Election Question

[Guest Samuel n NM]

Our organization recently held an election of officers for it's board of directors.  There was a three way tie for one of the positions.  The President, who has historically not voted unless there was a tie, broke the tie by casting the tie breaking vote for one of the nominees for the position.  The results were announced in the meeting, and the meeting was adjourned by majority vote.  After the meeting, it was learned that there were a couple absentee votes that were counted in the election.  According to the bylaws, absentee ballots do not count in the event of a tie.  The new officers take office on January 1.   By removing the absentee ballots, the tie would not have happened.  What should happened next?  Should a recount occur?  Once the new officers take office, is it too late to go back and fix?

[Gary Novosielski]

RONR has no advice on this issue, except to prohibit absentee voting (unless your bylaws allow it) and to recommend strongly against any voting method where absentee voters are counted along with in-person votes.  Your customary practice of the president not voting except in case of a tie does not match the rules in RONR either.

But it does appear that if no points of order were raised at the time, it is now too late to do so, as none of the irregularities constitute a "continuing breach"  of the rules.

[Josh Martin]

39 minutes ago, Guest Samuel n NM said:

Our organization recently held an election of officers for it's board of directors.  There was a three way tie for one of the positions.  The President, who has historically not voted unless there was a tie, broke the tie by casting the tie breaking vote for one of the nominees for the position.  The results were announced in the meeting, and the meeting was adjourned by majority vote.

You say that this was a three way tie. As a result, the President’s vote would not have resulted in a majority vote. Do your bylaws permit election by a plurality vote?

Additionally, for future reference, the President should vote along with all other members in a ballot vote. To do otherwise deprives the President of the right to the secrecy of his vote.

42 minutes ago, Guest Samuel n NM said:

After the meeting, it was learned that there were a couple absentee votes that were counted in the election.  According to the bylaws, absentee ballots do not count in the event of a tie.  The new officers take office on January 1.   By removing the absentee ballots, the tie would not have happened.  What should happened next?  Should a recount occur?  Once the new officers take office, is it too late to go back and fix?

To determine what happens next, we need answers to the following questions:

• Do the bylaws permit election by plurality?
• What would have been the votes for the candidates, if the absentee votes were not included?

Additionally, for future reference, RONR strongly recommends not to combine absentee votes and in-person votes. Everyone should vote by the same method.

A recount would likely not be the proper course of action. As I understand the facts, the dispute is over the organization’s rules, not over whether the count is accurate. Additionally, the new officers taking office has nothing to do with it. For any violations which are not continuing breaches, it is already too late to raise a Point of Order. For violations which are continuing breaches, they may continue to be raised after the newly elected candidates take office.

25 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

RONR has no advice on this issue, except to prohibit absentee voting (unless your bylaws allow it) and to recommend strongly against any voting method where absentee voters are counted along with in-person votes.  Your customary practice of the president not voting except in case of a tie does not match the rules in RONR either.

But it does appear that if no points of order were raised at the time, it is now too late to do so, as none of the irregularities constitute a "continuing breach"  of the rules.

As I understand the facts, the bylaws prohibit the counting of absentee votes in the event of a tie, the absentee votes were nonetheless counted, and those votes were sufficient to affect the result. That would appear to be a continuing breach.

[Guest Ok...]

Our bylaws do permit plurality voting as I understand it.  Had the absentee votes been excluded, there would have still been at least a two-way tie.  I guess the questions are : 1) If requested, should a recount occur?  2) Should there be a re-vote for that office? 

[Richard Brown]

Are you sure your bylaws permit absentee votes but prohibit using them in case of a tie?  That is a most unusual provision and makes no sense to me.  Can you check that?

As to electing by plurality instead of a majority vote, are you sure your bylaws provide for that? 

It would help us if you could quote the bylaw provisions verbatim re absentee voting and not counting absentee votes in case of a tie and also the bylaw provision permitting election by a plurality. 

As a practical matter, I'm wondering how you use/enforce the rule against absentee ballots in case of a tie.  For example, do you first determine if there is a tie before the absentee votes are even counted?  Or do you count all the votes and then, if there is a tie, back out the absentee votes?  Regardless, it seems like a very strange way of conducting an election.

btw, I agree with Josh Martin that if the bylaws do indeed prohibit the use of absentee ballots in case of a tie, and if absentee ballots did wind up being counted in a tie vote, that amounts to votes being cast by persons not entitled to vote and would constitute a continuing breach and could result in a new election if there were enough of those votes to affect the result.

[Guest Samuel n NM]

I stand corrected.  There is no provision for plurality voting.  It is a majority vote.  I will get that quote for you about the absentee ballots, but the way you explain it is correct.  All votes are counted including absentee, and in the case of a tie, they are to be removed.  Only the voters that are present will then have a vote that is counted.  I agree that trying to combine the two forms of voting is very difficult and confusing. 

So if I understand correctly, calling for a recount isn't the correct course of action.  Holding a new election for that office would be though?  Since no point of order was raised at the time of the election, does that inhibit us from holding another election for that position? 

[Gary Novosielski]

I'm not certain that a new election would always be required to remedy the absentee vote error if those votes can still be positively identified.  They could simply be subtracted from the totals (before the chair's vote).  However, if that would still result in an incomplete election, then additional balloting for that office would still be needed.

The vote threshold for election is a majority.  In a multi-candidate election, that means that the elected candidate must have a vote total that is greater than that of all other candidates [for that office] combined.  It's not clear to me that this would, by itself, constitute a continuing breach, but if  the absentee vote problem does require another vote, the proper threshold can't be ignored.

 

Edited December 19, 2017 at 10:36 PM by Gary Novosielski
[added]

[Guest Samuel n NM]

18 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

I'm not certain that a new election would always be required to remedy the absentee vote error if those votes can still be positively identified.  They could simply be subtracted from the totals (before the chair's vote).  However, if that would still result in an incomplete election, then additional balloting for that office would still be needed.

If it were decided that additional balloting was needed:  Would this balloting only be open to the members that were present at the original election and had cast the tie vote?  Or would other members that were absent be able to come and cast a vote as well?

[jstackpo]

ALL members have the right to vote whether or not they voted in previous elections, and by whatever proper means they used to vote.

Edited December 20, 2017 at 05:06 PM by jstackpo

[Gary Novosielski]

1 hour ago, Guest Samuel n NM said:

If it were decided that additional balloting was needed:  Would this balloting only be open to the members that were present at the original election and had cast the tie vote?  Or would other members that were absent be able to come and cast a vote as well?

All members have the right to vote.  If they were not present, they may have heard about the close vote and decided to weigh in.  Or, if they voted last time they may choose to abstain this time. Voting is a basic right of membership.

 

[Josh Martin]

23 hours ago, Guest Ok... said:

Our bylaws do permit plurality voting as I understand it.  Had the absentee votes been excluded, there would have still been at least a two-way tie.  I guess the questions are : 1) If requested, should a recount occur?  2) Should there be a re-vote for that office? 

Hm. If there was still a tie, the President would still have voted to break the tie anyway.

I guess these additional facts suggest to me that counting the absentee votes did not affect the result, which would mean there was not a continuing breach.

Unless, perhaps, the candidate the President voted for would not have been one of the two tied candidates if the absentee votes had not been included.

The plurality/majority issue is not a continuing breach, but should be kept in mind in the future.

Edited December 20, 2017 at 06:52 PM by Josh Martin