Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Flawed ballot election


Flawedelection

Recommended Posts

An election was held where 13 members were announced as eligible to vote. These members were identified without objection. Ballots were handed out, without objection. They were collected and counted. There were 14 ballots that resulted in a 7-7 tie. Ballots were counted again and concurred that there was a 7-7 tie. Again, no one objected. The president then cast the tie breaker, announced the winner who accepted. No objections were raised and the meeting was adjourned. The next day questions were raised about the validity of the vote.

Is the election final and are the results final?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An election was held where 13 members were announced as eligible to vote.

This is a different thing than actually being eligible.

These members were identified without objection.

I'm not sure what you mean.

Ballots were handed out, without objection.

Here we are again.

They were collected and counted. There were 14 ballots that resulted in a 7-7 tie. Ballots were counted again and concurred that there was a 7-7 tie. Again, no one objected.

To what would one object?

The president then cast the tie breaker, announced the winner who accepted.

In an election by ballot, the chair votes at the same time as everyone else.

No objections were raised and the meeting was adjourned.

Were there any objections?... No, never mind.

The next day questions were raised about the validity of the vote.

Is the election final and are the results final?

"If there is evidence that any unidentifiable ballots were cast by persons not entitled to vote, and if there is any possibility that such ballots might affect the result, the entire ballot vote is null and void and a new ballot vote must be taken." - RONR(10th ed.), p. 402, l. 30-34.

If the preceding reference applies, it's not too late to raise a point of order that the vote is null and void.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the election final and are the results final?

When the vote is by ballot (as it should be in an election), the president votes along with every other member. That way the secrecy of his vote is assured (and the secrecy of the vote is the whole point of voting by ballot).

And why fourteen ballots were distributed/accepted when only thirteen persons were "announced as eligible to vote" escapes me but, apparently, an ineligible person voted and, with a tied result, that illegal vote clearly affected the outcome. Or at least the outcome before the president voted.

I'd suggest doing again and, this time, doing it right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the vote is by ballot (as it should be in an election), the president votes along with every other member. That way the secrecy of his vote is assured (and the secrecy of the vote is the whole point of voting by ballot).

And why fourteen ballots were distributed/accepted when only thirteen persons were "announced as eligible to vote" escapes me but, apparently, an ineligible person voted and, with a tied result, that illegal vote clearly affected the outcome. Or at least the outcome before the president voted.

I'd suggest doing again and, this time, doing it right.

To compound this issue, other votes were taken earlier in the night without a recorded tally. It's unclear how many at the meeting actually voted in those as well. It's a mess all around and this group has been running a fly by night organization, but this ballot election has caused internal issues. If it's unclear if ineligible voters voted earlier in the evening, is a precedent established to allow them to vote in the ballot election?

A member becomes eligible to vote once they've attended a certain amount of consecutive meetings as defined in the bylaws.

Thanks for any feedback. This is truly a mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To compound this issue, other votes were taken earlier in the night without a recorded tally.

Is this above and beyond the 13 you originally mentioned? When you say no recorded tally, do you mean there is no record of how many votes were cast, or for whom? Is there voting for more than one position, as was suggested by your first post? Are you having different voting sessions during a "day-long" meeting?

It's unclear how many at the meeting actually voted in those as well.

Those what? other elections? for other positions?

If it's unclear if ineligible voters voted earlier in the evening, is a precedent established to allow them to vote in the ballot election?

A member becomes eligible to vote once they've attended a certain amount of consecutive meetings as defined in the bylaws.

RONR makes no distinction of membership or voting ability. A two-minute member has the same rights as a two-year member, including voting, regardless of how many meetings they have attended. That's your rule, so you'll need figure that out. But no precedent will be set by erroneously allowing any person who is not a "voting member" to vote.

This is truly a mess.

This was unnecessary. (lol, as the kids say today)

So, can you shed at least some light on the previous questions? 13 eligible voters, 14 ballots turned in, no one said "hey, um.... wait a minute..."??? Did the chair vote twice, or was he not considered in the original 13? Is it even worth pursuing this, in light of your recent information? I don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To compound this issue, other votes were taken earlier in the night without a recorded tally. It's unclear how many at the meeting actually voted in those as well. It's a mess all around and this group has been running a fly by night organization, but this ballot election has caused internal issues. If it's unclear if ineligible voters voted earlier in the evening, is a precedent established to allow them to vote in the ballot election?

A member becomes eligible to vote once they've attended a certain amount of consecutive meetings as defined in the bylaws.

Thanks for any feedback. This is truly a mess.

A precedent? If Mr Mountcastle, Mr Foulkes, and I walk into your meeting, get blank ballots, and drop them in the ballot box, does that make us voting members from now on? Or do we simply know that these two ballots, if they can be identified, are invalid, null, and void, and a prudent group of tellers will be especially careful thereafter.

(BTW: if there was no recorded tally for the other bunch of votes, what happened to them?)

[Edited to add Mr Foulkes to the list of suspects]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this above and beyond the 13 you originally mentioned? When you say no recorded tally, do you mean there is no record of how many votes were cast, or for whom? Is there voting for more than one position, as was suggested by your first post? Are you having different voting sessions during a "day-long" meeting?

Those what? other elections? for other positions?

RONR makes no distinction of membership or voting ability. A two-minute member has the same rights as a two-year member, including voting, regardless of how many meetings they have attended. That's your rule, so you'll need figure that out. But no precedent will be set by erroneously allowing any person who is not a "voting member" to vote.

This was unnecessary. (lol, as the kids say today)

So, can you shed at least some light on the previous questions? 13 eligible voters, 14 ballots turned in, no one said "hey, um.... wait a minute..."??? Did the chair vote twice, or was he not considered in the original 13? Is it even worth pursuing this, in light of your recent information? I don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one questioned why 14 ballots were counted. Chair did not vote twice. It's worth pursuing because it's deciding who gets a position that both candidates want badly. But as I mentioned many opportunities to question the validity of the vote occurred, but no one ever questioned it until a day after. Thanks

My apologies, I didn't mean was it worth it for you to pursue resolving this - that surely is worth it. I meant is it worth it for us to pursue it, since the whole episode (the 13 voters, 14 votes, chair breaks the tie, voting going on before, no recorded tally, ineligible members) is clearly a mess that may not be easily cleaned up with a few parliamentary rules judiciously applied.

From your original post, it seemed clear that there was a continuing breach in place due to the 14 votes from 13 members. It may still be in place. Your new information tends to shed more confusion than light, so it's hard to determine what in fact did happen, and what was mishandled or handled correctly. A more accurate and complete timeline of events would help, if you can bring order out of the chaos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My apologies, I didn't mean was it worth it for you to pursue resolving this - that surely is worth it. I meant is it worth it for us to pursue it, since the whole episode (the 13 voters, 14 votes, chair breaks the tie, voting going on before, no recorded tally, ineligible members) is clearly a mess that may not be easily cleaned up with a few parliamentary rules judiciously applied.

From your original post, it seemed clear that there was a continuing breach in place due to the 14 votes from 13 members. It may still be in place. Your new information tends to shed more confusion than light, so it's hard to determine what in fact did happen, and what was mishandled or handled correctly. A more accurate and complete timeline of events would help, if you can bring order out of the chaos.

Here's a better timeline:

Bylaws state election for this position will be held at April meeting.

At April meeting, a sign in sheet was present and those attending signed in. Motions were made on several subjects, each having votes taken by those in attendance. The members that were eligible to vote were never recognized yet all in attendance and who voed had their votes counted without any objections from anyone in attendance.

When time came for the group to elect one person for a specific position, it was requested that the eligible voters names be read out loud. This occurred and there were no objections to that list.

Two members from the executive board passed out ballots to those that were declared eligible to vote. There should have been13 ballots handed out. During and after the ballots were handed out, no made an objection to someone getting a ballot that shouldn't have received on.

The same two members from the executive board collected the ballots from the voters. During and after this process, no one made an objection to seeing anyone submitting a ballot that wasn't eligible to vote.

The votes were counted and a tie occurred. The votes were recounted, resulting in the same results. No objections to the count were made.

The president then submitted their vote, breaking the tie. The winner was announced, the winner accepted. No objections were made.

The meeting lasted another ten minutes, a motion to adjourn was made, seconded and the meeting adjourned.

With the information that I provided, does this election stand?

I appreciate everyone's help on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a better timeline:

Bylaws state election for this position will be held at April meeting.

At April meeting, a sign in sheet was present and those attending signed in. Motions were made on several subjects, each having votes taken by those in attendance. The members that were eligible to vote were never recognized yet all in attendance and who voed had their votes counted without any objections from anyone in attendance.

When time came for the group to elect one person for a specific position, it was requested that the eligible voters names be read out loud. This occurred and there were no objections to that list.

Two members from the executive board passed out ballots to those that were declared eligible to vote. There should have been13 ballots handed out. During and after the ballots were handed out, no made an objection to someone getting a ballot that shouldn't have received on.

The same two members from the executive board collected the ballots from the voters. During and after this process, no one made an objection to seeing anyone submitting a ballot that wasn't eligible to vote.

The votes were counted and a tie occurred. The votes were recounted, resulting in the same results. No objections to the count were made.

The president then submitted their vote, breaking the tie. The winner was announced, the winner accepted. No objections were made.

The meeting lasted another ten minutes, a motion to adjourn was made, seconded and the meeting adjourned.

With the information that I provided, does this election stand?

I appreciate everyone's help on this.

Well, there isn't any requirement in RONR that would require an actual member to sign in in order to vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the information that I provided, does this election stand?

Let's try and boil it down. There were 13 voting members present and also the chair, making for a possible 14 votes to be cast. There were 15 ballots submitted. That means that either one of the 13 received two ballots and submitted them both, or a non-voting member was given a ballot and submitted it. Either of those two scenarios means that at least one illegal vote was submitted. Since the vote went 8-7 in favor of the winner, that one illegal vote could have affected the result.

I'd think a Point of Order could be raised at the next meeting that, due to this one illegal vote which could have affected the result, the election is null and void and another election must be held. The chair will rule whether the point is well taken or not, subject to Appeal, a majority vote required to overturn his ruling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

S1. Two members from the executive board passed out ballots to those that were declared eligible to vote. There should have been 13 ballots handed out. During and after the ballots were handed out, no made an objection to someone getting a ballot that shouldn't have received on.

Missed Opportunity #1.

S2. The same two members from the executive board collected the ballots from the voters. During and after this process, no one made an objection to seeing anyone submitting a ballot that wasn't eligible to vote.

Missed Opportunity #2.

S3. The votes were counted and a tie occurred. The votes were recounted, resulting in the same results. No objections to the count were made.

Missed Opportunity #3.

S4. The president then submitted their vote, breaking the tie. The winner was announced, the winner accepted. No objections were made.

Missed Opportunity #4.

S5. The meeting lasted another ten minutes, a motion to adjourn was made, seconded and the meeting adjourned.

Missed Opportunity Omega (i.e., last opportunity).

Q. With the information that I provided, does this election stand?

Yes.

There is no continuing breach. So there is no point of order even possible, now.

***

Just like in baseball, "Five strikes and your out." :wacko:

(Or am I thinking of bowling? Ten strikes and you are -- what?) :unsure:

(In boxing, 100 strikes and you are Manny Pacquiao.) B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Missed Opportunity #1.

Missed Opportunity #2.

Missed Opportunity #3.

Missed Opportunity #4.

Missed Opportunity Omega (i.e., last opportunity).

Yes.

There is no continuing breach. So there is no point of order even possible, now.

***

[snip]

You gotta be kidding.

________

Where do you see a flaw in Tim's, H. W.'s, David's, the atc's, and everybody else's reasoning?

-- nn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where do you see a flaw in Tim's, H. W.'s, David's, the atc's, and everybody else's reasoning?

-- nn

See the original poster's own description.

The president then cast the tie breaker,

announced the winner who accepted.

No objections were raised

the meeting was adjourned.

Q. And the continuing breach is where?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Is this above and beyond the 13 you originally mentioned? When you say no recorded tally, do you mean there is no record of how many votes were cast, or for whom? Is there voting for more than one position, as was suggested by your first post? Are you having different voting sessions during a "day-long" meeting?

Those what? other elections? for other positions?

RONR makes no distinction of membership or voting ability. A two-minute member has the same rights as a two-year member, including voting, regardless of how many meetings they have attended. That's your rule, so you'll need figure that out. But no precedent will be set by erroneously allowing any person who is not a "voting member" to vote.

This was unnecessary. (lol, as the kids say today)

So, can you shed at least some light on the previous questions? 13 eligible voters, 14 ballots turned in, no one said "hey, um.... wait a minute..."??? Did the chair vote twice, or was he not considered in the original 13? Is it even worth pursuing this, in light of your recent information? I don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't know if anyone voted twice or if anyone who was not eligible to vote actually voted. There is a mystery vote that was included in the tally and beyond being embarrassing to the whole group, this has caused questions to who won the election. From what I'm gathering from the replies above, this election needs to occur again - and hopefully those in charge of supervising this election get it right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't know if anyone voted twice or if anyone who was not eligible to vote actually voted. There is a mystery vote that was included in the tally and beyond being embarrassing to the whole group, this has caused questions to who won the election. From what I'm gathering from the replies above, this election needs to occur again - and hopefully those in charge of supervising this election get it right.

I would say so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...