Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Voting


Guest Tanya

Recommended Posts

Hi, if every position is unopposed does voting still take place? Someone told me the secretary can cast one ballot and that will be sufficient. What is protocol?

If your bylaws require a ballot vote, then a ballot vote you shall have. Otherwise, the chair can declare a sole nominee elected "by acclamation". Having the secretary cast a single vote is not appropriate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand, it's an old custom. What exactly is problematic with it? I'm asking out of curiosity, not arguing. Is it because it violates a member's right (the Sec) to vote as that member pleases?

"When the bylaws require a vote to be taken by ballot, this requirement cannot be suspended, even by a unanimous vote. Thus, it is out of order in such a case to move that one person - the secretary, for example - cast the ballot of the assembly." RONR, p. 398-399

It's just plain out of order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if the bylaws state ballot vote unless only one nominee, as seems to be common, they should allow the nominee to be elected by acclamation.

Understood. Yes, I was asking about the practice in a case where it IS in order (called for in the bylaws and ballot vote not required) when there is 1 candidate. Apparently it is common, as you note, which seems odd to me if it's such a clearly frowned upon practice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Understood. Yes, I was asking about the practice in a case where it IS in order (called for in the bylaws and ballot vote not required) when there is 1 candidate. Apparently it is common, as you note, which seems odd to me if it's such a clearly frowned upon practice.

It's just that it's been thoroughly obsolete since, probably, the 18th century, or earlier. I know old habits die hard, but, really... Isn't it time to move on? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand, it's an old custom. What exactly is problematic with it? I'm asking out of curiosity, not arguing. Is it because it violates a member's right (the Sec) to vote as that member pleases?

That may be part of it.

I suspect it also may be that it gives the appearance of granting greater status to the secretary's vote than any other "ordinary" member. If you're going to have someone cast a single deciding vote, any member could do it.

If this discouraged practice were followed, a member might reasonably ask, "Hey! Why does the secretary get to vote?".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand, it's an old custom. What exactly is problematic with it? I'm asking out of curiosity, not arguing. Is it because it violates a member's right (the Sec) to vote as that member pleases?

In organizations where a ballot vote is not required, it's mostly just a waste of time. The chair should just declare the candidates elected by acclamation. Additionally, in organizations where this practice is followed it is usually the case that someone makes a motion to have the Secretary cast a ballot for the unopposed candidate, and this is essentially "yes/no" voting in an election, which is improper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...