J. J.

On 2/14/2024 at 11:15 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Got it.

I do not believe that the number of candidates would change the minority protected, if I understand Mr. Gerber's premise. 

On 2/14/2024 at 11:14 AM, Shmuel Gerber said:

Five just happens to be the number of candidates in JJ's example; there could have been more. There are still only four seats being elected. 

Is my example an accurate description of what you are suggesting?  The minority protected would be any number greater than 24 voters?

If I understand correctly, this is what Mr. Gerber is suggesting:

In this example, there are five candidates, G, H, J, K, & M.  120 voters each cast 4 votes for the seats, using cumulative voting.

Ballots 1-24 has all 4 votes for G (96 vote)

Ballot 25 has one vote for G and 1 vote each for H, J, & K.

Ballot 26-120 has one vote each for H, J, K, & M. (Each gets 95 votes)

The total are:

G gets 97 votes

H gets 96 votes

J gets 96 votes

K gets 96 votes

M gets 95 votes

G, H, J and K are elected because they have the highest votes (though all have more than more than a majority).

G will always get enough to be in the top 4 matter how you distribute the votes among M, H, J, & K.

If J, for example, gets 63 votes and the other 3 get them evenly, the result is:  G 97, H 111, K 111, M 110 and J 63.  G is still elected.  Even if H got all of those votes the result would be G 97, H 129, K 96, M 95 & J 63.  Even if J got just 3 vote and they were distributed evenly, the result would be G 97, H 127, K 127, M 126 & J 3. 

There is no circumstance where any minority greater than 1/5 cannot elect G in this case. 

I think this what Mr. Gerber is suggesting. 

Yes, it would be necessary to use suspend the rules to limit debate and amendment.  See Section 25.

It will take a 2/3 vote.

On 2/13/2024 at 6:47 PM, Dan Honemann said:

I believe these two things to be true:

1. If 120 members vote in an election to elect 4 members to a committee, a candidate must receive at least 61 votes in order to be elected.

2. The minimum number of members that can cast at least 61 votes for a candidate is 16.  This, then, is the number of members protected by the rule. 

Do you (Mr. Gerber, that is) disagree with either or both of these statements?

 

1.  Yes.

2.  I am going with no.  The minority protected is the number of members that, by this rule, is the number that can always elect at  least one member.  16 members may not be able to elect in all circumstances, even if they have a majority.  Even in straight majority voting for multiple positions, a majority of the votes cast does not necessarily elect. 

On 2/13/2024 at 5:45 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

I would say yes, but apparently there's still some confusion (and I do not understand why) about what "total votes" means and how it affects the formula. 

Total votes are total number of votes cast, excluding abstentions (obviously by legitimate voters at a properly called meeting). 

On 2/13/2024 at 5:26 PM, Atul Kapur said:

J.J., have you changed your position and moved away from the formula you had previously used? I see that you've edited your post to strike that out.

If you now agree with Mr. Gerber, then that changes things and makes them somewhat simpler. If you would also agree that cumulative voting does not protect a minority,that would simplify things immensely. 

First of all, as I've said, I'm not wedded to any specific proposition.

However, Mr. Gerber's case makes a strong argument that this does protect a minority, a minority  large enough to always elect.  The fraction is always there and is unchanged by the number of people voting.  It changes only the numerator, but not the fraction. 

On 2/13/2024 at 5:06 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

Not exactly 20%, but any number greater than 20%.

Okay, I can see that. 

M = Minority Protected

T = Total voters casting at least one vote

P = Number of  Positions

M > T / (P+1)

M > 120/(4+1)

M > 24 

A negative vote of any number greater than 24 will prevent the rules from being suspended.

Is that correct? 

On 2/13/2024 at 4:56 PM, Atul Kapur said:

You cannot state that and, at the same time say

because it is dependent on the number of people voting.

[Yes, I recognize you didn't say them at the same time, but in the same thread is still close enough to create the inconsistency].

Depending on how many votes are cast, one person could be enough to elect a candidate.

We don't know how many will vote in the election. There is no reason to assume it is the same number as vote on the rule suspension (although that is likely the maximum). Hence the safest (ie most protective) assumption is to assume the smallest minority, one member.

[I'm again very glad that this is an imaginary scenario.]

No, the fraction will always remain the same.  Assume that Mr. Gerber is correct.  The minority protected by the rule would always be 1/5 or 20%.

It is like saying a rule protects a minority of 1/3.  One third of the people voting might be 10 members (30 voting), butit could be 50 members (150 voting). The fraction remains the same.

On 2/13/2024 at 4:12 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

I don't understand any of these complicated calculations or where they're coming from.

In an election of four committee members in which cumulative voting is allowed, a minority of more than 1/5 (that is, more than 1/(4+1), or 20% of the votes cast) is guaranteed election of one candidate of their choice if they put all of their votes on that choice. 

 

Let me try too understand.

You are opining that is all cases, if 20% of the voters cast all their votes for one candate that this candidate is assured of election.  Is that correct?

If so, the minority protected is 20% because, in all cases, 20%is guaranteed of electing their one candidate.  It that correct?

On 2/13/2024 at 4:12 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

If someone can tell me where I've gone wrong, I would appreciate it. Although I would prefer to be told that I am absolutely correct. 🙂

I'm not certain if you are wrong, but here is how I would express it.

The minority protected is the minimum number that could, based on the number of members voting, elect one person to that office.

The minimum number that could elect, the minority protected (M), is any number greater than the total number voting (TV), divided by two (2), divided by the number of positions (P).  It would expressed as M > (TV/2) / P.  Any number of votes equal to or greater than M would bean that the rule could not be suspended.

If 120 people vote, M is any number greater than (120/2) / 4 or 60 / 4 or 15.  The minority protected is any number of votes greater than 15.  That is because that, in this circumstance, it will take something more than 15 voters to give their candidate a majority.

If 20 people vote, M is any number greater than (20/2) / 4 or 10/4 or 2.5.  The minority protected is any number of votes greater than 2.5.  That is because that, in this circumstance, it will take something more than 2.5 voters to give their candidate a majority.

I am not certain if that what you are saying. 

On 2/13/2024 at 3:12 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Mr. Martin’s scenario:

There are four members to elect to the committee. 120 members vote, a majority of which is 61. An individual member could cast, at most, four votes for one candidate. 61 divided by 4 is 15.25. Therefore, a minimum of 16 members would need to vote for a candidate in order to ensure his election. The fraction of members protected by the rule, therefore, is 2/15 (13.33%).   

Under my scenario:

There are four members to elect to the committee. 20 members vote, a majority of which is 11. An individual member could cast, at most, four votes for one candidate. 11 divided by 4 is 2.75.  Therefore, a minimum of 3 members would need to vote for a candidate in order to ensure his election. The fraction of members protected by the rule, therefore, is 3/20 (15%)

 

Assuming that the quorum was met, no.

First of all, a majority is any number over 10 in this case.  It is 11 in whole numbers, but that not the definition of a majority (44:1).  

Calculating the minority protected is any number greater than half of the votes cast divided by the number positions or slots to be elected.  So the minority is any number greater than 10 / 4 or 2.5.  If more than 2.5 votes are cast against suspending the rule 25. 7 (second line applies). 

The rule protects a minority of greater than 1/8.  There may easily be situations where more than 1/8 will vote against suspension. 

On 2/13/2024 at 1:37 PM, Dan Honemann said:

If you go back and look you will see that I have demonstrated that the fraction will change depending upon the number of voters.  The greater the disparity in number, the greater the change in the fraction.

The fraction itself will not change. The numeric value of what the fraction equals, in this case 7/8, will possibly change, base on the number of votes cast. 

If some thing requires a 2/3 vote, and there are 30 votes, that thing requires 20 or more votes.  If some thing requires a 2/3 vote, and there are 60 votes, that thing requires 40 or more votes.  The fraction is still 2/3 in both cases. 

On 2/9/2024 at 2:21 PM, Atul Kapur said:

I believe that is an error to take the fact that the rule, among other things, gives the minority the ability to utilize a particular tactic and claim that therefore this is a "rule protecting a minority of a particular size", particularly since there is no guarantee that the tactic will be successful.

 

The tactic, however, will be successful, if the minority passes a certain threshold in the proportion of votes.  That will always be at a point of less than 1/3 at least in this example. 

On 2/9/2024 at 1:21 PM, Dan Honemann said:

 

When you say that "we know what the minimum is to guarantee it" what are you referring to?

I would say, the minimum is the number that could elect, based on the number of votes cast to suspend the rule. 

On 2/9/2024 at 3:12 PM, Dan Honemann said:

But since the election will be held by cumulative voting regardless of what they wanted, all of the rules relating thereto will be in full force and effect.  

I don't see how it could be otherwise. The election will be held by ballot, so any effect that abstentions and yes votes in voting on the motion to suspend the rules will have on the election will affect all voters equally.  

If I vote no or abstain on a motion to reconsider, do I lose any of my rights on reconsideration if the motion to reconsider is adopted?

No, the vote would not be held by cumulative voting, if a sufficient number vote to suspend that rule.  The question is what is that number?

The election will not be held by secret ballot.

On 2/9/2024 at 11:32 AM, Dan Honemann said:

It is not possible to determine what vote will be needed for adoption of the motion to suspend the rules without knowing how many votes will be cast in the election. 

 

 

 

This is not hypothetical.  Why not?

If there was a rule, for example, that 1/5 voting could order a ballot vote on any main motion, why would we need to know what the result would be prior to suspending the rules (by greater than a 4/5 vote). 

Perhaps, in light of this question, we should ask if cumulative voting creates a right members, including those that abstain, or for members that  vote?

On 2/9/2024 at 10:23 AM, Josh Martin said:

Oh, I understand, you're saying it would be based on the number of persons voting on the motion to Suspend the Rules.

I hadn't considered that possibility. Certainly, since it will not be known in advance how many persons would vote in the election itself, some proxy must be used for this. I had used the number of members present. But using the number of persons voting on the motion to Suspend the Rules would be another alternative.

Okay then, Jacobs 2. 

This would be identical to a motion to suspend the rules, except for the vote needed, because of the second line of 25.2 7, i.e. the rule protects a minority of less than 1/3.  I had actually taken that to be your initial position.

On 2/9/2024 at 8:06 AM, Josh Martin said:

Are you saying the assembly is suspending the rules after the votes are cast?

No, but I am suggesting the vote needed to suspend could be 87.5%, or 7/8 of the votes cast, which I think is your premise. 

The rule described is tantamount to a rule stating that a minority of greater than 1/8 could elect one committee member.  That is clearly covered under the second sentence of 25:2 7.

I would be interested in hearing opinions on why the rule could only be suspended by 7/8 of the entire membership or why the rule could not be suspended.

On 2/8/2024 at 7:13 PM, Dan Honemann said:

I don't think that any of this is accurate, but let's just focus now on the assertion that the fraction will not change based on a change in the number of people voting.

Suppose, in your original scenario, only 20 of the 120 members present vote in the election for the 4 seats on the committee. This means that 11 votes will be needed for adoption, and that a minimum of 3 members will need to vote for a candidate in order to ensure his election. This is 3/20 (15%) of the members voting, which is not the same fraction arrived by Mr. Martin when he assumed that all 120 of the members present vote. 

If Mr. Martin thinks I have gotten any of this wrong (I wouldn't be shocked if I have), I hope that he will so advise us.

 

The fraction is still the same under Mr. Martin's premise.  If there are 120  votes cast, 105 votes would be needed to suspend the rules.  If there are 100 votes cast, 88 votes would be needed (in whole numbers) would be needed to suspend the rule.  If 20 votes are cast,  then 18 votes (in whole numbers) would be needed.

Both mathematically and by the terms of 46:45 there is a rule protecting a minority of a particular size. 

On 2/8/2024 at 12:29 PM, Dan Honemann said:

None of this makes any sense.

 

I agree that the rule can be suspended.  The dispute concerns whether the second sentence of 25:2(7) is applicable.

But isn't it true that this fraction will vary depending upon what assumption is made concerning how many of the members present will vote? 

The first paragraph makes sense to everyone else.

The second line is applicable, because the minority will always be less than 1/3.

No, it may, in fact, be based on the total number of members, i.e. the total number that could vote.  That is one possibility. 

Further the percentage will not change based on the number of people voting in either example.  For example, if Mr. Martin's premise is correct, the rule will always protect a minority of greater than 12.5% of the members voting; at least 87.5% of the voters is needed to suspend the rule.  If my premise is correct, it will always protect a minority of greater than 12.5% of the members; at least 87.5% of the membership is needed to suspend the rule.

The percentage necessary is based on the number of positions or slots, not the number of voters or members, and it is fixed progression.

If the rule can be suspended, and Mr. Martin is right, the minority protected is anything above these numbers:

2 slots- 25%- 75% needed to suspend

3 slots-16.6667%-83.333% needed to suspend
4 slots- 12.5%-87.5%             "  "
5 slots - 10%-90%                  ''   ''
6 slots - 8.3333%-91.6667%  "    "
7 slots - 7.1429%-92.8671%  "      "
8 slots - 6.5%- 93.5%            "        " 
9 slots- 5.5556%-94.4444%  "       "
10  slots - 5%-95%                   "       "

Under Mr. Martin's premise the percentage would be of the members voting. 

If the rule can be suspended, and I am right, the minority protected is anything above these numbers:

2 slots- 25%- 75% needed to suspend

3 slots-16.6667%-83.333% needed to suspend
4 slots- 12.5%-87.5%             "  "
5 slots - 10%-90%                  ''   ''
6 slots - 8.3333%-91.6667%  "    "
7 slots - 7.1429%-92.8671%  "      "
8 slots - 6.5%- 93.5%            "        " 
9 slots- 5.5556%-94.4444%  "       "
10  slots - 5%-95%                   "       "

Under my premise the percentage would be of the total membership.

In neither case would this percentage fluctuated on the number of people voting, at least as I would understand Mr. Martin's premise. 

First, I will disagree that this, if authorized in the bylaws is a rule in the nature of a rule of order and therefor, in that case suspendable; RONR prevents it from being a rule of order (2:16) fn 5).  However, that is not relevant to this situation as the bylaws permit this to be created as a rule of order.

Second, I am still of the opinion that the rule could be suspended as per 25:2 7.

Third it is a misstatement of fact to claim that this would not be fraction.

On 2/8/2024 at 7:31 AM, Dan Honemann said:

At least for now, I'll stick to my admittedly simplistic belief that "a minority of a particular size" refers to a certain fraction, such as one-fifth. 

A fraction is a type of mathematical formula.  In the one described in the quoted post it could mean "one fifth of the membership/5," e.g. if the membership is 200, 1/5 is 40.  Since it is unspecified.  From the quote, it also could have a different numerator, e.g. "one fifth of the members voting."  In that case, even with 200 members, if 120 voted, 24 is 1/5.

Both the answers provided by Mr. Martin and myself are fractions. 

Martin's Answer:  The minority protected is any number greater than  (Total number of voters / 2) / number of positions.  In the example (120/2) / 4 or 60 / 4 or any number greater than 15. (12.5% of numerator x 2)  The rule not be suspended by a vote of less than 105 of the members voting.

Jacobs Answer:  The minority protected is any number greater than  (Total number members/2) / number of positions]  In the example, (200 /2) / 4] or 100/4 or 25. (12.5% of numerator x 2)  The rule could not be suspended by a vote of less than 175. 

Claiming that this is not a fraction is gross misstatement of fact.  To the contrary, both of these yield the said percentage of the numerator. 

On 2/7/2024 at 7:24 PM, Dan Honemann said:

But Guest James seems to despair of ever arriving at that point.

I have to, at times, only to discover that the information does exist.

Using the rules for Amend Something Previously Adopted will prevent a possible problem. 

On 2/7/2024 at 7:05 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

Well then I have to disagree. I don't see what the point would be in having a rule that enfranchises the members in a certain way, if 2/3 of the members voting could get their desired outcome by suspending the rules when they could not achieve it directly. 

I agree with you, for several reasons.

However, it still raises these questions:

1.  Can the rule be suspended?

2.  If yes, what is the vote needed to suspend? 

On 2/7/2024 at 6:53 PM, J. J. said:

I did in my first quote. 

On 2/7/2024 at 4:25 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Suspension of the rule doesn't take away any individual member's right to vote.  It takes away the right of all members to cast their votes in a certain manner.  All members are still entitled to cast their votes for candidates of their choice. 

Right there.