Alicia Percell, PRP

Do you think that preferential voting violates the one-vote rule? The voter gets to list multiple people on the ballot. I get that only one of the listed candidates is counted per round of tabulation, but still you're allowing them on a single ballot to express multiple options for who gets elected. If your concern is whether people are only voting on one question AT A TIME, then preferential voting lets people submit one ballot that answers multiple questions simultaneously...for top choice, for second choice, etc. RONR allows a single ballot to ask multiple questions at a time. Preferential voting uses a single ballot to measure the relative approval of one voter for Candidate A vs. Candidate B. Approval voting doesn't ask the individual voter to rank relative levels of approval for the candidates, but it asks "How many of these would be acceptable to you?" and uses all the ballots collectively to measure the approval level from all the voters for Candidate A vs. Candidate B with each voter weighed equally. Isn't that a pretty good measure of the will of the majority if it can be assessed which of the candidates has the broadest approval from the membership? The question being asked isn't technically the direct question of which one of these should be elected.

I'm glad this subject came up on the forums, as I've been thinking of posing the question here just to see what others thought about it. I was pretty happy when others responded so we could have a debate on the merits. Mr. Novosielski wrote, "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." So let me challenge the thinking this way: Do you have trouble viewing the filling-a-blank process as being a series of votes on separate questions, which is how RONR describes it? If not, then why is it harder to see approval voting that way? I'm truly not asking for the purpose of criticizing. It's a genuine question to some pretty well-versed people here. I wanna know if there's something I'm missing.

Eeek! Yes, I did intend to have a "no" there. Thanks! I edited to fix it.

Not unless your organization has a special rule giving the chair this special power, as RONR conveys no such power to the chair. A motion to refer to a committee needs a majority vote for adoption. One "vote" from the chair does not suffice...unless it's a very odd situation in which he is the only one choosing to vote and all the others abstain.

I'm just adding citations to support the answer given above: RONR (12th ed.) 2:8(4) and 2:21.

In which case, it absolutely would need to be in the bylaws to be authorized. I didn't follow the breadcrumbs here. RONR doesn't require bylaws authorization for filling a blank, so if approval voting is akin to filling a blank, I didn't make the connection for why that would lead to a conclusion that bylaws authorization would be needed for approval voting. The point I was wishing to make from 12:102 is that instead of seeing the sequence as being a single vote on the question of which of these options should fill the blank, it is a series of votes on separate questions...should option A fill the blank? should option B fill the blank? And approval voting can be seen as -- not a single question of who should be elected -- but a series of separate votes even if done on a ballot...Would you approve of candidate A being elected? Would you approve of candidate B being elected? Listing the candidate on the ballot means it's a yes to the question of whether you approve of that candidate. So in the same way, approval voting can be seen as a series of separate votes on separate questions, combined with a rule that says the candidate with the most approval from that series of questions is elected. And if it's separate questions, there is not a violation of the one-vote-per-member-per-question. On that note, I suppose I should clarify that since RONR doesn't address approval voting, per se, we don't have a definition-in-common of exactly what it is we're discussing here. Since there are varying incarnations of it, I should have been more specific about one particular aspect. If it is seen (as mentioned above) as a one-and-done process and then whoever has the most approval is the winner ...even if it's just a plurality...then 44:11 says a previously established rule allowing such is needed, and if it's for officer election then it must be in the bylaws. However, approval voting can also be combined with a requirement for a majority for election, and subsequent rounds of voting if no majority was achieved on the first round. With the majority requirement for election, it bypasses the 44:11 issues.

It might be useful for you to take a copy of the draft minutes and do your own markup (using MS-Word's track changes feature, or something equivalent) of what you think needs to be changed. Provide that to the secretary, and perhaps many/all of your requests will be made by the secretary for the next draft version. Then at the next meeting you only need to offer corrections for the items about which there is disagreement.

Just because it was the chair's opinion that the group needed "more discussion before we moved forward," the chair can't unilaterally impose that opinion on the majority, and apparently the majority disagreed and decided to move ahead. As Mr. Merritt noted above, just because "quite a few of the quorum had left" already, as long as the number remaining was still a quorum, the action taken was valid.

On the specific question of whether RONR prohibits members from discussing their opinions with each other after the meeting is over, the answer is no. It will be up to your organization to evaluate whether the actions in question warrant some sort of disciplinary action against the participants using the procedures noted above.

Presuming that your organization's bylaws allow special meetings, RONR (12th ed.) 9:13 requires that, "Notice of the time, place, and purpose of the meeting, clearly and specifically describing the subject matter of the motions or items of business to be brought up, must be sent to all members a reasonable number of days in advance." (emphasis added) The entire membership be given notice, and social media doesn't necessarily get the notice to all members. Unless you have a custom rule that allows a social media post in an unofficial group to suffice for special meeting notice, then it likely doesn't suffice. Please post a verbatim copy of any rule your organization has adopted about what is required to call a special meeting and anything that is said about how notice can be provided.

I see approval voting as being much more analogous to filling a blank than to preferential voting. In both approval voting and filling a blank, you are choosing from multiple options The two key differences I see between approval voting and filling a blank are: 1) In filling a blank there is a potentially ordered sequence for separate votes on each option. With approval voting, though, there's no particular sequence, and if the assembly uses ballots for the election, then a single ballot contains a vote for each acceptable option which is acceptable to that member. 2) In filling a blank, you stop voting on the options as soon as one achieves a majority, and that option fills the blank for a final vote on the main motion. With approval voting, though, all the options are voted on, and it realizes the possibility that multiple options could be acceptable to a majority, but the option receiving the highest vote which is also a majority is chosen. The reason I think that RONR says preferential voting needs to be in the bylaws is because of the factors in 45:69. It denies the voters the option of casting their second-round vote after they saw the results from the first round, and because the candidate/proposition in last place on round one is automatically eliminated if no candidate received a majority of first-preference votes. You're taking away some fairly important options from the members, and depriving an eligible and willing candidate in round two, thus there ought to be bylaws authorization. Approval voting, however, has neither of the features in 45:69, thus it doesn't seem to me that it would require bylaw authorization to use it. And see 12:102 for the explanation that filling a blank treats each of the proposals as a separate question, so that means it does not violate the fundamental principle of one vote per member on a question. Similarly approval voting lets you approve (or not) of each option, and since each is a separate question, it doesn't violate the one vote per member rule. So I don't think bylaws authorization is needed for approval voting, even if used for choosing officers. Perhaps future editions of RONR could expressly address approval voting?

Or you could make a motion to suspend the rules so as to allow introduction of the desired motion. That would require a 2/3 vote, though.

Yes, as voting at a meeting is the only way for the membership to express its collective will. A resignation from office is a particular form of the generic motion called a Request to be Excused from a Duty which is discussed in RONR (12th ed.) section 32. It is a motion which requires a majority vote, though it is quite often handled by unanimous consent.

When people abstain on a vote, it's a decision to let others present decide the outcome. When a vote requires a "simple majority" that means a majority of those PRESENT AND VOTING. Some abstained instead of voting. Only 6 people were both PRESENT AND VOTING, and of those, a majority approved the motion, so it was properly adopted.

But what about the horse clubs?? 🙂 P.S. I am aware that the sound a horse makes is spelled "neigh," but on voice votes one cannot tell the difference between "nay" and "neigh."