Limiting the Right to "Partially Abstain"

[Josh Martin]

Suppose that, as “something like it”, the proposed rule says that “… a ballot which is marked for fewer candidates than the number of available positions shall be considered an abstention and neither credited to any candidate nor counted in determining the number of votes cast."

I suspect that the answer to your question is the same in either case, but I wonder if you agree. Don’t want to leave any loose ends lying around, you know.

Yes, I agree. In my opinion, the rule in either case would require at least a Bylaws-level rule. A special rule of order not in the Bylaws would be insufficient.

[J. J.]

Yes, I agree. In my opinion, the rule in either case would require at least a Bylaws-level rule. A special rule of order not in the Bylaws would be insufficient.

And why would that be?

[Dan Honemann]

And why would that be?

I think we've been given this explanation, both here and in the thread referred to in post #1 above. We're also aware of the fact that you do not agree.

[J. J.]

I think we've been given this explanation, both here and in the thread referred to in post #1 above. We're also aware of the fact that you do not agree.

I was thinking more of the location in RONR.

I have to say that the first I heard of the rule like the one you suggested, “… a ballot which is marked for fewer candidates than the number of available positions shall be considered an abstention and neither credited to any candidate nor counted in determining the number of votes cast," I looked to see if there was something requiring such a rule to be in the bylaws. I couldn't find that requirement.

[Guest Edgar]

I could find that requirement.

You could?

[George Mervosh]

I was thinking more of the location in RONR.

I have to say that the first I heard of the rule like the one you suggested, “… a ballot which is marked for fewer candidates than the number of available positions shall be considered an abstention and neither credited to any candidate nor counted in determining the number of votes cast," I looked to see if there was something requiring such a rule to be in the bylaws. I couldn't find that requirement.

Of course you couldn't find it. You can dream up dozens of proposed rules and you won't find one of them in RONR. The point is, what the rule does necessitates it being placed in the bylaws. But, as noted, you don't agree.

[Guest Edgar]

I could find that requirement.

I couldn't find that requirement.

Mis-quote much?

[J. J.]

Mis-quote much?

Not anymore.

[Gary Novosielski]

It's one thing to vote for an ineligible candidate or to vote "Maybe." But doesn't a rule which requires members to vote for a minimum number of candidates limit their right to vote for any eligible candidate? If three positions are available and a member supports Mr. A and Mr. B, but no other candidates, isn't it his right to vote for Mr. A and Mr. B? If his vote for them is not credited because he only voted for those two candidates, isn't that right infringed upon?

I missed the place where this topic forked, but I'll just go on record as holding this position (above) as well.

As I've said, I think the the waters are muddied by the use of the (not entirely unmeaningless) phrase "partial abstention". In the case above, with three candidates, a voter may:

• vote for three;
  
• vote for two;
  
• vote for one; or,
  
• abstain from voting.
  

In the event he abstains, he does so fully, not partially.

But if his ballot, which contains votes for two valid candidates, is not counted, surely it is his right to vote, and not his right to abstain, which has been denied.

Therefore, any such rule, unless placed in the bylaws, would not be in order.

[J. J.]

I missed the place where this topic forked, but I'll just go on record as holding this position (above) as well.

As I've said, I think the the waters are muddied by the use of the (not entirely unmeaningless) phrase "partial abstention". In the case above, with three candidates, a voter may:

• vote for three;
  
• vote for two;
  
• vote for one; or,
  
• abstain from voting.
  

In the event he abstains, he does so fully, not partially.

But if his ballot, which contains votes for two valid candidates, is not counted, surely it is his right to vote, and not his right to abstain, which has been denied.

Therefore, any such rule, unless placed in the bylaws, would not be in order.

Well, why, and what citation can you provide?

I can provide a counter example, with a citation. The vote is credited, "if the meaning of the ballot is clear and the choice is valid (p. 416, ll. 1-2)." RONR does not define, in the case of individuals, what choice is valid. A special rule may define what constitutes a valid choice.

[Dan Honemann]

Well, why, and what citation can you provide?

I can provide a counter example, with a citation. The vote is credited, "if the meaning of the ballot is clear and the choice is valid (p. 416, ll. 1-2)." RONR does not define, in the case of individuals, what choice is valid. A special rule may define what constitutes a valid choice.

In an election to fill an office, a valid choice, quite obviously, is "any eligible person" (p. 430, ll. 17-20; p. 439, ll. 22-23).

[Gary Novosielski]

Well, why [must it be in the bylaws], and what citation can you provide?

The why is because it infringes on the right to vote, which you had already conceded must be in the bylaws, and not on the right to abstain, where opinions seem to vary.

I can provide a counter example, with a citation. The vote is credited, "if the meaning of the ballot is clear and the choice is valid (p. 416, ll. 1-2)." RONR does not define, in the case of individuals, what choice is valid. A special rule may define what constitutes a valid choice.

If I vote for choices A and B by clearly marking them, then the meaning of the ballot is clear.

If the candidates for whom I voted (A and are living persons eligible to hold that office, then my choices are valid.

For a special rule to define what is a valid choice, it would have to establish qualifications for office, which I don't believe a special rule of order may do. But even if it could, we were (I thought) presuming that all the choices on the ballot are properly qualified. Let us at least presume that those for whom I voted were.

What prevents my ballot from being counted, if my clear intent is to vote for valid choices A and B?

[J. J.]

The why is because it infringes on the right to vote, which you had already conceded must be in the bylaws, and not on the right to abstain, where opinions seem to vary.

Well, on this I disagree. The fact that I can, on a paper ballot, cast a vote that would not be valid does not infringe on my right to cast that vote.

If I vote for choices A and B by clearly marking them, then the meaning of the ballot is clear.

If the candidates for whom I voted (A and are living persons eligible to hold that office, then my choices are valid.

For a special rule to define what is a valid choice, it would have to establish qualifications for office, which I don't believe a special rule of order may do. But even if it could, we were (I thought) presuming that all the choices on the ballot are properly qualified. Let us at least presume that those for whom I voted were.

What prevents my ballot from being counted, if my clear intent is to vote for valid choices A and B?

Well, I think I can give you a counter example. The bylaws define the qualification for officers, list them, but do not provide for a method of voting. A special rule is adopted, properly, dealing with election:

Election of officers shall be by signed ballot. Any unsigned ballot shall not be counted in determining a majority.

Everyone in the room when the balloting takes place is a member and entitled to vote; all votes are case for eligible candidates. You, and a few other people, forget to sign your ballot. You have the right to vote, your choice is a valid one, but you have not complied with the rules for voting. Under your theory, because that would prevent your vote from being counted, you could never have a signed ballot, because members could vote without signing the ballot and then claim their right to vote was being abridged.

It would have to come down, in this example to saying that not only does a member have a right to vote, but that he has a right to vote by the method the assembly has not approved.

This does come down to the right to abstain, and such a right may be abridged by a special rule.

[Though RONR does not say it specifically, I would treat an unsigned ballot in a signed ballot vote, or an unsigned ballot cast in a roll call as an invalid vote.]

[Sean Hunt]

I would treat... an unsigned ballot cast in a roll call as an invalid vote

I would certainly hope so.

[J. J.]

I would certainly hope so.

Well, under the theory that any member has a right to vote that cannot be infringed, if a member would choose to vote for a legitimate choice, the method of voting could not prevent him from making an otherwise legal vote. A member or group of members could claim his/their right to vote was infringed because the chair would not credit their ballots, even if the majority chose to have a roll call vote.

[Gary c Tesser]

I missed the place where this topic forked, but I'll just go on record as holding this position (above) as well.

As I've said, I think the the waters are muddied by the use of the (not entirely unmeaningless) phrase "partial abstention". In the case above, with three candidates, a voter may:

• vote for three;
  
• vote for two;
  
• vote for one; or,
  
• abstain from voting.
  

In the event he abstains, he does so fully, not partially.

But if his ballot, which contains votes for two valid candidates, is not counted, surely it is his right to vote, and not his right to abstain, which has been denied.

Therefore, any such rule, unless placed in the bylaws, would not be in order.

Thank you: I have been groping towards this since the subject came up. I cannot think clearly about the issue of partially abstaining as long as plain and simple votes (for your A and are thrown out, which seems to me clearly a violation of a fundamental principle, which would require a bylaws-level rule to supersede.

[Gary c Tesser]

Sean Hunt, on 19 February 2013 - 01:19 PM, said:

I would certainly hope so.

Well, under the theory that any member has a right to vote that cannot be infringed, if a member would choose to vote for a legitimate choice, the method of voting could not prevent him from making an otherwise legal vote. A member or group of members could claim his/their right to vote was infringed because the chair would not credit their ballots, even if the majority chose to have a roll call vote.

Urghh, do we digress?

[Sean Hunt]

Urghh, do we digress?

Actually, I think it's a rather interesting point.

[J. J.]

Actually, I think it's a rather interesting point.

I can propose a middle example.

The society, in order to prevent fraudulent votes, adopts a special rule that says, "The tellers shall only credit votes cast on an official ballot as designated by the society." The society adopts a proper ballot, with the ballot being on yellow paper.

Member A does not like yellow. He takes a sheet of white paper, clearly designates his choices, all of which are eligible candidates that are actually on the official ballot; he manages to put it in the ballot box. The tellers do not credit the vote.

Under Gary N's theory, this rule would infringe on Member A's right to vote. Member A had a perfect right to vote, but chose not to follow the rules for voting. I would not find, under this rule, this white paper ballot to be a valid vote. Member A chose to exercise his right to vote in such a way that he threw away his vote, but his right to vote was not infringed.

[Sean Hunt]

See, now it's becoming more interesting!

[Dan Honemann]

See, now it's becoming more interesting!

No, it isn't,

[George Mervosh]

In the newest edition of the National Parliamentarian (coming to a mailbox near you), the Parliamentary Research Team, without dissent, seems to agree wholeheartedly with J.J.'s position on this matter. See Q&A 16 "Compel A Vote"

See what you think when you read it.

[Gary Novosielski]

I can propose a middle example.

The society, in order to prevent fraudulent votes, adopts a special rule that says, "The tellers shall only credit votes cast on an official ballot as designated by the society." The society adopts a proper ballot, with the ballot being on yellow paper.

Member A does not like yellow. He takes a sheet of white paper, clearly designates his choices, all of which are eligible candidates that are actually on the official ballot; he manages to put it in the ballot box. The tellers do not credit the vote.

Under Gary N's theory, this rule would infringe on Member A's right to vote. Member A had a perfect right to vote, but chose not to follow the rules for voting. I would not find, under this rule, this white paper ballot to be a valid vote. Member A chose to exercise his right to vote in such a way that he threw away his vote, but his right to vote was not infringed.

The two are not equivalent. Member A could follow the rules for using the official yellow ballot, and still easily and successfully vote for the two candidates (out of three) of his choice. But with the rule that he MUST vote for three, there is no possible way he can achieve his desired (and otherwise valid) vote. That's what deprives him of his rights.

[J. J.]

The two are not equivalent. Member A could follow the rules for using the official yellow ballot, and still easily and successfully vote for the two candidates (out of three) of his choice. But with the rule that he MUST vote for three, there is no possible way he can achieve his desired (and otherwise valid) vote. That's what deprives him of his rights.

I think they are exactly the same. Member A could follow the rule and successfully vote for three candidates. His rights are not infringed by either rule.

And, as noted, the original opinion was from the Parliamentary Research Team. It was an eye opener and has wider implications to how rules function.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

I can propose a middle example.

The society, in order to prevent fraudulent votes, adopts a special rule that says,

"The tellers shall only credit votes cast on an official ballot as designated by the society."

The society adopts a proper ballot, with the ballot being on yellow paper.

Member A does not like yellow.

He takes a sheet of white paper, clearly designates his choices, all of which are eligible candidates that are actually on the official ballot; he manages to put it in the ballot box.

The tellers do not credit the vote.

Under Gary N's theory, this rule would infringe on Member A's right to vote.

Member A had a perfect right to vote, but chose not to follow the rules for voting.

I would not find, under this rule, this white paper ballot to be a valid vote.

Member A chose to exercise his right to vote in such a way that he threw away his vote, but his right to vote was not infringed.

I agree with JJ.

A voter is someone who is authorized to

(a.) take a ballot, legitimately;

(b.) mark a ballot, legitimately;

(b.) deposit a ballot, legitimately.

The rules for BALLOTS (their creation, their destruction, their verifiableness) are rules which do not take away one's right to vote.

*****

This can be tested in a Gedankenexperiment -- a thought experiment.

Q. If a ballot creation rule, a ballot desstruction rule, and ballot color rule, are all established in January, then, can we say, in January, that these rules WILL infringe on the voter's right to vote in the February election?

I think not.

By pre-establishing the MEDIUM OF EXCHANGE (viz., a source, an end-point, a color), we have affected no one's "right to vote."

*****

A voter is NOT free to use any MEDIUM he chooses, to cast his ballot.

A vote is obligated to vote in the MEDIUM established by rule.

A violation of the rule regarding the medium puts the voter's ballot at risk of not being counted.

A voter who violates an election rule puts his own vote at risk.

It isn't the organization which is taking away anything from the voter. -- The rule is a special rule of order, and applies to all voters.

• Those who obey the ballot rules (all of them), get their votes counted.

• Those who disobey the ballot rules (even one of them), is now at risk of throwing their ballot(s) out. -- Via their own error, or their own hubris.

No single voter's right is crippled or abridged where the MEDIUM is pre-established by rule.

... any more than if the ballot box where changed by a single voter. -- You don't get to vote just ANYWHERE.

... any more than if the the POLLING PERIOD were changed by a single voter. -- You don't get to vote just ANYTIME.