Gary Novosielski

The term "preferential voting" does not have only one meaning. The method described in RONR, called single transferrable vote, or sometimes instant runoff voting (STV/IR), is an attempt to duplicate--to the extent possible in one round of voting--the effect of multiple ballots in the classical method. There is no question that a member may express multiple preferences in multiple rounds of voting in the classical method, but just as with STV/IR, only one of those votes will have any effect--the one cast in the final deciding round. So by that measure, neither method violates one-person-one-vote. But there are other types of preference-based balloting. One significant class is the Borda count. There are several variants, but the all use the same type of ballot as in STV/IR; candidates are ranked in order of preference. But the similarity ends there. There are no multiple rounds of voting. Rather, for each ballot cast, candidates are assigned a number of points based on how highly preferred they are by that voter. Totals are simply accumulated and added together. In that respect it shares the characteristic (defect?) of approval voting that it cannot properly be said to embody one-person-one vote. Another type is the Condorcet method, which attempts to simulate all possible head-to-head matches, using the same preferential ballot data, but using it to determine the winner of each pairwise contest, and awarding election to whoever is preferred by the greatest number of voters. Again, variations exist. And it's not clear to me that it passes the one-vote test. It might, but it makes my head hurt to think about it. Each of these methods solves some of the paradoxes that arise in the others, and introduces paradoxes of its own. But I don't think it would be possible to simply authorize preferential voting in the bylaws without specifying what type. I've responded to some of this above. With respect to approval voting, my major objection is that in determining the overall preference, it ignores the individual preferences. The rank each voter assigns or could assign to the candidates, is simply discarded. As I said in a prior post, this is more likely to select the most inoffensive candidate rather then the most preferable. I would rank approval voting above plurality voting, but below the various preferential types, which in turn I rank below classical multi-round balloting which preserves the preferences of voters in a performative step-wise manner, and stands alone in allowing full information between rounds, by which a voter can dynamically respond to previous rounds, even by moving to reopen nominations.

I do not have trouble with blank-filling as being a series of votes, because when it occurs, it is done literally as a series of individual votes, ordered in a reasonable sequence. In the context of an election, there is an explicit blank-filling process, viz. Nominations, which closely follows the form of blank filling, in that: The member offering the suggestion need not be recognized The suggestion need not be seconded. The chair accepts and announces the suggestion. A member can make only one suggestion per blank to be filled. While suggestions are open, they are debatable. The process does not decide the main question, which must ultimately be put to a final vote. There is a distinct difference, though. Nominations mirror the process of collecting suggestions, but not the distilling of choices down to one before proceeding to a final vote. In the context of an election, that process is, in effect, the election itself. It accomplishes both the voting on suggestions [12:102 ff.] and the final adoption--the latter because, unlike most questions, rejecting an election is not an option. In 12:103, we see that when a ballot vote occurs on filling blanks, each member marks, for each blank to be filled, one preference--not as many as may be acceptable. This mirrors an election ballot. So closely, in fact, that write-in suggestions are valid in both cases, even if not suggested/nominated earlier.

I suppose that's one way of looking at it, but it strikes me as a fairly tortuous interpretation that does not stand close scrutiny. It reminds me of a riddle that Abe Lincoln was fond of: "If the tail of a dog were called a leg, how many legs would a dog have?" Lincoln's answer: "Four. Calling the tail a leg doesn't make it one."

It would be in order to establish a committee charged with investigating the possible existence of incorrect copies of the bylaws floating around. The minutes are the authoritative source of what is and is not the correct text of the bylaws. Familiarize yourself with any customized discipline procedures contained in (a correct copy of) your bylaws, and if they're silent, with the procedures outlined in RONR (12th ed.) §63, especially as it concerns the establishment of an investigative committee. It is not necessary that the resolution establishing this committee (see 63:9) include the name of the president or others. It can be charged with investigating the bylaws situation and returning any recommendations, "including those related to any apparent wrong-doing it may discover." If it fails to discover any convincing evidence of malicious behavior, it can still establish firmly what the bylaws actually say. Ultimately, this may result in the removal of the president or others. but that's as far as RONR can take you. Any criminal or civil litigation would be well beyond the scope of RONR, and will require the help of an attorney. I doubt the police would take an interest in this situation, and would likely inform you that it's a civil matter, but that's guesswork on my part.

You're right. The chair has no such power. I'd point out that the motion to Lay on the Table is rarely in order in ordinary societies. You probably mean Postpone to a Certain Time.

What's not correct is a nominating committee that "provides a slate of officers". A nominating committee should report a list of nominees. These nominees (and any additional nominees from the floor after that report is received) then stand for election.

The chair was correct in ignoring it. A Point of Order can only be raised in a meeting. And on what grounds would these points be raised? From your description, there were no rules broken, and as long as the number of departing members did not cause a loss of quorum, votes are valid. If you voluntarily leave a meeting, you are presumably aware that things may be decided in your absence. [ A. I neglected to press Submit on this post earlier this morning, so it will appear: at the bottom of the thread; and, to be channeling Mr. Merritt to a large degree. apologies to those whom this irritates. B. To add some actual new info to this, I'll mention that there is a parliamentary device that is tailor-made for the scenario offered by Guest Libby. The motion to Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes (see 37:46) is designed to prevent action by an unrepresentative majority in a meeting that still has a quorum present. Unfortunately it is one of the most convoluted rules in all of RONR, and not generally on the tip of anyone's tongue in an organization whose purpose is other than obsessing over the rules in RONR. 😏 ] :

I agree that preferential voting is inferior to repeated ballots, but substantially superior to plurality voting, in that the ultimate victor has at least partially-hearted support from a majority of voters. I do not think it violates on-person-one-vote in any way, since when the music stops, each person who casts a ballot will have cast at most one vote for one candidate. It's true that it does not provide full information between rounds of voting which could affect future votes, but it does at least partially address the matter by asking the question: If your favorite does not win, then what?" It does not provide information beyond that single hypothetical, but it does attempt to do what can be done within the limits of holding only one single round of balloting. I do support the rule that using it must be provided for in the bylaws, if for no other reason than that there are multiple ways of counting preference ballots, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. It is mathematically provable that there is no perfect method of balloting. Approval voting is not mentioned in RONR, so we don't have a good feel for what the authorship might think of it. I think it's a stretch to say that it is in the nature of filling blanks. We are told [in 46:1] that there is, in effect, such a procedure and it is called Nominations. Approval voting, in my view, is more in the nature of casting votes--hence the name. But rather than being one-person-one-vote, it is one person (n - 1) votes, where n is the number of candidates. Technically one might cast n votes, but voting for everyone does not indicate any preference and is, in effect, an abstention. So I think on that point it should require a bylaws provision, since it violates the one-vote principle. Approval voting shares the advantage of a single one-and-done ballot, but here, the voter is operating with even less--nearly zero--information. With no way to express any preference, a voter is forced to give the same weight to someone they vastly prefer as to someone they can barely tolerate. Adding up all those votes does provide us with a number, it's true. But stripping out all the ranking information raises the question of what, if anything, that number represents. It yields a choice, not so much of the most qualified as the most inoffensive.

Oh, I'm sure it has in this instance. And all the more reason to consider the outcome final.

With what instructions, if any? I think if it is desired to save final approval for some future time, a revision could be proposed, as many articles as practical could be considered and perfected seriatim, and the question simply postponed to the next meeting, where it could be taken up from that point forward. When, after several meetings, all the paragraphs had been considered, the final adoption vote for the entire revision would activate it all at once.

Well, I'd be hesitant too. The minutes do not stand approved unless and until members have had the opportunity to offer corrections. As long as all the corrections have not be dealt with (either accepted or rejected) the minutes are not final. If they are such a mess that they need to be completely "redone", then there is no need to accept verbal reassurance, since until that happens they will remain unapproved, and after they are redone, they will have to be read/printed and again come before the assembly for any remaining corrections.

Then I shall undertake such consideration with all deliberate speed.

I concur with the idea that if a resignation is rejected, the question is disposed of, and nothing remains to be withdrawn. I base this on the characteristics [32:2] of the general motion: Request to be Excused From a Duty. There is no indication there that any portion of the question remains undecided after the vote. Once the person has been made aware of the outcome, the action has been carried out. There is one exception in that even then, a vote to reject the request can be reconsidered, but if it is not, then the motion is lost (and presumably could be renewed). And if it is reconsidered and subsequently adopted, then we're back to the previous situation, i.e., we're done.

If you're referring to an Adjourned Meeting, you continue the order of business where you left off, but it is still necessary to establish a quorum. RONR does not require a roll call, but if your rules require one, follow the rule. (Typically it would be the Secretary who calls the roll, not the chair.)

If the rules in RONR apply, "slates" are not voted on, and in fact are not a thing. The report of the nominating committee is not called a slate, it is called the Report of the Nominating Committee. It is a list of individual nominees, each of whom is elected (or not) individually, not as a group. After the report of the Nominating Committee is delivered, the chair must call for additional nominations from the floor. If a ballot vote is required by the bylaws, one must be held, and write-in votes are permitted (and space should be allowed for them on the ballot). If a ballot vote is not required, any unopposed candidate can simply be declared elected "by acclamation". If there are no nominees for an office, write-in votes are still possible, but unless the bylaws provide otherwise, any election must be by majority vote, i.e., any elected candidate must receive more votes than all other candidates for that office, combined. A second and subsequent ballots may be necessary. If, at the conclusion of the voting, an office remains unfilled, the election is incomplete, and still must be completed as soon as possible. Depending on what your bylaws say about the term of office (look for a phrase such as "...until their successors shall be elected"), an existing incumbent might remain in office until the election is completed. If the office becomes vacant, a person can be appointed to fill it, but only until the election can be completed. [I see that @Richard Brownbeat me to the Save button, but fortunately, we agree.]

Well, technically, I believe the resignations would be accepted by the authority empowered to fill the resulting vacancy. It seems like a minor distinction, but the point is that it does not matter how the individual originally came to hold the position, but rather who has the power to appoint a successor. With respect to resignation from membership as opposed to an office, a resignation can only be rejected if the member's dues payments are not up to date (see 32:8).

Wellll, yes, but I see I was not the only one to post a somewhat redundant reply on that point, which gives me a soupçon of solace that any damage I did was minor. <whew> 😥 "If anyone disagrees with anything I say, I am quite prepared not only to retract it, but to deny under oath I ever said it." --Tom Lehrer

I was not. I'm beginning to think that reading to the end of the thread before replying might be something to consider. 🤐

Why not? Being present is not a required condition for being nominated. The only requirement is being eligible for election, from the point of view of the rules.

Of course not.

Yes. Refer to RONR (12th ed.) §24 Appeal

I concur with @Atul Kapur

Yes, they become members after it was proposed, but before it will have been adopted. It's the second vote that actually adopts the change to the bylaws (or, possibly, rejects it).

There are a number of special rules regarding this motion, and you would do well to read that section for details.

It may depend on the bylaws, and what they say about the objectives of the society. It could be ruled out of order if it conflicted with them, perhaps. But even if the chair cannot refuse the motion, the membership can adopt an Objection to the Consideration of a Question, which is covered in RONR 12th ed. §26.