Shmuel Gerber
-
Posts
4,487 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Shmuel Gerber
-
-
On 2/13/2024 at 6:47 PM, Dan Honemann said:
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.
As I said in the topic I referred to earlier, I don't really cotton to the notion that there is something special about a majority of the ballots cast in an election being done by cumulative voting. It does not represent a majority of the voters or of the votes cast. It is just some strange artifact of the rules relating to the way a ballot vote is conducted when a majority of the ballots cast represents a majority of the voters.
However, simply for the purpose of this discussion, I'm willing to assume that in order to be among the winners, a candidate must not only be in the top 4 vote-getters (where there are 4 positions) but also must attain a number of "votes" (in the cumulative system, i.e., where a voter can assign multiple votes to a single candidate) that is a majority of the number of ballots cast. As I believe J.J. pointed out earlier, this means more than 60 votes, which then translates to 61 when dealing with whole numbers.
On 2/13/2024 at 6:47 PM, Dan Honemann said: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.
I'm beginning to see where you're getting these numbers from — i.e., each voter can place 4 votes, so for a candidate to attain more than 1/2 the total ballots, the minimum number of voters who could yield this majority is more than 1/8 of the voters, all giving their total support (⅛ × 4 = ½). I don't think it's helpful to convert this into a particular number of votes, as it stems from a fraction that always applies, regardless of how it may translate into whole numbers under specific numbers of voters; but, yes, in the case of 120 members voting, 16 voters (all giving all of their votes to the same candidate) would be needed for a majority.
But I don't agree that this is the number (or fraction) that is protected by the rules. As J.J. has noted, such a majority does not necessarily win an election even when cumulative voting is in effect. In fact, if a certain set of 4 candidates is supported by more than 4/5 of the voters, and a different candidate is supported by a minority of more than 1/8 (but not 1/5 — which cannot exist in this scenario, because the total minority remaining is not that large), then the minority candidate is sure to lose (assuming all the votes are well coordinated).
I would think that if anything, where a majority vote is required with cumulative voting, the rules protect not the minority of more than 1/8, but rather the majority of 7/8, by ensuring that 1/8 or less cannot elect their choice (without additional support). But even that protection is not really necessary, because 4/5 (which is even less than 7/8) can get what they want regardless of the "majority" threshold.
I still say that the minority that is protected by the rules is a minority of more than 1/5, which can always (with proper coordination) elect one candidate of its choice in a 4-seat election.
-
On 2/14/2024 at 11:06 AM, Dan Honemann said:
Why do each of the voters cast only 4 votes instead of 5?
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.
-
On 2/13/2024 at 5:21 PM, J. J. said:
M = Minority Protected
T = Total votes
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?
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.
-
On 2/13/2024 at 5:26 PM, Atul Kapur said:
Our posts coincided and I see that you are still using a formula that incorporates the total votes cast
M > T / (P+1)
So it is still not possible to say that the fraction is constant, therefore requiring its conversion to a number. In this situation, I maintain that the number is one.
@Shmuel Gerber, I suggest that if there are two discussions going on here, that this is where they divide: whether the fraction is constant.
I don't understand this at all. When we say "four-fifths vote," we are talking about four-fifths of the votes cast. That is the fraction which remains constant regardless of the number of votes cast.
-
On 2/13/2024 at 5:02 PM, J. J. said:
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?
Not exactly 20%, but any number greater than 20%.
-
On 2/13/2024 at 4:56 PM, Atul Kapur said:
Depending on how many votes are cast, one person could be enough to elect a candidate.
Suppose an election rule said directly that a 4/5 vote is required for a candidate to attain the position. Would you still say that something other than a four-fifths vote is needed to suspend the rules, because the election may be decided by one vote? Or that we cannot know what vote is needed because we won't know how many votes will be cast in the election until the actual vote on the election is taken?
It seems that there are (at least) two separate discussions going on here. Dan Honemann has already agreed that if the fraction of votes necessary remains constant, then the vote to suspend the rules is dependent on that fraction regardless of how many actually vote. The way I see it, the rule in this case (cumulative voting that started the thread) protects a minority of greater than one fifth.
If you want to argue that even if the fraction remains constant, there's no definite minority because the number changes depending on how many vote, that is another discussion.
-
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.
Therefore, it seems to me, suspending the rule permitting cumulative voting where there are four winners to be elected cannot be done by less than a 4/5 vote.
As far as where a majority enters the calculation, I don't think a majority vote is generally needed for cumulative voting, but Mr Martin has opined here that if it is, what is required is for a candidate to obtain a number of votes that is more than half of the number of ballots cast.
Here, if more than 1/5 of the voters cast each of their four votes for a single candidate, that candidate's votes will exceed 4/5 of the number of ballots cast, which is easily a majority.
Now if there are some other calculations (which I don't understand) that show that even 20% or less can somehow be sure to elect a candidate depending on how many votes are cast, that certainly should not mean that the rule can be suspended by a 2/3 vote rather than a 4/5 vote!
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. 🙂
-
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.
I was not able to follow that. You gave several numbers depending on "my scenario" (Dan) or "your scenario" J. J., but I don't see where those numbers are coming from.
-
On 2/13/2024 at 12:51 PM, Dan Honemann said:
On the other hand, the fraction used to determine the number of members protected by a rule mandating cumulative voting (as in the case discussed in this thread) will change depending upon the number of members voting in the election.
Well, I guess I haven't been able to follow your math on this. I had thought that, aside from variations due to rounding to whole numbers or anomalies arising from a situation in which there is a very small number of voters, the fraction of voters who can elect at least one candidate of their choice by coordinating their cumulative votes remains the same regardless of how many voters there are in total.
-
On 2/13/2024 at 1:22 AM, Joshua Katz said:
Yes, although the association should amend its adoption of RONR to match the language provided in same.
The bylaws call for following RONR when applicable and not inconsistent with the bylaws, and say nothing about special rules of order. RONR, in turn, says that an organization may adopt special rules of order, and that such rules supersede RONR. Since the bylaws contain no inconsistent language, you follow RONR in this regard.
I don't think the answer is so clear-cut as that. Suppose the bylaws said that the order of business shall be as prescribed in Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised.
Would you say that the society could still adopt a special order of business to govern all its meetings because RONR says that it can?
-
*Or maybe it was a four-fifths vote discussed in PL?
-
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?
I think I am lost at this point, so let's go back to an earlier question. You had asked:
"So what would you say is the vote required to suspend a rule requiring a three-fourths vote for the adoption of a particular motion?"
My answer is a three-fourths vote. I believe this question is discussed in PL with regard to a rule requiring a three-fourths vote* to allow non-members on the floor. My copy of PL is currently further than my elbow (not counting any online edition that I could access with my thumbs), but my recollection is that the General says this rule could only be suspended by a three-fourths vote (so that there would be little reason to adopt such a suspension of the rules).
Now suppose that instead of a motion to suspend the rules and admit a non-member to the floor, a motion (for sake of discussion, let's call it a main motion) to admit a non-member is already pending, and someone moves to suspend the rules in order that the pending motion can be adopted by a two-thirds vote.
I would say that this motion also requires a three-fourths vote. However, I must be missing something about what you've been saying (about fifty times), because if we need to know in advance how many members will vote on the main motion, then there is not actually any particular size minority protected by the rule?
-
On 2/9/2024 at 2:38 PM, Dan Honemann said:
Of course you can. Did all members who voted yes on the motion to suspend the rules also give up their rights after the motion is adopted?
Yes, they gave up their rights to have the election conducted by cumulative voting.
-
On 2/9/2024 at 2:24 PM, Dan Honemann said:
I find this to be an equally untenable notion. Members have a right to abstain, and are free to exercise this right without relinquishing any other right.
You can't abstain on a motion to give up your rights and then claim the same rights after the motion is legitimately adopted.
-
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?
We know that no more members can vote in the election than the number who are present at the time of the election.
And for purposes of suspending the rules relating to the number of votes necessary for election, I think this number (the number present) is adequate to work with, because as I pointed out to J. J. earlier, there's nothing preventing the assembly from actually conducting the election at that time, so any consideration with regard to the rights of absent members is not relevant.
And I further think that the number present and voting is adequate to work with, because any members who abstain thereby relinquish any rights given up by adoption of the motion to suspend the rules.
-
On 2/9/2024 at 12:59 PM, Dan Honemann said:
For what seems to me now to be about the fiftieth time, I will point out that there is no way of knowing what fraction is protected by the rule mandating cumulative voting until you know how many members vote in the election.
But we know what the minimum is to guarantee it.
And presumably the members who are present and are eligible to vote in the election know how they intend to vote in the election, and therefore know what to do to protect their rights in voting in the election.
The motion to suspend the rules relating to the election becomes part of the election process, and that motion cannot violate their rights either.
-
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.
But if the fraction of members voting in opposition on the motion to suspend the rules is as large as the fraction protected by the rule governing the election, then it seems obvious to me this should be sufficient to prevent the suspension of the rules.
Conversely, if sufficient members eligible to vote in the election either abstain or vote in favor of suspending the rules, then this may be taken as a relinquishment of their rights to achieve their desired outcome in the election by the particular fraction in question.
-
On 2/9/2024 at 10:44 AM, Deb Parm said:
One of our members was totally against a motion and voted no. However, she said she wanted to exercise her rights through Roberts Rules to have her explicit objection noted in the minutes. I have looked and can't find if/where this is allowed. If this is allowed, can someone point me in the direct direction.
Thanks.
Robert's Rules does not give members any such right.
However, it is common for statutes to require the opposition of a member of the board of directors to be noted in the minutes in certain situations, so that might be what this member was thinking of.
-
And don't forget that it requires a two-thirds vote on the motion for the Previous Question in order to close the debate. If this motion does not receive a two-thirds vote, then debate continues just as if the motion had not been made.
-
On 2/8/2024 at 11:53 AM, Guest T. Linzey said:
Section 3 – At a publicized general meeting of the membership a quorum shall be those members present.
1. At any General Board or special meeting to conduct business, five percent (5%) of the
general membership shall constitute a quorum.Are you sure that you have quoted exactly what it says? Without some further context it's difficult to understand what this is intended to mean.
-
On 2/7/2024 at 7:02 PM, Dan Honemann said:
Yes.
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.
-
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.
Well I still think there is something fishy about suspending this rule. If this method of electing the committee were prescribed directly in the bylaws, would you still say that the rules could be suspended so as to disallow cumulative voting?
-
On 2/7/2024 at 4:01 PM, Dan Honemann said:
In this instance, suspending the rule takes away a "right" which itself violates a fundamental principle of parliamentary law. Its suspension remedies that situation.
That's an interesting point, but I don't see why it should make any logical difference.
-
On 2/7/2024 at 2:13 PM, Dan Honemann said:On 2/7/2024 at 1:55 PM, J. J. said:
The way that it is worded in 46:43 creates a right for a "minority group." Suspending it by a 2/3 vote would certainly violate the rights of that minority of less than 2/3.
I do not think that the rule in 46:43 protects "a minority of a particular size" as contemplated by the rule in 25:2(7).
In that case, maybe the rule cannot be suspended at all, as suspending the rule would take away a member's right to vote (as many times as he is entitled to).
Cumulative voting and minority rights
in Advanced Discussion
Posted
Yes, I think J.J. has illustrated my point. The minority protected is any greater than 1/5. This is equivalent to 24/120. So with 120 voters in total, a minority of more than 24, by coordinating their votes in a cumulative-voting election for 4 seats, can be sure to elect one candidate.