Throwing out votes in an election

[Guest Anxious voter]

Our election for president is to be done over 100 different worksites over the course of a week.  Each worksite is given an appropriate number of ballots and a roster of members at that worksite.  In the past, we've had people do some 'hanky-panky' and as a result, each ballot must be turned in and the roster initialed.  Now here is the problem: if the number of completed ballots does not equal the number of initials on the roster, all of the ballots for that worksite are thrown out.  This puts a huge burden on the larger worksites, since the odds of someone making a mistake goes up.  This also means that one person's error disenfranchises everyone else at the worksite.   Is this an acceptable practice?  What should be done in such a case?  Thank you!!

[Joshua Katz]

No, that's ridiculous.  (If you've adopted rules to that effect, though, you should follow them.)  If you have not adopted such rules, throwing away votes is a gross violation of, well, many things.  Not only does one person's error disenfranchise everyone else, but a person can deliberately disenfranchise everyone else if he knows he is in the minority in his workplace.

[Guest Anxious voter]

No, there are no rules to enforce the throwing out of votes, just previous practice.  What would be the appropriate way to deal with:

1.)  More votes than signatures

2.)  More signatures than ballots

 

Thank you for your help!!

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

There isn't any guidance for you in Robert's Rules, which does not permit such absentee voting. It's entirely up to your organization to create rules to deal with voting irregularities. I agree with Mr. Katz, however, that throwing out all the ballots because of one error is a lazy and draconian remedy.

[Richard Brown]

1 hour ago, Guest Anxious voter said:

No, there are no rules to enforce the throwing out of votes, just previous practice.  What would be the appropriate way to deal with:

1.)  More votes than signatures

2.)  More signatures than ballots

 

Thank you for your help!!

Are you telling us that no written rule requires the type of "throwing out" votes that you speak of, but that it has just become a custom?   If so, it absolutely violates the rights of members and disenfranchises them when they have done nothing wrong.  A basic right of membership is the right to vote.  The results of any such election where ballots were thrown out en masse should be null and void.

If that procedure is in your bylaws, they you may be stuck with it until you can change it.... and you should change it asap.  it is most unfair.

The way to resolve having more ballots cast than were signed for is to count all of the ballots anyway.  As long as there are not enough "extra" (possibly illegal) votes to affect the result, the results stand.  If a race is so close that the few "illegal" ballots could have affected the result, then the results of that election should be declared void and a new vote conducted.  It may be necessary to have a new election for only one of the numerous races that were on the ballot.  The key is whether there were enough questionable ballots to affect the result.

And institute better controls for future elections.

Edited to add:  I don't know that I would worry much about a FEW more signatures than ballots.  That might indicate, just as with city, state and national elections, that someone took a ballot (or entered the voting booth) after signing in and then decided just not to vote.  If it happens often, or in large numbers, it might be indicative of a more serious problem.   It's when you have more ballots than signatures that you need to be really careful and are more likely to have a problem.

Edited April 9, 2018 at 06:54 PM by Richard Brown
Added last paragraph

[Guest Zev]

My suggestion is for every secretary at each site initial the roster as the ballots are given out and for each voter to mark their ballot and insert the ballot into an individual sealed envelope, and have the voter sign the face of the envelope. Send the rosters and the still sealed envelopes back to main headquarters where each batch can be examined for eligibility. Legal votes can now be segregated. The envelopes are opened and each voter's ballot removed without revealing how they voted. The tellers can now tally the votes and prepare the report for the assembly. See RONR/11 pp. 424-425 for a similar method of voting.

Should we go ahead and quote that section for the OP in case they do not have the book?
 

[Guest Anxious voter]

Thank you all for your responses!  If someone could, please quote the section Guest Zev mentioned, as I do not have a book to reference the page numbers.

Thank you again!

 

[Guest Zev]

(I will leave it up to the monitor to decide if this is allowable. My apology if it is not.) 

For a vote by mail -- so that there may be no question of the result in the event that the vote is close -- it is important that the mailing list used should exactly correspond to the current official roll of voting members. For this purpose, the secretary should furnish to the chairman of tellers or other official in charge of issuing the ballots a list of the names and mailing addresses of record of all persons entitled to vote, which the secretary should certify as corrected to the date as of which the ballots are issued. Each nominee may be allowed to furnish for enclosure with the ballots a brief factual statement of his service and qualifications, provided that all nominees are accorded equal opportunity and space.

If the vote is not to be secret, the following items should be sent to each qualified voter: (1) a printed ballot containing a space for the voter's signature, to ensure against votes being cast by persons not entitled to vote, together with full instructions for marking and returning by the required date; and (2) a specially recognizable, self-addressed return envelope with the name and address of the secretary, the chairman of tellers, or other person designated to receive the marked ballot. E-mail and other means of electronic communication can be tailored to comply with these requirements.

If the vote is to be secret, an inner return envelope -- with a space for the voter's signature placed on its face instead of on the ballot -- should be sent to the voter with the ballot, in addition to the self-addressed outer return envelope described above. The ballot sent to the voter should be prefolded a sufficient number of times so that -- when returned marked and refolded in the same manner and sealed in the inner envelope -- there will be no chance of accidental observance of the member's vote by the teller who removes the ballot from the inner envelope. The person designated as addressee for the returned ballots should hold them in the outer envelopes for delivery, unopened, at the meeting of the tellers where the votes are to be counted. At that meeting all inner envelopes are first removed from the outer envelopes. In the procedure by which the tellers remove the ballots from the inner envelopes, each envelope and ballot is handled in the following manner: (1) the signature on the envelope is checked against the list of qualified voters; (2) the voter is checked off on the list as having voted; and (3) the envelope is opened and the ballot is removed and placed, still folded, into a receptacle. When all inner envelopes have thus been processed, the ballots are taken from the receptacle and the votes are counted. In order to ensure the accuracy and the secrecy of such a vote by mail, special care should be taken in all phases of handling the ballots. The chairman of tellers or other person responsible must be able to certify the results from both of these standpoints. Should the recipient of the ballots receive two evidently sent in by the same voter, the above procedure permits the voter to be contacted for a determination of which is the voter's true vote and, if both are, which (the most recent) is to be counted. As with respect to nonsecret ballots, e-mail and other means of electronic communication may be able to be tailored to comply with the above requirements for secret mail balloting.

[Richard Brown]

What Guest Zev suggested is essentially the method specified in RONR for voting absentee by mail, although if you do it as he suggested the votes will not be secret as the tellers who remove the ballots from the envelopes can see whose ballots they are.  You need double envelopes to insure secrecy:  An outer envelope with the voter's name and/or signature on it and then an inner envelope which contains the ballot.  The person who opens the ballot envelopes does not know who they are from.  I will quote the entire provision, but I do not believe it is appropriate for your situation.  At worst you just need better controls.  At best, you will have an occasional extra ballot or two.... which happens very often, even in public elections.  You are entitled to a fair election, but not necessarily a perfect election.  If the discrepancy isn't large enough to affect the outcome, ignore it (and work on doing better next time).

I see that while I was typing this Guest Zev copied and pasted the section in RONR he was referring to for absentee voting by mail.  Again, I do not think you need that procedure, but you certainly may use it.

[Gary Novosielski]

One often ignored point in RONR is the suggestion that each ballot cast should be folded twice by the voter. There is a reason for this. 

If someone tries to submit more than one ballot, they would remain folded together.  The tellers who are collecting the votes should ensure that the person has not already initialed the roster, that the person does then initial the roster, has folded the ballot twice, and has submitted only one folded ballot.  It is proper to allow the person to place the ballot into a ballot box, but the process should be observed to see that only one folded ballot is cast.  It is also proper to require the person to hand the ballot to a teller who inserts it in the ballot box, basket, or other container without unfolding it.

The job of the tellers in ensuring valid voting is important, and they should allow no exceptions.

If, when the ballots are being counted, it is discovered that two ballots are folded together, both of them are rejected as illegal votes.

There is no situation where an irregularity in one ballot would require throwing out all the votes for an entire unit.  That's nuts, unless one vote could affect the outcome of the election.

Edited April 9, 2018 at 10:13 PM by Gary Novosielski

[Josh Martin]

19 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

If, when the ballots are being counted, it is discovered that two ballots are folded together, both of them are rejected as illegal votes.

To be more precise, the two ballots are collectively counted as a single illegal vote.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 4/10/2018 at 1:25 PM, Josh Martin said:

To be more precise, the two ballots are collectively counted as a single illegal vote.

Ah yes. That is considerably more precise by a factor of two. Thanks.