J. J.

It could, indirectly, reveal voter preference. I am factoring that issue out, however.

I would be interested in hearing Dr. Kapur's premise that the rule does not protect a minority of, in this case, less than 1/3. I will note that the fraction protected by the rule is always the same fraction, based on the number of positions, under Mr. Gerber's premise. For example, if there were all 200 members voting, the minority protected would be any number greater than 1/5 of the voters*. Likewise, if only 20 people voted the minority protected would be any number greater than 1/5 of the voters. *A voter here is any member who casts at least one vote for the position. The vote is not by secret ballot.

I would not. Would you say that for the purposes of 44:1 a majority is 61/120 and that this will be so regardless of how many members vote in the election and how many positions are to be filled? (I hope not.)

Just for the record, if there are more than one position to be chosen, and the vote is by straight majority voting, it is entirely possible for someone to get a majority and not be elected. That is why I am seeing something comparable.

Just to follow up on your example, if 100 people voted, the rule could not be suspended in the face of any number above 20.

No, technically. The fraction election is any amount above 1/5 of the members voting (for at least one candidate). The minority protected is any about greater than the total number of members voting (for at least one candidate) divided by the sum of the number of positions to be elected plus one. Minority to be protected = M Total number of voters voting for at least one candidate = T Total number of positions to be elected = P M > T/(P+1) M is the minimal number that would be capable of electing one person without any additional votes. [Note that I have not used the term ballot, because the vote would secret and not subject to suspension. If this were non secret ballots, i.e. signed ballots, T would be the total number of ballots with at least one vote on it.]

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.