Club changing from delegate voting to 1M1V

[lipets]

Our club is considering changing to 1M1V doing away with the delegate system.

I didn't see anything in RONR, is it not recognized?

Any thoughts on the pro or cons

thanks

[Rev Ed]

What is a 1M1V?

[Gerry4000]

What is a 1M1V?

Let me make a guess "One Man One Vote"

[Bruce Lages]

Or, perhaps more correctly, one member, one vote. Is it recognized in RONR? Definitely - it is a fundamental aspect of a deliberative asembly. See p. 2, l.4-8 in RONR, 10th ed.

[David A Foulkes]

Our club is considering changing to 1M1V doing away with the delegate system.

I didn't see anything in RONR, is it not recognized?

Any thoughts on the pro or cons

thanks

Not sure what pros or cons you might expect, but RONR takes the 1M1V (one member? one vote) approach even with delegates. In cases where you may have multiple votes assigned to members due to property ownership, or multiple proxies, those details would need to be worked out by your organization and adopted into your bylaws or other rules of order. In such a case, any troubles you have with that process will not find too much resolution from RONR.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Our club is considering changing to

1M1V,

doing away with

the delegate system.

I didn't see anything in RONR, is it not recognized?

You will not find the term "1M1V" in RONR (tenth edition 2000).

You won't find the two words "delegate system" (whatever that is) in RONR, either.

I think I am implying that I don't "recognize" the terms, and RONR does not "recognize" the terms.

Q. What is the difference between (a.) 1M1V; and (b.) "delegate system"?

Can't you have both?

[Josh Martin]

Our club is considering changing to 1M1V doing away with the delegate system.

I didn't see anything in RONR, is it not recognized?

Any thoughts on the pro or cons

If by "1M1V" you mean "one member, one vote," this is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law, and it applies even in conventions of delegates. Certain groups may get to send more delegates, but each individual delegate still has only one vote.

We can likely be of further assistance if you can provide additional clarification on what you mean by "1M1V" and "the delegate system." I'm sure there's some important fact we're missing here, as from the facts provided, there is no reason the two are mutually exclusive.

[Rev Ed]

At the end of the day, it is up to the organization to handle this. However, the default is one member = one vote. However, a corporation will likely have a one share = one vote (or one share = mulitple votes) and a charitable organization may offer a number of votes depending on the level of donation.

[lipets]

We can likely be of further assistance if you can provide additional clarification on what you mean by "1M1V" and "the delegate system." I'm sure there's some important fact we're missing here, as from the facts provided, there is no reason the two are mutually exclusive.

First yes I'm referring to OMOV.

Our club has several thousand members across the US we have over 100 chapters, ranging in size from 15 -300 members each.

We currently use a delegate voting system at our annual meeting which typically has about 15% of the members attend.

The chapters meet before hand and vote on a slate of amendments or nominations for office.

Typically 20-50% show up at these meetings to vote.

The Bylaws require the delegate in order to vote to be present at the annual meet.

If they don't send a delegate that chapters votes are not counted.

Another issue is say a chapter has 100 members and is entitled to 100 votes, but they only have say 20 votes based on who showed up at their respective meeting.

On a roll call vote that chapter votes via their delegate 100 votes, not 20 for or against and 80 abstain or no vote.

There is also a big burden for some chapters to travel from various parts of the US to be at the annual meeting.

Therefore, rather then have a delegate meeting and vote at that same time we are proposing to have an all member open caucus to debate any issues in its place and vote later on by mail ballot or electronic vote on a OMOV basis.

The caucus would be streamed for any non attending members to review the debate on issues.

Hope that explains the plan better.

Thanks

[Kim Goldsworthy]

First yes I'm referring to OMOV.

...

We currently use a delegate voting system at our annual meeting which typically has about 15% of the members attend.

...

Therefore, rather then have

a delegate meeting and vote at that same time

we are proposing to have

an all member open caucus to debate any issues in its place and vote later on by mail ballot or electronic vote on a OMOV basis.

Both things you have

(a.) the status quo; (b.) the proposed change

are still a "one man one vote" situation.

I don't see how #a isn't "one man one vote" system. -- Each delegate gets one vote.

How is #a "a two-man one-vote" system or "a one-man two-votes" system?

How is #a different from #b in the number of votes per person?

Where did the extra vote go? Or, where did the extra vote come from?

[Josh Martin]

If they don't send a delegate that chapters votes are not counted.

Another issue is say a chapter has 100 members and is entitled to 100 votes, but they only have say 20 votes based on who showed up at their respective meeting.

On a roll call vote that chapter votes via their delegate 100 votes, not 20 for or against and 80 abstain or no vote.

There is also a big burden for some chapters to travel from various parts of the US to be at the annual meeting.

Therefore, rather then have a delegate meeting and vote at that same time we are proposing to have an all member open caucus to debate any issues in its place and vote later on by mail ballot or electronic vote on a OMOV basis.

The caucus would be streamed for any non attending members to review the debate on issues.

Hope that explains the plan better.

Yes, I think that clarifies things nicely. Essentially, you want to change from a convention of delegates elected by constituent units to mail voting, in which all members of the society may vote. Such a system is discussed in RONR, although it must be authorized by the Bylaws to be used. See RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 409-411 for more information on the details. I think you've already outlined many of the reasons for switching to such a system. The main reason against switching, I believe, would be that a mail vote would take some time, and it may leave the assembly unable to take action quickly if needed. Some societies use mail-in votes only for the most important items of business, such as elections or amendments to the Bylaws, and have the other business conducted by an assembly (either a meeting of the general membership or a convention of delegates). That strategy may be worth considering.

Both things you have

(a.) the status quo; (b.) the proposed change

are still a "one man one vote" situation.

I don't see how #a isn't "one man one vote" system. -- Each delegate gets one vote.

How is #a "a two-man one-vote" system or "a one-man two-votes" system?

How is #a different from #b in the number of votes per person?

Where did the extra vote go? Or, where did the extra vote come from?

I might have misunderstood, but it seems to me that under the current system, delegations are permitted to cast their entire complement of votes even if not all their delegates are present.