Determining winner with three candidates

[Guest J. Hauser]

In a previous question to this forum, I asked how the winner is determined when there are three candidates running for an office.  The answer I received is that the winner is the one receiving more than half of the votes.  If that result is not achieved, additional rounds of voting must be conducted until one receives the necessary number of votes.  My question is, what if the vote is pretty evenly split among the three candidates.  How many times do you re-vote?   If there is no clear winner after the first vote, would it be appropriate to reveal the number of votes received to each of the three candidates, in private, to give one candidate an opportunity to withdraw.

Also, our bylaws permit voting by absentee ballot.  If there are multiple rounds of voting, are the number of absentee ballots only considered in the first round of voting?

 

[Transpower]

RONR frowns on absentee voting; see RONR (11th ed.), p. 423.  Absentee voting would continue after the first round, with no change.  Also, unless you have a special rule of order  to the contrary, "When repeated balloting for an office is necessary, individuals are never removed candidacy on the next ballot unless they voluntarily withdwaw--which they are not obligated to do." (RONR (11th ed.), p.  441, ll. 5-8; footnote.

[jstackpo]

3 hours ago, Guest J. Hauser said:

 My question is, what if the vote is pretty evenly split among the three candidates.  How many times do you re-vote?   If there is no clear winner after the first vote, would it be appropriate to reveal the number of votes received to each of the three candidates, in private, to give one candidate an opportunity to withdraw.

Also, our bylaws permit voting by absentee ballot.  If there are multiple rounds of voting, are the number of absentee ballots only considered in the first round of voting?

In the order you asked...

Re-vote:  as long as needed to get to the majority.

Reveal number:  The vote counts should be read to all members as part of the tellers report at the meeting.  No secrets.  See page 417.

Absentees:  They have to be offered a chance to re-vote in every round of voting right along with the members at the meeting.

This link might interest you;   click here :  https://www.dropbox.com/s/5lffcpb6w7wr26w/Elections and Choices.docx?dl=0

[Joshua Katz]

I have nothing to add on anything else, but regarding how many times to revote: it is a general rule of thumb that people want to go home eventually.  Sometimes, if multiple ballots are not producing the desired changes, a brief recess where people have informal conversations can be helpful.

[jstackpo]

And open the floor for nominations.  Folks might settle for "everybody's second choice" as a dark horse or compromise candidate.

(The Borda count does that semi-automatically.)

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

8 hours ago, Guest J. Hauser said:

IIf there is no clear winner after the first vote, would it be appropriate to reveal the number of votes received to each of the three candidates, in private, to give one candidate an opportunity to withdraw.

The ballots may be secret, but the vote tallies are not. The counts should be read aloud and entered into the minutes.

[Richard Brown]

7 hours ago, Transpower said:

RONR frowns on absentee voting; see RONR (11th ed.), p. 423.  Absentee voting would continue after the first round, with no change.  Also, unless you have a special rule of order  to the contrary, "When repeated balloting for an office is necessary, individuals are never removed candidacy on the next ballot unless they voluntarily withdwaw--which they are not obligated to do." (RONR (11th ed.), p.  441, ll. 5-8; footnote.

However, per the footnote on page 441, the assembly may vote to suspend the rules to remove the candidate with the fewest number of votes from the ballot after each round of voting.  However, unless the bylaws provide otherwise, such candidates who have been removed from the ballot are still eligible to be elected as write-in candidates.  As a practical matter, though, usually the members who have been voting for such a remove candidate wind up voting for someone else who is still on the ballot because they realize that some members simply change their votes in order to conclude the election and go home.   Here is the exact language from the footnote:

"An organization could suspend the rules, or adopt a special rule of order, so that the nominee with the fewest votes is dropped from the list of nominees for succeeding ballots in the expectation that voters will then confine their choice to the remaining nominees. Only a bylaws provision, however, could make the dropped nominee ineligible for election so as to render illegal any subsequent votes cast for that nominee".   (Footnote on page 441).

Candidates may, of course, voluntarily withdraw.  If they are tied, or if the assembly refuses to suspend the rules to remove the candidate with the fewest votes, the candidates may also agree among themselves to determine by lot, such as drawing straws or flipping a coin, that one of them will voluntarily withdraw.

[Transpower]

And, if you get tired of all this:  "If an assembly wishes to adjourn when an election is incomplete, an adjourned meeting should be provided for."  RONR (11th ed.), p. 444, ll. 10-12.

[Richard Brown]

10 hours ago, Guest J. Hauser said:

In a previous question to this forum, I asked how the winner is determined when there are three candidates running for an office. . . .  (Remainder of post omitted)

 

Guest J. Hauser, where is your previous question?  I think I remember it, but can't find it.  Was it posted using the same name, "J. Hauser"? 

[Guest J Hauser]

1 hour ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said:

The ballots may be secret, but the vote tallies are not. The counts should be read aloud and entered into the minutes.

"Absentee voting would continue after the first round, with no change."  What does this mean?  Absentee ballots are being collected prior to the date of the election because these voters are unable to attend the general meeting to vote.   If we have to have multiple rounds of voting on that day, it would not be possible to get absentee ballots for each round.  Would it be acceptable to include the absentee ballots for each round?

 

[Richard Brown]

10 hours ago, Guest J. Hauser said:

 . . .Also, our bylaws permit voting by absentee ballot.  If there are multiple rounds of voting, are the number of absentee ballots only considered in the first round of voting?

 

 

6 hours ago, jstackpo said:

Absentees:  They have to be offered a chance to re-vote in every round of voting right along with the members at the meeting.

 

John, Are you sure?  Based on some previous posts I have seen in this forum and also on two responses in the thread I link to below, there seems to be some uncertainty as to whether the absentee ballots should be counted again in the repeat balloting.  This could be especially problematic if a candidate withdraws, causing subsequent balloting to be on a different question.  Here's the thread I referred to: http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/31545-voting/

 

[jstackpo]

What I guess I wasn't clear on was that if additional rounds of voting are needed (to get to a majority, say) then the absentees have to be given the opportunity to vote again in those additional rounds.  The first round of absentee votes are NOT counted, or re-counted, in any subsequent rounds.

This, of course, is all but impossible when in-meeting and out-of-meeting (absentee) votes are combined in an election.  So don't do it.

You can't disenfranchise the absentees just because no majority was reached.  I suppose you could put such a rule in the bylaws, of course.   The right to vote is the rightest right of all.

[Gary Novosielski]

5 hours ago, jstackpo said:

And open the floor for nominations.  Folks might settle for "everybody's second choice" as a dark horse or compromise candidate.

(The Borda count does that semi-automatically.)

But implementing a Borda count would require a bylaws amendment.

[Gary Novosielski]

14 hours ago, Guest J. Hauser said:

If there is no clear winner after the first vote, would it be appropriate to reveal the number of votes received to each of the three candidates, in private, to give one candidate an opportunity to withdraw.

I'd like to reëmphasize that it would not be appropriate to reveal the vote counts in private, or to suggest that a candidate withdraw.  It is, instead, mandatory to reveal the vote counts to the entire assembly, whether close or not, so that the voters can factor that information into their choice on the next ballot, and see emerging trends for themselves. 

Candidates can also spot trends, and may decide to withdraw, but it is not unheard of for a last-place candidate to emerge as a dark-horse winner when it becomes obvious that the top choices are hopelessly deadlocked.

Here's what a proper teller's report looks like:

TELLERS’ REPORT

• Number of votes cast   97
• Necessary for election (majority)   49
• Mr. Miller received   51
• Mr. Wilson received   24
• Mr. Strong received   14
• Illegal Votes:
  • Mr. Friend (ineligible)   7
  • Two ballots for Mr. Wilson folded together, rejected   1

 

Note that the tellers' report does not declare a winner (in this case Mr. Miller wins).  As always, declaring a result is the job of the presiding officer.

 

[Richard Brown]

Agreeing with Mr. Novosielski, this is what RONR says about the tellers report and the vote count on page 418:  "The tellers' report is entered in full in the minutes, becoming a part of the official records of the organization. Under no circumstances should this be omitted in an election or in a vote on a critical motion out of a mistaken deference to the feelings of unsuccessful candidates or members of the losing side."   (Emphasis added by me).

[Shmuel Gerber]

28 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

Agreeing with Mr. Novosielski, this is what RONR says . . .

Well, I should think that it's Mr. Novosielski saying something in agreement with RONR, not the other way around. 

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

5 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

This could be especially problematic if a candidate withdraws, causing subsequent balloting to be on a different question.

How is it a different question? In every vote, the question remains "Who shall be elected?"

[Richard Brown]

32 minutes ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said:

How is it a different question? In every vote, the question remains "Who shall be elected?"

It is absolutely a different question. Candidate C is no longer on the ballot. Yes, he can be written in, but he is not one of the options being offered on the subsequent ballot. It is therefore a different question. You can't assume that those who voted for candidate C when he was listed on the ballot as a candidate would want to write his name in as a write-in candidate if he has announced that he is withdrawing and is not listed as a candidate on subsequent ballots.

[Josh Martin]

6 hours ago, jstackpo said:

This, of course, is all but impossible when in-meeting and out-of-meeting (absentee) votes are combined in an election.  So don't do it.

Excellent advice, but the society apparently has provided for exactly that in their bylaws, so how should they proceed now?

3 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

or to suggest that a candidate withdraw.

Oh, I don’t see anything wrong with suggesting that a candidate withdraw. It’s up to the candidate whether to listen to that suggestion, of course.