officers election tie vote

[sean]

we had and election for officers and the vote for president was tied 4-4 the conductor of the election said we should revote but took his vote out thus making the vote 4-3-1. was this correct or what should have been done?

[Robert B Fish]

In the case of a tie vote between two candidates, neither was elected as neither received a majority of those present and voting. You had an "incomplete election" and should revote (as was done).

In the revote, one member abstained - as was his/her right - and one candidate then received a majority of those present and voting. The vote was 4-3 (not 4-3-1). The election was complete and, unless your bylaws say otherwise, the candidate should take office at that point.

-Bob

[Gary Novosielski]

we had and election for officers and the vote for president was tied 4-4 the conductor of the election said we should revote but took his vote out thus making the vote 4-3-1. was this correct or what should have been done?

On the second ballot, the new president was elected by a majority (4-3) vote.

All is well.

[J. J.]

In the case of a tie vote between two candidates, neither was elected as neither received a majority of those present and voting. You had an "incomplete election" and should revote (as was done).

In the revote, one member abstained - as was his/her right - and one candidate then received a majority of those present and voting. The vote was 4-3 (not 4-3-1). The election was complete and, unless your bylaws say otherwise, the candidate should take office at that point.

-Bob

Bob, that "1" might be an abstention.

[Gary Novosielski]

Bob, that "1" might be an abstention.

It is, certainly, which is why it should not be counted.

[J. J.]

It is, certainly, which is why it should not be counted.

Well, technically, he could have voted for a third candidate.

[David A Foulkes]

we had and election for officers and the vote for president was tied 4-4 the conductor of the election said we should revote but took his vote out thus making the vote 4-3-1. was this correct or what should have been done?

After re-reading this, I now have the sense that what happened was:

The "conductor" of the election told the gathered assembly that what they should do is revote, but......... rather than do that, the "conductor" actually "took his vote out" (i.e. removed his ballot from the collection), altering the final count to 4-3(-1). Perhaps Sean will return to clarify.

[Gary Novosielski]

After re-reading this, I now have the sense that what happened was:

The "conductor" of the election told the gathered assembly that what they should do is revote, but......... rather than do that, the "conductor" actually "took his vote out" (i.e. removed his ballot from the collection), altering the final count to 4-3(-1). Perhaps Sean will return to clarify.

Of course! Zebras!

[Guest sean]

Yes once the conductor removed his vote it swade the vote to the majority. We also had 3 others who were not allowed to vote per the bylaws due to no payment if monthly dues. Our bylaws also state that an officer only can serve 2 years and once the conductor removed his vote the sitting officer was reelected by majority.

[Bruce Lages]

If there was no actual re-vote, doesn't the 'conductor' need unanimous consent to remove his ballot from the mix, since he is changing his vote?

[David A Foulkes]

If there was no actual re-vote, doesn't the 'conductor' need unanimous consent to remove his ballot from the mix, since he is changing his vote?

And although Sean is questioning it right now, at the moment if no one raised a Point of Order, it would be (could be) seen as unanimous consent!

[Gary Novosielski]

Sean is still not being clear enough to determine exactly what happened. But at this point, if no timely point of order was raised at the time, the election is completed.