moderator rules

[Guest Garrick Strout]

During Town meeting,March 12,2011, an article was voted on and the ballots were counted. 66 votes cast,3 of the votes were considered invalid by the moderator because the citizen did not write yes or no on the ballot, instead wrote what their intentions were such as "change to 7:00 pm". When the moderator announced the results he stated "32 no; 31 yes article was defeated".Without stating that 3 votes were invalid.One citizen asked if all the votes were counted? The answer was "YES". If the votes were counted,the vote would have been tied. We would have proceeded from there.

The moderator was questioned on calling the votes invalid considering their intentions were clearly written on the ballot. He would not reconsider and stated it was his call.

Are there rules for the moderator,on announcing all the ballots counted in a vote?

Can this issue be revisited or is it too late?

( I am a second year selectman in this town and still learning all the ropes. Any info.would be great.)

[Chris Harrison]

During Town meeting,March 12,2011, an article was voted on and the ballots were counted. 66 votes cast,3 of the votes were considered invalid by the moderator because the citizen did not write yes or no on the ballot, instead wrote what their intentions were such as "change to 7:00 pm". When the moderator announced the results he stated "32 no; 31 yes article was defeated".Without stating that 3 votes were invalid.One citizen asked if all the votes were counted? The answer was "YES". If the votes were counted,the vote would have been tied. We would have proceeded from there.

The moderator was questioned on calling the votes invalid considering their intentions were clearly written on the ballot. He would not reconsider and stated it was his call.

Are there rules for the moderator,on announcing all the ballots counted in a vote?

Can this issue be revisited or is it too late?

( I am a second year selectman in this town and still learning all the ropes. Any info.would be great.)

RONR p. 402 says:

If the meaning of one or more ballots is doubtful, they can be treated as illegal if it is impossible for them to affect the result; but if they may affect the result, the tellers should report them to the chair, who will immediately submit to the assembly the question of how these ballots should be recorded.

[Gary Novosielski]

When the moderator announced the results he stated "32 no; 31 yes article was defeated".Without stating that 3 votes were invalid.One citizen asked if all the votes were counted? The answer was "YES". If the votes were counted,the vote would have been tied. We would have proceeded from there.

Proceeded from there, how?

If what you say is correct, the motion would have been defeated in either case, since a tie vote is less than a majority.

[tctheatc]

Proceeded from there, how?

If what you say is correct, the motion would have been defeated in either case, since a tie vote is less than a majority.

I have a question: were there applicable local rules (via bylaws, election committee, etc) that defined invalid votes?

And does the original poster know the intent of those 3 votes? Or are we assuming what they were and their affect on the vote?

[David A Foulkes]

3 of the votes were considered invalid by the moderator because the citizen did not write yes or no on the ballot, instead wrote what their intentions were such as "change to 7:00 pm". When the moderator announced the results he stated "32 no; 31 yes article was defeated".

It seems that if the question being voted on was a yes-or-no question, a vote that wasn't clearly a yes would be, at best, considered a no. Without knowing the exact question, it's a bit hard to tell if "change to 7:00pm" was actually an illegal vote. I would think that if someone wanted a change to the question considered, it should have been moved as an amendment to the original question, not offered through the voting process.

[Chris Harrison]

It seems that if the question being voted on was a yes-or-no question, a vote that wasn't clearly a yes would be, at best, considered a no. Without knowing the exact question, it's a bit hard to tell if "change to 7:00pm" was actually an illegal vote. I would think that if someone wanted a change to the question considered, it should have been moved as an amendment to the original question, not offered through the voting process.

I know write in votes are permitted for elections. I wonder if write in votes for something other than elections would be technically permissible even if it did confuse everyone?

[David A Foulkes]

I know write in votes are permitted for elections. I wonder if write in votes for something other than elections would be technically permissible even if it did confuse everyone?

Perhaps filling blanks by ballot vote, if that were permissible. Otherwise, whereas most (or at least many) votes are of the yes/no composition, as this one seemed to have been, I don't see how it could work. But there's always something tucked away in the book that might support it, eh?

[Tim Wynn]

Perhaps filling blanks by ballot vote, if that were permissible.

You've just described an election.

[David A Foulkes]

You've just described an election.

Ha! But what about filling blanks for something like an increase in dues, where the amounts are subject to varying degrees of support? Could such a motion be voted on by ballot? I know this seems to fly in the face of the process of filling blanks as described in RONR, so would a motion to vote by ballot actually be out of order?

[Tim Wynn]

Ha! But what about filling blanks for something like an increase in dues, where the amounts are subject to varying degrees of support? Could such a motion be voted on by ballot?

Of course, see p. 399, l. 28-32.

[David A Foulkes]

Of course, see p. 399, l. 28-32.

Thank you, and...... d'Oh! or is it "duh"? (with apologies to homer simpson and carlos estevez)

[Guest Garrick Strout]

It seems that if the question being voted on was a yes-or-no question, a vote that wasn't clearly a yes would be, at best, considered a no. Without knowing the exact question, it's a bit hard to tell if "change to 7:00pm" was actually an illegal vote. I would think that if someone wanted a change to the question considered, it should have been moved as an amendment to the original question, not offered through the voting process.

[Guest Garrick Strout]

It seems that if the question being voted on was a yes-or-no question, a vote that wasn't clearly a yes would be, at best, considered a no. Without knowing the exact question, it's a bit hard to tell if "change to 7:00pm" was actually an illegal vote. I would think that if someone wanted a change to the question considered, it should have been moved as an amendment to the original question, not offered through the voting process.

[Guest Garrick Strout]

The article as written "ARTICLE 3 Shall the Town vote to change the time of day when Selectman meetings are from 7:00am to 7:00pm.

Two invalid votes read "to move to 7:00pm; one read "leave at 7:00am"

[Kim Goldsworthy]

The article as written

"ARTICLE 3 Shall the Town vote to change the time of day when Selectman meetings are from 7:00am to 7:00pm."

Two invalid votes read

• "to move to 7:00pm";

• "leave at 7:00am""

Geez, Louise!

Armed only with a dictionary, I think it is clear that:

• the ballot which said "... move ..." is a YES vote. (change the status quo)

• the ballot which said "... leave ..." is a NO vote. (do not change the status quo)

That's what you get when the question put to the assembly is poorly worded.

Since the meaning of the two ballots are clear, does anyone doubt their meaning or doubt the intent of the caster?

[David A Foulkes]

The article as written "ARTICLE 3 Shall the Town vote to change the time of day when Selectman meetings are from 7:00am to 7:00pm.

Two invalid votes read "to move to 7:00pm; one read "leave at 7:00am"

The result, as announced by the Chair, was 32 no and 31 yes. Using Mr. Goldsworthy's interpretation of these two votes (which seems to make sense), the result would now be 33 no and 32 yes. But you said there were three votes assessed as "illegal" votes. So, even if that third vote were deemed to be equivalent to a yes (ie change it to 7pm), you would still end up with a tie vote, in which case the motion was defeated. 7:00am it is. In my opinion.

[Gary Novosielski]

The result, as announced by the Chair, was 32 no and 31 yes. Using Mr. Goldsworthy's interpretation of these two votes (which seems to make sense), the result would now be 33 no and 32 yes. But you said there were three votes assessed as "illegal" votes. So, even if that third vote were deemed to be equivalent to a yes (ie change it to 7pm), you would still end up with a tie vote, in which case the motion was defeated. 7:00am it is. In my opinion.

I wish I had said that. Oh wait...