Guest Kevin Farrell Posted April 21, 2011 at 07:35 PM Report Share Posted April 21, 2011 at 07:35 PM Hi all,So, at a recent conference I was attending there was an election. There was only one nominee for the position but there was a tie vote, half for and half against. According to Roberts Rule's (RR) 10th edition you are to call, "No election" and distribute new ballots to have another vote until a candidate receives a majority. My question is that since there was only one candidate running for the position and they did not receive a majority should this be treated as a motion, in which if there is a tie the motion fails. The reason for asking this question is that the way it is worded in RR is that there are more than one nominee for the position, and in this case there was only one nominee. Thank you in advance to any one who responds.Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted April 21, 2011 at 07:45 PM Report Share Posted April 21, 2011 at 07:45 PM Hi all,So, at a recent conference I was attending there was an election. There was only one nominee for the position but there was a tie vote, half for and half against. According to Roberts Rule's (RR) 10th edition you are to call, "No election" and distribute new ballots to have another vote until a candidate receives a majority. My question is that since there was only one candidate running for the position and they did not receive a majority should this be treated as a motion, in which if there is a tie the motion fails. The reason for asking this question is that the way it is worded in RR is that there are more than one nominee for the position, and in this case there was only one nominee. Thank you in advance to any one who responds.KevinVoting by ballot "for" and "against" in elections is prohibited. The only way for one candidate to be defeated is for another candidate to win. See RONR (10th ed.), pp. xxi; 399, 400; 416. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Goldsworthy Posted April 21, 2011 at 07:49 PM Report Share Posted April 21, 2011 at 07:49 PM There was only one nominee for the position but there was a tie vote, half for and half against. ... since there was only one candidate running for the position and they did not receive a majority should this be treated as a motion, in which if there is a tie the motion fails. Are you doing a (secret) ballot vote, or a voice vote (or similar, like a hands-up vote)?Let's assume a ballot vote. -- Let's assume that your rules demand a ballot vote.Since there was "no election" (you were correct in that regard), then the proper step would be to hold second round of balloting.It would also be in order to re-open nominations.It would also be in order to postpone the election to another date (see Postpone Definitely in RONR).Note that The Book says that you doing it wrong. -- For a ballot form of electing, the voter writes down the name of his choice, or circles (or X's, or checks off) the existing pre-printed name.Using "Yes/No" is not proper for a ballot format, but is proper for a voice format. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kevin Posted April 21, 2011 at 07:57 PM Report Share Posted April 21, 2011 at 07:57 PM Are you doing a (secret) ballot vote, or a voice vote (or similar, like a hands-up vote)?Let's assume a ballot vote. -- Let's assume that your rules demand a ballot vote.Since there was "no election" (you were correct in that regard), then the proper step would be to hold second round of balloting.It would also be in order to re-open nominations.It would also be in order to postpone the election to another date (see Postpone Definitely in RONR).Note that The Book says that you doing it wrong. -- For a ballot form of electing, the voter writes down the name of his choice, or circles (or X's, or checks off) the existing pre-printed name.Using "Yes/No" is not proper for a ballot format, but is proper for a voice format.Sorry, I worded that horribly now looking back. There was only half that voted for the nominee while the other half placed an X on their ballot as a vote for no one. This happened 6 times. Is that in order to keep holding the election? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted April 21, 2011 at 07:59 PM Report Share Posted April 21, 2011 at 07:59 PM Sorry, I worded that horribly now looking back. There was only half that voted for the nominee while the other half placed an X on their ballot as a vote for no one. This happened 6 times. Is that in order to keep holding the election?There is no such thing in RONR as a vote for no one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted April 21, 2011 at 08:02 PM Report Share Posted April 21, 2011 at 08:02 PM Sorry, I worded that horribly now looking back. There was only half that voted for the nominee while the other half placed an X on their ballot as a vote for no one. This happened 6 times. Is that in order to keep holding the election?No, you were finished long ago! Blank ballots, ballots defaced, crossed out, or marked "No" are not votes. They are abstentions. The only way to vote against someone is to vote for another name. Ballots with another name written, even the name of a cartoon mouse, are considered "votes".By your corrected description, the candidate was elected unanimously, since all the votes were for that one person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted April 21, 2011 at 08:05 PM Report Share Posted April 21, 2011 at 08:05 PM No, you were finished long ago! Blank ballots, ballots defaced, crossed out, or marked "No" are not votes. They are abstentions. The only way to vote against someone is to vote for another name. Ballots with another name written, even the name of a cartoon mouse, are considered "votes".By your corrected description, the candidate was elected unanimously, since all the votes were for that one person.Careful! If the electors were instructed to "vote for no one" by marking the ballot with an "X" in some defined way, then I would have to say that the candidate did not receive a majority of the votes cast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kevin Posted April 21, 2011 at 08:14 PM Report Share Posted April 21, 2011 at 08:14 PM Careful! If the electors were instructed to "vote for no one" by marking the ballot with an "X" in some defined way, then I would have to say that the candidate did not receive a majority of the votes cast.Those were the instructions that the delegates were given from the elector. How does that affect the election? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted April 21, 2011 at 08:14 PM Report Share Posted April 21, 2011 at 08:14 PM Careful! If the electors were instructed to "vote for no one" by marking the ballot with an "X" in some defined way, then I would have to say that the candidate did not receive a majority of the votes cast.Maybe RONR, Off. Interp. 2006-5 at the Robert's Rules of Order website, www.robertsrules.com, would be of some help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kevin Posted April 21, 2011 at 08:14 PM Report Share Posted April 21, 2011 at 08:14 PM Careful! If the electors were instructed to "vote for no one" by marking the ballot with an "X" in some defined way, then I would have to say that the candidate did not receive a majority of the votes cast.Those were the instructions that the delegates were given from the elector. How does that affect the election? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted April 21, 2011 at 08:15 PM Report Share Posted April 21, 2011 at 08:15 PM Those were the instructions that the delegates were given from the elector. How does that affect the election?As far as I can tell from the facts given, the election is incomplete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kevin Posted April 21, 2011 at 08:18 PM Report Share Posted April 21, 2011 at 08:18 PM As far as I can tell from the facts given, the election is incomplete.There was a 7th round of balloting and the nominee finally did get a majority but I was just wondering when it comes to the way the first 6 rounds were done if it was done in order? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted April 21, 2011 at 08:21 PM Report Share Posted April 21, 2011 at 08:21 PM There was a 7th round of balloting and the nominee finally did get a majority but I was just wondering when it comes to the way the first 6 rounds were done if it was done in order?Almost nothing about this election was done properly. I suggest you read the whole of RONR (10th ed.), Chapter XIV, pp. 416ff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kevin Posted April 21, 2011 at 08:22 PM Report Share Posted April 21, 2011 at 08:22 PM Almost nothing about this election was done properly. I suggest you read the whole of RONR (10th ed.), Chapter XIV, pp. 416ff.I wasn't the elector. I was just an observer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted April 21, 2011 at 08:31 PM Report Share Posted April 21, 2011 at 08:31 PM I wasn't the elector. I was just an observer.Okay. Just forget what you saw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Goldsworthy Posted April 21, 2011 at 08:41 PM Report Share Posted April 21, 2011 at 08:41 PM I was just wondering when it comes to [X] if it was done in order?No.It was not done with proper parliamentary procedure.***It's hard to fix a problem which was based on an improper procedure. -- It is hard to give you a correction for a RESULTING problem when the instructions or the steps prior to the problem was the REAL problem.Analogy:It's like asking, "What do I do with a car with sugar poured down the gasoline tank?" -- The real problem is the pouring of the sugar. -- Wondering about how to fix your fuel injector never should have popped up as a problem, since the primary cause was the true dooming act, and was preventable in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted April 22, 2011 at 02:54 PM Report Share Posted April 22, 2011 at 02:54 PM Those were the instructions that the delegates were given from the elector. How does that affect the election?Well, the instructions were improper, but if it was the expectation of the voters that they were allowed to express a negative vote, then the voters intent must be respected, and these ballots would not be counted as abstentions, but as "votes" for nobody.The whole thing is improper, and you've created your own problem here. Enjoy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.