Elections

[Guest Ron Howard]

Is there anything incorrect concerning holding three separate votes for three Board positions? Typically all nominations are taken, voting occurs, votes counted, winners declared. In our situation it would be best if we held three separate rounds of votes.

Thanks

[Chris Harrison]

Is there anything incorrect concerning holding three separate votes for three Board positions? Typically all nominations are taken, voting occurs, votes counted, winners declared. In our situation it would be best if we held three separate rounds of votes.

Thanks

Nothing wrong with doing it that way though it makes things 3x slower.

[Tim Wynn]

See RONR (10th ed.), p. 426, l. 7-25, for the procedure of holding elections for one office at a time. Generally, board members are elected by the method described on p. 427, l. 6-19; why do you believe it would be better to elect one position at a time?

(I Loved Cinderella Man and Night Shift, by the way)

[Rob Elsman]

You might want to take a look at the election procedure discussed in RONR (10th ed.), p. 427, ll. 6-19. There might, indeed, be instances where the procedure discussed there would not be correct (e.g., where the open seats are not exactly the same in some way).

[Guest Ron Howard]

The basic reason is we have two people who refuse to serve with one another. Guess the thought is if one does manage to get re-elected the other will refuse the nomination.

[David A Foulkes]

The basic reason is we have two people who refuse to serve with one another. Guess the thought is if one does manage to get re-elected the other will refuse the nomination.

That is unfortunate, but not really a problem. When a candidate is elected to office and made aware (either by being present at the election or by subsequent notification) he can decline the office. So Mr. X, learning that Mr. Y has also been elected, can say "thanks but not thanks". You would have an incomplete election and need to hold another round of voting. Whether it would be easier to elect one at a time is something you'll find out.

[Tim Wynn]

That is unfortunate, but not really a problem. When a candidate is elected to office and made aware (either by being present at the election or by subsequent notification) he can decline the office. So Mr. X, learning that Mr. Y has also been elected, can say "thanks but not thanks". You would have an incomplete election and need to hold another round of voting.

I concur.

[Josh Martin]

That is unfortunate, but not really a problem. When a candidate is elected to office and made aware (either by being present at the election or by subsequent notification) he can decline the office. So Mr. X, learning that Mr. Y has also been elected, can say "thanks but not thanks". You would have an incomplete election and need to hold another round of voting. Whether it would be easier to elect one at a time is something you'll find out.

I concur.

I suspect Mr. Howard's reasoning is that by holding the elections one at a time, the voters can decide which of the two they want on the board more. Mr. Howard suspects the other candidate will withdraw after his nemesis is elected. If all of the positions were voted on at once and both members were elected at the same time, it would be left to the two quarreling candidates to determine which of them resigned. Such conflict could be problematic for the society and the result may be disappointing for the assembly.

Of course, I'd be inclined not to vote for either candidate in such a circumstance, but I suppose I don't know all the details.

In any event, there is nothing wrong from a parliamentary perspective for doing it the way Mr. Howard proposes, even though it is not the usual procedure for such an election. Ultimately, the society will make this decision by majority vote.