Elections by less than a plurality

[Dan Honemann]

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

Perhaps I should be a bit more precise in explaining what it is that I am uncertain about.

I think there should be no doubt but that, if a viva voce election is being conducted as described on pages 442-43 (even although RONR cautions that it is not a generally suitable method to use for electing officers), once a proposal that one of the nominees be elected has been voted on and rejected, that proposal cannot be voted on again, by the same method, during the same session, unless a motion to reconsider the vote by which it was rejected is properly made and adopted.

What I am unclear about is whether or not, after all nominees have been rejected as posited in this thread, it would be in order to move that the election be conducted again using a different method. I have indicated that I thought that this could be done, even in the same session, and that, in such an event, votes could again be cast for previously rejected nominees. Frankly, I am not at all sure that this is the case (I was, as I said, “winging it”), and would welcome other views.

[George Mervosh]

Perhaps I should be a bit more precise in explaining what it is that I am uncertain about.

I think there should be no doubt but that, if a viva voce election is being conducted as described on pages 442-43 (even although RONR cautions that it is not a generally suitable method to use for electing officers), once a proposal that one of the nominees be elected has been voted on and rejected, that proposal cannot be voted on again, by the same method, during the same session, unless a motion to reconsider the vote by which it was rejected is properly made and adopted.

What I am unclear about is whether or not, after all nominees have been rejected as posited in this thread, it would be in order to move that the election be conducted again using a different method. I have indicated that I thought that this could be done, even in the same session, and that, in such an event, votes could again be cast for previously rejected nominees. Frankly, I am not at all sure that this is the case (I was, as I said, “winging it”), and would welcome other views.

I don't think it is proper to conduct it again during the same session using the same or any another method of casting a vote. The proposal was rejected, I'm not sure the method of voting used to reject it is relevant, unless I'm missing something obvious in the rules. Or are you thinking of what it says on p. 285 would be applicable? I'm not so sure it would be since the purpose of the re-taking would be to change the result, not more accurately determine it.

*edited too many times....

[Trina]

Perhaps I should be a bit more precise in explaining what it is that I am uncertain about.

I think there should be no doubt but that, if a viva voce election is being conducted as described on pages 442-43 (even although RONR cautions that it is not a generally suitable method to use for electing officers), once a proposal that one of the nominees be elected has been voted on and rejected, that proposal cannot be voted on again, by the same method, during the same session, unless a motion to reconsider the vote by which it was rejected is properly made and adopted.

What I am unclear about is whether or not, after all nominees have been rejected as posited in this thread, it would be in order to move that the election be conducted again using a different method. I have indicated that I thought that this could be done, even in the same session, and that, in such an event, votes could again be cast for previously rejected nominees. Frankly, I am not at all sure that this is the case (I was, as I said, “winging it”), and would welcome other views.

As long as the conditions on p. 285 (RETAKING A VOTE) and pp. 408-409 (TIME LIMITS...) are followed, why might it be out of order to move that a viva voce vote be retaken by one of the other methods of voting? It seems plainly in order, so I think I'm missing some subtlety in the question.

Or, are you addressing the scenario where the assembly has already forged ahead and gone through 10 rounds of voting, with intervening debate, as posited by J.J.?

[Trina]

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.

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.

If the assembly were to reopen nominations after each failure to elect, and the same three candidates were nominated, but nominated in a different order, would that make it a different question? The order of voting would change, since the blanks are to be voted on in the order that the candidates were nominated. This might lead to a different voting result. Is that enough to make it a different question?

[Dan Honemann]

As long as the conditions on p. 285 (RETAKING A VOTE) and pp. 408-409 (TIME LIMITS...) are followed, why might it be out of order to move that a viva voce vote be retaken by one of the other methods of voting? It seems plainly in order, so I think I'm missing some subtlety in the question.

The rules on the pages to which you refer tell us that, immediately after a vote has been taken on the election of one of the nominees during a viva-voce election, a member may move to have that vote, which was taken by one of the regular methods of voting, retaken by some method other than one of the regular ones. This, of course, is not at all what we are talking about.

Or, are you addressing the scenario where the assembly has already forged ahead and gone through 10 rounds of voting, with intervening debate, as posited by J.J.?

No, I'm not. As I have said too many times now, it would be improper for an assembly to forge ahead and go through multiple rounds of voting by voice vote on the same nominees (without suspending the rules, of course).

[Dan Honemann]

If the assembly were to reopen nominations after each failure to elect, and the same three candidates were nominated, but nominated in a different order, would that make it a different question? The order of voting would change, since the blanks are to be voted on in the order that the candidates were nominated. This might lead to a different voting result. Is that enough to make it a different question?

No.

[Dan Honemann]

I don't think it is proper to conduct it again during the same session using the same or any another method of casting a vote. The proposal was rejected, I'm not sure the method of voting used to reject it is relevant, unless I'm missing something obvious in the rules. Or are you thinking of what it says on p. 285 would be applicable? I'm not so sure it would be since the purpose of the re-taking would be to change the result, not more accurately determine it.

*edited too many times....

Well, nothing on page 285 is clearly applicable - we need to stretch it a bit to justify redoing the whole election by another method. I take it you are reluctant to make that stretch.

[Trina]

The rules on the pages to which you refer tell us that, immediately after a vote has been taken on the election of one of the nominees during a viva-voce election, a member may move to have that vote, which was taken by one of the regular methods of voting, retaken by some method other than one of the regular ones. This, of course, is not at all what we are talking about.

Thanks, somehow (inexplicably in hindsight) I wasn't seeing this as three separate motions, the result of each one being announced in turn by the chair. I was thinking of it as an election to one office, and the discussion of filling the blanks was also making me see it as one motion.

It does seem odd, though, to claim that the assembly cannot complete an incomplete election unless the assembly chooses to switch to voting by ballot. It would be even odder if the assembly cannot complete the incomplete election at all without waiting for a future session. Wouldn't that be the result, though, if it is improper to retake the vote in any manner after voting down each of the three candidates in turn? If the assembly refuses to nominate anyone else, and if they are not allowed to retake the vote by ballot, isn't that the end of the story?

edited to add:

As I have said too many times now, it would be improper for an assembly to forge ahead and go through multiple rounds of voting by voice vote on the same nominees (without suspending the rules, of course).

Ah, I didn't notice this before... So, if the assembly voted to suspend the rules first, they could knock themselves out with repeated rounds of voice vote on the same nominees, if that is what they really want to do. Or, presumably they could suspend the rules to allow themselves to revote using a different voting method?

[George Mervosh]

Well, nothing on page 285 is clearly applicable - we need to stretch it a bit to justify redoing the whole election by another method. I take it you are reluctant to make that stretch.

Exactly. I agree with what you said in post #12 except for the last sentence.

The anomaly of refusing to elect anyone during the meeting/session is a possibility RONR acknowledges and cautions about and if, as J.J. says in post 14, that no one wishes to nominate someone else, then it's over, for that session, sans reconsideration of the negative vote.

I still can't figure out why a viva voce election is even proper when RONR says the paper ballot form of yes/no is not (but we'll save that for another thread and maybe you can explain it to me. ).

[Dan Honemann]

It does seem odd, though, to claim that the assembly cannot complete an incomplete election unless the assembly chooses to switch to voting by ballot. It would be even odder if the assembly cannot complete the incomplete election at all without waiting for a future session. Wouldn't that be the result, though, if it is improper to retake the vote in any manner after voting down each of the three candidates in turn? If the assembly refuses to nominate anyone else, and if they are not allowed to retake the vote by ballot, isn't that the end of the story?

All is not lost.

As previously noted, it will not be improper to retake the vote on one of the candidates if the assembly agrees to reconsider that vote. Assuming some degree of common sense, there will probably be a little negotiating after the (quite unlikely, as a matter of fact) defeat of all nominees, and a motion to reconsider one of the votes will be agreed to.

[J. J.]

All is not lost.

As previously noted, it will not be improper to retake the vote on one of the candidates if the assembly agrees to reconsider that vote. Assuming some degree of common sense, there will probably be a little negotiating after the (quite unlikely, as a matter of fact) defeat of all nominees, and a motion to reconsider one of the votes will be agreed to.

I don't think that, in a situation where the positions have hardened, it would be likely. One concern that a motion to take the vote by voice would generally not be required. Simply by having a second round of voice voting, in most cases, would not violate p. 285, ll. 25-27, which states that "It is never in order to move that the vote on a question be taken a second time by the same method." (Emphasis added). No one would have to move to take a voice vote on the second round of voting.

The assembly has not ordered any of the other methods, and has not ordered the vote counted.

However, that really is not the question I posed on this thread. I'll return to the third scenario with a modification.

[Trina]

All is not lost.

As previously noted, it will not be improper to retake the vote on one of the candidates if the assembly agrees to reconsider that vote. Assuming some degree of common sense, there will probably be a little negotiating after the (quite unlikely, as a matter of fact) defeat of all nominees, and a motion to reconsider one of the votes will be agreed to.

However, if the assembly wanted all the candidates back on the starting line, the motion to reconsider any one of the earlier discrete votes could not do that. Is it accurate to say, though, that the assembly could suspend the rules and essentially re-run the election (using voice vote, or ballot, or some other means of voting), with all of the candidates still before the assembly?

Given the potentially screwy consequences of using voice vote in a closely contested election, I can see why RONR cautions against using this method in such a situation.

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?

Leaving aside the ten rounds of voting (let's pretend G made his motion after the first round, during which all the candidates were voted down), I don't see why this wouldn't work. Given Mr. Honemann's comment that the rules could be suspended to allow additional rounds of voice vote on the same nominees, G could move to suspend the rules in order to vote again on the motion to elect M to be treasurer. After the 70 to 26 vote, the rules have been suspended, but M is not yet elected (IMO). Or, are you suggesting that the motion to suspend the rules, and the motion to elect M, are to be voted on simultaneously??

[J. J.]

Scenario 3a:

On the first round of voting, by voice, the chair counts the vote. The result was:

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.

An enterprising member moves "that the rules be suspended to permit subsequent voting in the election of treasurer be taken by a voice vote, with the chair being permitted to count the vote, if he deems it necessary." The motion is adopted by a vote of 76 in favor and 11 against (though the chair does not count it).

The voting continues for ten rounds, with the same result, as the first round. Debate takes place between each round. No new candidates emerge.

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?

[Trina]

Scenario 3a:

...

The voting continues for ten rounds, with the same result, as the first round. Debate takes place between each round. No new candidates emerge.

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?

What (additional) rules would be suspended? I know that the rules to be suspended don't have to be named, but am curious what you think they are in this scenario.

The members have already suspended the rules, and are getting repeated opportunities (ad infinitum) to vote for/against each candidate, including M. Why wouldn't G just make his point during one of the episodes of debate -- if many members agree with G, they can just cast their 70 to 26 vote for M during the next (11th ) round of voting. No further suspension of rules necessary, and no queasy feelings about simultaneously voting to suspend rules and voting to elect an officer in the same breath (Qestion 2).

[J. J.]

What (additional) rules would be suspended? I know that the rules to be suspended don't have to be named, but am curious what you think they are in this scenario.

I think the rule being suspended is the putting of the question on the election of candidates H and S.

The members have already suspended the rules, and are getting repeated opportunities (ad infinitum) to vote for/against each candidate, including M. Why wouldn't G just make his point during one of the episodes of debate -- if many members agree with G, they can just cast their 70 to 26 vote for M during the next (11th ) round of voting. No further suspension of rules necessary, and no queasy feelings about simultaneously voting to suspend rules and voting to elect an officer in the same breath (Qestion 2).

G didn't realize that M would be a popular second choice until prolonged debate. The supporters of H are still worried about the possibility that S could be elected; they will vote directly for their first choice only, but will vote for M if they are sure S will not be elected. The same holds true the supporters of S. Further, it saves another round of voting.

[Sean Hunt]

As previously noted, it will not be improper to retake the vote on one of the candidates if the assembly agrees to reconsider that vote. Assuming some degree of common sense, there will probably be a little negotiating after the (quite unlikely, as a matter of fact) defeat of all nominees, and a motion to reconsider one of the votes will be agreed to.

I will opine that it is not proper for a motion to retake the entire election by means of a ballot, since it is too late to change the method of balloting on a single candidate, and doing the election would, in a fashion, bring substantially the same question before the assembly again. This could, of course, be accomplished by suspension of the rules. After reflection, I do not think that this represents a problem with the rules, either; the assembly has, by majority vote, decided that it does not want H, S, or M as Treasurer. In a ballot vote, multiple rounds are allowed since in a ballot, failure to get a majority does not equate to rejection by a majority. I agree with Dan's view that a motion to Reconsider is in fact correct.

The simple answer is not to use the viva voce method in the election of officers, since it has the problem that the order of the candidates can matter.

[David A Foulkes]

Scenario 3a:

On the first round of voting, by voice, the chair counts the vote. The result was:

If I may ask, how do you count a voice vote?

[J. J.]

I will opine that it is not proper for a motion to retake the entire election by means of a ballot, since it is too late to change the method of balloting on a single candidate, and doing the election would, in a fashion, bring substantially the same question before the assembly again. This could, of course, be accomplished by suspension of the rules. After reflection, I do not think that this represents a problem with the rules, either; the assembly has, by majority vote, decided that it does not want H, S, or M as Treasurer. In a ballot vote, multiple rounds are allowed since in a ballot, failure to get a majority does not equate to rejection by a majority. I agree with Dan's view that a motion to Reconsider is in fact correct.

The simple answer is not to use the viva voce method in the election of officers, since it has the problem that the order of the candidates can matter.

I'm not seeing, on p. 285 at least, a rule that would prohibit taking a second vote by voice or standing vote. A motion to take another vote on the same motion by the same method is out of order. If the rules on p. 285 would be interpreted to prohibit a second round of voting, it seems that it would apply to ballot elections as well.

[J. J.]

If I may ask, how do you count a voice vote?

That should be a standing vote.

[David A Foulkes]

That should be a standing vote.

Whew! I thought it was me again, as it so often is. Just figured I hadn't gotten that far in to the 11th yet to find that.

[Trina]

That should be a standing vote.

Ah good... I was just returning to the thread to figure out how the 25 to 26 voice vote was being counted so accurately.

[Trina]

G didn't realize that M would be a popular second choice until prolonged debate. The supporters of H are still worried about the possibility that S could be elected; they will vote directly for their first choice only, but will vote for M if they are sure S will not be elected. The same holds true the supporters of S. Further, it saves another round of voting.

I guess I'm not following what the supporters of H and S are worried about if they just continue with the tried and true voting sequence one more time. It's not as if anyone has to withhold a negative vote on their particular nemesis in order to save their positive vote for use during the later round of voting on the election of M. From a game-playing point of view, I don't understand the hazard they might see.

I realize this doesn't directly address the questions you're asking about G's motion. Just that the premises behind the scenario are a bit hard to swallow.

"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?

Is G's goal also to suspend the rules so that both the suspension and the election are voted on simultaneously? That seems likely to be confusing to the listeners.

[J. J.]

Is G's goal also to suspend the rules so that both the suspension and the election are voted on simultaneously? That seems likely to be confusing to the listeners.

The goal of the suspension of the rules here is to elect M. For the propriety of that, see p. 262, ll. 6-8.

The rules that are being suspended are the rules:

1. to put the vote on the nominations of S and H.

2. Debate is also being closed.

[Shmuel Gerber]

Perhaps I should be a bit more precise in explaining what it is that I am uncertain about.

I think there should be no doubt but that, if a viva voce election is being conducted as described on pages 442-43 (even although RONR cautions that it is not a generally suitable method to use for electing officers), once a proposal that one of the nominees be elected has been voted on and rejected, that proposal cannot be voted on again, by the same method, during the same session, unless a motion to reconsider the vote by which it was rejected is properly made and adopted.

What I am unclear about is whether or not, after all nominees have been rejected as posited in this thread, it would be in order to move that the election be conducted again using a different method. I have indicated that I thought that this could be done, even in the same session, and that, in such an event, votes could again be cast for previously rejected nominees. Frankly, I am not at all sure that this is the case (I was, as I said, “winging it”), and would welcome other views.

It does seem odd, though, to claim that the assembly cannot complete an incomplete election unless the assembly chooses to switch to voting by ballot. It would be even odder if the assembly cannot complete the incomplete election at all without waiting for a future session. Wouldn't that be the result, though, if it is improper to retake the vote in any manner after voting down each of the three candidates in turn? If the assembly refuses to nominate anyone else, and if they are not allowed to retake the vote by ballot, isn't that the end of the story?

I think have the same doubts about this that Trina says she had; the whole thing appears a bit odd. It seems to me that the case of an election has to be an exception to any rules about not voting on the same question twice at the same session, particularly by the same method. Otherwise, why is reballoting at the same session possible? Especially if there are no new nominees, the assembly faces the same choices on the second ballot as it did on the first.

But not being allowed to vote again by the same method (after a voice or rising vote) is the part you said there should be no doubt about, so obviously I am not helping at all.

[J. J.]

I think have the same doubts about this that Trina says she had; the whole thing appears a bit odd. It seems to me that the case of an election has to be an exception to any rules about not voting on the same question twice at the same session, particularly by the same method. Otherwise, why is reballoting at the same session possible? Especially if there are no new nominees, the assembly faces the same choices on the second ballot as it did on the first.

But not being allowed to vote again by the same method (after a voice or rising vote) is the part you said there should be no doubt about, so obviously I am not helping at all.

I'm a bit troubled by the claim that there is rule stating that the assembly cannot vote by the same method twice. The text says: "It is never in order to move that the vote on a question be taken a second time by the same method (p. 285, ll. 25-27)."

The key word is move. On a second round of voting in an election, no one is moving to take the vote by the same method, anymore than no one moved to vote by voice on the first round. Arguably, if a standing vote was ordered on the first election, a standing vote would be required on subsequent rounds, based on the same citation.

In most questions, where there is a yes or no choice on the motion, there could not be a second round of voting; permitting it would tantamount to reconsidering (or rescinding) the question. In the case where there is a three way or greater choice, it would not be tantamount to reconsidering (or rescinding) the question. The question was not decided by the vote.

(And yes, I think this would apply to filling blanks, though the question could be voted on with an unfilled blank as well, as noted.)