Gary Munson

Thanks for the replies and input. Much appreciated. Here are some thoughts back: Re Drake Savory's 8/30 response that my one candidate - one seat conclusion was incorrect -- thanks. I should clarify - I should have more precisely stated that in the case of one nominated candidate for one seat and no write-in names returned, the candidate would be elected with just one vote, as in that case the candidate has received all the votes, so is above 50%. I should also acknowledge, in the general situation of no more nominated candidates than open seats, that whether an election is uncontested under Robert's isn't something that is actually known until after ballots are returned, because of the possibility of write-in candidates. And in my second scenario with two candidates and two seats for clarity I should have shown places on the returned ballots for write-in candidates and shown them as empty on all three ballots. Re Dan H (8/31) and Puzzling's (8/30) comments, thanks for the citations.Then as for weird consequences (my opinion) , I'll give two examples here. I'll continue to assume in the particular examples given that there are no write-in names returned. 1) In the two-person two-seat scenario in my original email, let's extend that scenario to the second round of voting. Suppose Smith is now the only candidate (no additional candidates nominated) in the second round. Suppose the voters have the same voting response with respect to Smith as they did in the first round, i.e. Ballot 1 X Smith, Ballot 2 __ Smith, Ballot 3 __ Smith. Voila, Smith is elected. So the net consequence is both candidates are elected, it just took two rounds according to (b) in my original email, rather than just one round if one assumed (a). So the situation of multiple seats seems artificially distinguished from the situation of one open seat. The presence of another candidate (Jones) seems to have some kind of voodoo effect on the fate of Smith, even though they are not running against each other or competing against each other. 2) Starting from scratch, consider three alternative scenarios; Each with the same two open seats. And continue to assume no write-in names are returned. 1. Adams is the only nominated candidate. Adams gets one vote, the rest of the returned ballots are unmarked. So Adams is elected with just the one vote. 2. Brown is the only nominated candidate. Brown gets no votes. So Brown is not elected. 3. Adams and Brown are the only two candidates. Adams gets one vote and Brown gets one vote. Then In each of scenarios 1. and 2., Adams and Brown, respectively, would be elected with receiving just one vote. However, in scenario 3 neither Adams nor Brown are elected and so voting would go to a second round. (Lather, rinse, repeat?!) So in scenario 3 we see again that the mere presence of another candidate can affect the voting outcome, even though the 'strength' of the vote for Adams can be the same in both scenarios 1 & 3, likewise for Brown in 2 & 3. Even though there is no competition for the seats. The nutshell summary is that while just one vote can suffice to elect a candidate who is ultimately unopposed, that doesn't generalize to multiple candidates for multiple seats who are ultimately unopposed. I do now understand that's the case with the 'majority of votes cast' meaning as explained. I just don't see why that makes sense - what value added or benefit it brings to the election process, versus treating a returned ballot not marked for a particular candidate as an abstension ballot for that candidate in an uncontested election. Thanks again very much for the replies! My question of what Robert's says has been clearly answered. Best, Gary

Hi, I'd love to have an expert's understanding of Robert's Rules in the case where there are multiple candidates for a pool of open and equivalent seats, and the number of candidates is no more than the number of open seats. I haven't seen this explicitly addressed anywhere. I am in a condo association in NH where the Board of Directors plans to follow Robert's Rules for our next Board election. That's fine, and the Board can legitimately decide to do that. Typically in one of our annual Board elections we have a number of candidates equal to or less than the number of open (and equivalent) seats. E.g., maybe two candidates for two open seats or two candidates for three open seats or - last time - four candidates for five open seats. A single ballot is issued with the names of all the candidates with instructions to mark a number of candidates up to the number open seats. I think that's fairly normal. In the case of a single candidate for a single open seat, my understanding is that it only takes one ballot returned marked for the candidate to be elected. Ballots returned not marked for the candidate are regarded as abstensions. So the candiate got the majority of votes cast, in fact 100% of the votes cast because there is no one else to vote for. Now let's consider another very simple case sufficient to highlight my question. Suppose there are two candidates, Jones and Smith, for two seats. Further suppose that three ballots are issued and are returned as follows: Ballot 1 X Jones X Smith Ballot 2 X Jones _ Smith Ballot 3 _ Jones _ Smith Then which is the correct understanding of 'majority of votes cast' - i.e., who is elected in this round of voting: a) Jones and Smith are both elected -- Jones is elected because Jones receives more than half the votes cast on the relevant ballots, Ballot 1 and Ballot 2, so in fact has 100%. Ballot 3 is regarded as an abstention. Smith is also elected because Smith has also received more than half the votes cast on the ballots relevant for him/her, which is only Ballot 1. Ballot 2 and Ballot 3 are regarded as abstentions with respect to Smith. The fact that Ballot 2 was returned marked for Jones does not make it a ballot relevant to Smith, since Jones and Smith are not running against each other. or b) Jones is elected but Smith is not elected -- Jones is elected as per explanation in (a). However, Smith is not elected because he/she only received 50% of the votes cast on the relevant ballots, Ballot 1 and Ballot 2. While Ballot 3 is regarded as an abstention for both Jones and Smith, Ballot 2 is not regarded as an abstension for Smith because it is marked for some other candidate, even though the candidates are not running against each other. It seems to me that the correct answer would be (a), as the logical extension of the one candidate-one seat case and rationale. If the correct answer is (b), I would greatly appreciate an explanation of why that actually makes sense instead of (a), because I think (b) has some pretty weird consequences. Thank you!!