If voting by this method is to continue, I think it will be necessary to reopen nominations so that the assembly can vote on one or more new candidates. I don't think that a voice vote can be retaken on a candidate who has already been rejected. Or, the assembly could adopt a motion to take a ballot vote, in which event votes could then be cast for any eligible candidate.

... I'm winging it here and would welcome Mr. Gerber's views, even if they are in disagreement. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If voting by this method is to continue, I think it will be necessary to reopen nominations so that the assembly can vote on one or more new candidates. I don't think that a voice vote can be retaken on a candidate who has already been rejected. Or, the assembly could adopt a motion to take a ballot vote, in which event votes could then be cast for any eligible candidate.

Reopening is obviously an option, but no one wishes to nominate anyone else in this case.

If this is similar to filling a blank, you could continue to revote until one choice gets a majority. No one is actually moving to take the vote by voice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reopening is obviously an option, but no one wishes to nominate anyone else in this case.

If this is similar to filling a blank, you could continue to revote until one choice gets a majority. No one is actually moving to take the vote by voice.

I disagree. I do not think that, in filling a blank, it is proper to revote on a rejected suggestion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What, exactly, is the consequence of the motion "I move to suspend the rules and elect M to the office of treasurer"? Rather than an actual election, it sounds more like the purpose of such a motion is really to suspend the rules to dispense with the election and declare M as the treasurer. Or is there some other election process that would have to follow after such a motion is approved? While your hypothetical bylaws may not contain the requirement for a ballot, if they really are similar in every other way to RONR's sample bylaws, they do require an election, and I don't believe that a bylaw requirement to have an election could be considered a suspendable rule of order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What, exactly, is the consequence of the motion "I move to suspend the rules and elect M to the office of treasurer"? Rather than an actual election, it sounds more like the purpose of such a motion is really to suspend the rules to dispense with the election and declare M as the treasurer. Or is there some other election process that would have to follow after such a motion is approved? While your hypothetical bylaws may not contain the requirement for a ballot, if they really are similar in every other way to RONR's sample bylaws, they do require an election, and I don't believe that a bylaw requirement to have an election could be considered a suspendable rule of order.

Are they not still having an election? They are electing M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well then, how would the blank (or the office) get filled?

As to filling a blank, reconsideration is possible, new suggestions can be made and voted on, or, ordinarily, the motion containing the blank can simply be rejected. The latter alternative is. of course, not available with respect to the election of an officer, but as I have already indicated, I think that in this case the assembly can agree to vote again by a ballot vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to filling a blank, reconsideration is possible, new suggestions can be made and voted on, or, ordinarily, the motion containing the blank can simply be rejected. The latter alternative is. of course, not available with respect to the election of an officer, but as I have already indicated, I think that in this case the assembly can agree to vote again by a ballot vote.

Certainly, the assembly may reject the motion, but they might not wish to and only disagree on what fills the blank.

The assembly could, usually, order a ballot. The assembly, in this case, does not wish to. Certainly, in this case, the ballot would extend the time needed to process the vote, and the result might still be the same.

An assembly will have cases, obviously, where a second round of voting will be necessary, because no one elected in the first round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Believe me, he doesn't. :)

OK if I will, but if the chair had correctly declared the vote on M nobody would have been elected what then?

Nominations can be re-opened but if the majority is unwilling to do so or if they are and nobody accepts.

Does the chair take another vote on each nominee until one of them gets a majority and is elected?

If 2 of the 3 nominees withdraw would that create a situation in which that is now only one nominee?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does the chair take another vote on each nominee until one of them gets a majority and is elected?

If 2 of the 3 nominees withdraw would that create a situation in which that is now only one nominee?

I would answer both questions, yes. For the second, it should be clear that there are no additional nominees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK if I will, but if the chair had correctly declared the vote on M nobody would have been elected what then?

Nominations can be re-opened but if the majority is unwilling to do so or if they are and nobody accepts.

Does the chair take another vote on each nominee until one of them gets a majority and is elected?

If 2 of the 3 nominees withdraw would that create a situation in which that is now only one nominee?

The answer to the first question is "no", at least not at the same session. As previously noted, however, the vote rejecting any of the candidates may be reconsidered.

The answer to the second question is "yes, there is now only one nominee remaining who has not withdrawn", but this is rather meaningless except for the fact that it indicates a very good possibility that someone would be willing to move to reconsider the vote which rejected the election of the sole remaining nominee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...