Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Elected without majority vote


Hieu H. Huynh

Recommended Posts

I like the simplicity of this suggestion. If electronic devices are allowed for balloting and write-in candidates are not allowed, then the ruling that "invalid entries" are not to be included in the vote count would have a more firm basis if a similar situation happens again.

 

If "invalid entries" are to be treated as blank votes instead of illegal votes, does that mean that the number of invalid entries is excluded from the election results presented to the assembly (just like the number of blank "slips of paper" are excluded from the report)?

 

Since you're using a machine to count the votes, why would you allow an invalid entry at all? That sounds like a user interface problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

The last 3 years, I have been surprised at why we keep getting invalid entries. There is plenty of instruction on using the devices - once after picking up the device at the credentials desk and then again right before the start of elections. We are told exactly how to make a vote count and what would cause an invalid entry. We even have a practice round of voting. There seems to be a slight groan among the assembly every time the number of invalid entries is read out loud. I guess that's the price we have to pay for using this technology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To address write-in candidates, what if the procedure included another step like "For a write-in candidate, press any other number"? Does a write-in have to be a "real" candidate or is it enough to indicate that a write-in was desired?

 

Well, this seems like a perfectly fine strategy unless a write-in candidate actually wins, since you can't very well make the number 3 your President. :)

 

This is a good starting point, but I think this will need a bit of refining. 

 

One such option would be that if the number of voters who pressed the number indicating they want to write in a candidate are not high enough to affect the results, the results stand.  But, if there are enough voters who want to vote for a write in candidate that could affect the results and keep a candidate from receiving a majority, then you may have to re-vote that particular race and use old fashioned paper ballots on the now infamous "slips of paper" and count them by hand.

 

This is the strategy used at NAP conventions.

 

One solution is to assign numbers to all members. Then when people voted they could enter any number, not just those of the people who were nominated.

 

That doesn't seem at all practical given the size of the organization.

 

If "invalid entries" are to be treated as blank votes instead of illegal votes, does that mean that the number of invalid entries is excluded from the election results presented to the assembly (just like the number of blank "slips of paper" are excluded from the report)?

 

Yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why? Do you think they'll run out of possible numbers?

 

They may well run out of possible numbers the keypads can enter. I'm not sure they support the entry of five digit numbers. Even if not, it will become a rather cumbersome task for members to look through the massive list to find the number they want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They may well run out of possible numbers the keypads can enter. I'm not sure they support the entry of five digit numbers. Even if not, it will become a rather cumbersome task for members to look through the massive list to find the number they want.

Which is part of the reason for a nomination process, but if someone wants to vote for someone who wasn't nominated, they would have to look them up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(By the way, it jsut occurred to me:  where do you put 17,000 people?)

 

In a very large room.

 

OK, so I had left out a detail to simplify the situation in my original post - we allow proxy voting. It is not unusual for a voting delegate to carry 100 or so votes. Yes, there is another step in that you not only have to assign who you are voting for, but how many of your votes will go to that candidate.

 

And the situation I described was actually the 2nd round of balloting - originally there were 3 candidates with something like a 35/33/30% split.

 

Also, with the convenience of the electronic devices, there was, in fact, a 3rd vote with the other candidate winning and no invalid entries this time (!) - however, this extra round was ruled to be null and void.

 

Writing all this down, maybe I shouldn't be surprised at what happened. In any case, I felt bad for the Parliamentarian of the meeting (he was a "new" guy who was probably a last-minute replacement and was in waaayyy over his head).

 

On the bright side, it looks like I have a solution for my organization for the future - have a bylaw amendment to allow electronic devices and not allow write-in votes. Hopefully it will be sufficient to adopt this amendment by voice vote... or else... use the electronic devices to vote on using electronic devices so that electronic devices can be used...  :(  :unsure:  :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, with the convenience of the electronic devices, there was, in fact, a 3rd vote with the other candidate winning and no invalid entries this time (!) - however, this extra round was ruled to be null and void.

 

I'm curious as to why the re-vote was declared null and void.

 

 

On the bright side, it looks like I have a solution for my organization for the future - have a bylaw amendment to allow electronic devices and not allow write-in votes.

 

I think that is a good solution for the future.  In the meantime, if you have elections before the bylaws are changed, or if the proposal to eliminate write in votes fails, I would suggest that you follow the same procedure that the NAP uses and designate a SPECIFIC number be assigned in each race for "Write in Candidate".  Those votes could be ignored unless there are enough to affect the outcome, in which case you re-vote using paper ballots. 

 

Since bylaw amendments (usually) take effect immediately, at your next AGM you could vote on the bylaw change before having the elections.  If it passes, you are good to go without having to allow for  write in votes.   However, if you can amend your bylaws prior to the next AGM, that might be a better way to do it.   I would also adopt a special rule for elections that what you have described as "invalid votes"... i.e., votes for a number not assigned to a candidate... be treated as blank ballots and ignored. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, so I had left out a detail to simplify the situation in my original post - we allow proxy voting. It is not unusual for a voting delegate to carry 100 or so votes. Yes, there is another step in that you not only have to assign who you are voting for, but how many of your votes will go to that candidate.

 

Well, this little detail (that proxy voting is allowed) means that your meetings are not deliberative assemblies, and that we want nothing more to do with you.  :)

 

The rules in RONR are rules for the conduct of business in deliberative assemblies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, this little detail (that proxy voting is allowed) means that your meetings are not deliberative assemblies, and that we want nothing more to do with you.  :)

 

The rules in RONR are rules for the conduct of business in deliberative assemblies.

 

Mmm... It certainly felt like our assembly had quite a bit of deliberation at our last meeting... 

 

Anyway, I feel honored to have one of the RONR authors chime in on my topic. So... what's the chance of expanding the section on p419 regarding machine and electronic voting for the next edition?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mmm... It certainly felt like our assembly had quite a bit of deliberation at our last meeting... 

 

Anyway, I feel honored to have one of the RONR authors chime in on my topic. So... what's the chance of expanding the section on p419 regarding machine and electronic voting for the next edition?

 

Well, perhaps there may be some expansion of this section to which you refer, but don't expect RONR to become fond of voting by proxy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, this little detail (that proxy voting is allowed) means that your meetings are not deliberative assemblies, and that we want nothing more to do with you.  :)

 

The rules in RONR are rules for the conduct of business in deliberative assemblies.

 

 

. . . don't expect RONR to become fond of voting by proxy.

 

Hoping that perhaps I should be paying more attention to the smiley face, I still have to ask:  Since when does allowing proxy voting cause a society or an assembly to not be a deliberative assembly, especially since RONR says it can be allowed if permitted in the bylaws or required by statute?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still have to ask:  Since when does allowing proxy voting cause a society or an assembly to not be a deliberative assembly . . . ?

 

Proxies allows votes to be cast on behalf of members who aren't present and, therefore, are not privy to the deliberation. In other words, it creates a quasi-deliberative assembly.

 

Edited to add: The fact that RONR acknowledges the existence of proxies should not be misconstrued as an endorsement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hoping that perhaps I should be paying more attention to the smiley face, I still have to ask:  Since when does allowing proxy voting cause a society or an assembly to not be a deliberative assembly, especially since RONR says it can be allowed if permitted in the bylaws or required by statute?

 

"...proxy voting is incompatible with the essential characteristics of a deliberative assembly..." (pages 428-429)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Proxies allows votes to be cast on behalf of members who aren't present and, therefore, are not privy to the deliberation. In other words, it creates a quasi-deliberative assembly.

 

Edited to add: The fact that RONR acknowledges the existence of proxies should not be misconstrued as an endorsement.

 

It can also create a situation in which there is no value in deliberation because one or a few people control the majority of the votes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get bonus info!

 

I'll return the favor by giving more of my own: We had about 3,000 attendees (with less than half being voting delegates and I guess about 10% of the delegates carrying about 90% of the votes - so I agree that there's a lot of power in a select few).

 

It is tough enough finding locations (convention hotels) to accommodate such a large group. Now I'm trying to imagine if there was no proxy voting and everyone shows up... Trying to find a location... and presiding over an assembly of 17,000... Maybe we'll meet in a baseball stadium - then we could have all in favor, do the wave... and all oppose, say "booooo..."  :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We had about 3,000 attendees (with less than half being voting delegates . . . 

 

While I can certainly imagine instances where proxy voting would be a reasonable solution, I'm less certain about admitting 1500 guests. Restrict proxy holding to members and restrict attendance to members and you might be able to hold the meeting in your backyard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...