Guest Cynthia Posted October 30, 2011 at 09:21 AM Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 at 09:21 AM If the nominating committee has suggested a slate and a second slate is proposed within the time frame that it is allowed, how does the subsequent vote take place? Do the slates go head to head in the lection? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted October 30, 2011 at 11:43 AM Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 at 11:43 AM The nominees are voted on separately rather than en bloc. Let's say that the nominating committee makes the following nominations:President-Mr. AVice President-Mrs. BSecretary-Dr. Cand when the floor is opened for nominations (which must be done unless the bylaws specifically prohibits floor nominations per RONR p. 435) the following are nominated:President-Ms. DVice President-Prof. ESecretary-Sir FAssuming that no more nominations came from the floor the two candidates for President would be Mr. A and Ms. D, for VP would be Mrs. B and Prof. E,, and for Secretary Dr. C and Sir F (unless the vote is by ballot in which case write in vote are also permitted). After the vote is done you might find that Mr. A is elected President, Prof. E as VP, and Sir F as Secretary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cynthia Posted October 30, 2011 at 11:58 AM Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 at 11:58 AM What if this particular time the vote is going only as one slate vs another, and not head to head by position? Is this allowed under Roberts Rules if that's the way the candidates want it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted October 30, 2011 at 12:11 PM Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 at 12:11 PM What if this particular time the vote is going only as one slate vs another, and not head to head by position? Is this allowed under Roberts Rules if that's the way the candidates want it?No. Such an "all-or-nothing" procedure deprives members of their right to choose who to vote for (or not vote for). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted October 30, 2011 at 12:13 PM Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 at 12:13 PM What if this particular time the vote is going only as one slate vs another, and not head to head by position? Is this allowed under Roberts Rules if that's the way the candidates want it?RONR doesn't recognize this "slate" style of election. A member may vote as he chooses, despite what the candidates want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted October 30, 2011 at 12:32 PM Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 at 12:32 PM RONR doesn't recognize this "slate" style of election. A member may vote as he chooses, despite what the candidates want.Would it be possible to Suspend the Rules and make the members vote for one "slate" or the other? I would lean towards this being a case where the rule can't be suspended since it would interfere with the members' right to vote for who they wish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted October 30, 2011 at 12:34 PM Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 at 12:34 PM What if this particular time the vote is going only as one slate vs another, and not head to head by position? Is this allowed under Roberts Rules if that's the way the candidates want it?In theory, your bylaws could dictate this approach to elections. However, judging by the bolded words in your questions, it appears highly unlikely that your bylaws contain such language. As previous posters have said, there is no way to do what you suggest, no matter how much the candidates want it. The voters may (or may not) pay attention to the candidates' preference, but only in the sense that an individual voter could choose to vote (individually) for A for President, B for VP, and C for secretary (to use Chris H.'s example). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted October 30, 2011 at 12:39 PM Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 at 12:39 PM Would it be possible to Suspend the Rules and make the members vote for one "slate" or the other? I would lean towards this being a case where the rule can't be suspended since it would interfere with the members' right to vote for who they wish.I think this would be a case where the argument against combining multiple questions (main motions) into one would apply. Since the question of electing a group of candidates en bloc should be subject to division at the request of a single member, the usual two-thirds vote to suspend the rules seems clearly inadequate.see this recent (and very lengthy) thread:That thread dealt with the question of combining the election of multiple unopposed candidates into one action -- some of the arguments against doing so appear clearly applicable in this thread, where candidates are not running unopposed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted October 30, 2011 at 12:52 PM Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 at 12:52 PM Would it be possible to Suspend the Rules and make the members vote for one "slate" or the other? I would lean towards this being a case where the rule can't be suspended since it would interfere with the members' right to vote for who they wish.You lean the right way. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 261, ll. 15-17 & p. 274, ll. 32-36. Any member can demand the separation of the "combined" main motions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted October 30, 2011 at 12:54 PM Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 at 12:54 PM If the nominating committee has suggested a slate and a second slate is proposed within the time frame that it is allowed, how does the subsequent vote take place? Do the slates go head to head in the lection?When you say that "a second slate is proposed within the time frame that it is allowed" it would appear that you have special rules in place which may conflict with the rules in RONR (in which event they will take precedence over the rules in RONR). Under the rules in RONR, when the chair calls for nominations from the floor, he call for nominations one office at a time (in the order in which they are listed in the bylaws). As a consequence, there is no opportunity to nominate "a second slate." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted October 30, 2011 at 01:11 PM Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 at 01:11 PM I think this would be a case where the argument against combining multiple questions (main motions) into one would apply. Since the question of electing a group of candidates en bloc should be subject to division at the request of a single member, the usual two-thirds vote to suspend the rules seems clearly inadequate.see this recent (and very lengthy) thread:That thread dealt with the question of combining the election of multiple unopposed candidates into one action -- some of the arguments against doing so appear clearly applicable in this thread, where candidates are not running unopposed.There is no argument against combining multiple main motions into one question: the question being to adopt them all. Pundits on all sides of the debate encased in that lengthy thread solidly agree that it is proper to do so. One zealot (rather handsome) just took issue with the language of a time-honored, four-century-old rule of parliamentary law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted October 30, 2011 at 02:45 PM Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 at 02:45 PM There is no argument against combining multiple main motions into one question: the question being to adopt them all. Pundits on all sides of the debate encased in that lengthy thread solidly agree that it is proper to do so. One zealot (rather handsome) just took issue with the language of a time-honored, four-century-old rule of parliamentary law.Linking the other thread may just muddy the waters, and I somewhat regret bringing it up. Although the issues were related to what's being asked in this thread, you're right that the other discussion ended up focusing on a different matter. I don't recall that all posters 'solidly agreed'... majority agreement, certainly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted October 30, 2011 at 02:56 PM Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 at 02:56 PM Linking the other thread may just muddy the waters, and I somewhat regret bringing it up. Although the issues were related to what's being asked in this thread, you're right that the other discussion ended up focusing on a different matter. I don't recall that all posters 'solidly agreed'... majority agreement, certainly Perhaps I don't consider all posters to be pundits. (and I believe that the pundit known as Rob agrees that RONR properly allows what is described on p. 274, ll. 32-34.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cynthia Posted October 30, 2011 at 03:01 PM Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 at 03:01 PM Wow, now I'm really getting lost! But thanks so much for the assistance. It has been most helpful in sorting out this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cynthia Posted October 30, 2011 at 03:16 PM Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 at 03:16 PM One final question: if the constitution doesn't state anything, should such an election use paper ballots or be decided by a simple show of hands? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted October 30, 2011 at 03:28 PM Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 at 03:28 PM One final question: if the constitution doesn't state anything, should such an election use paper ballots or be decided by a simple show of hands?If the governing documents do not require a certain method of voting for the election, the assembly may choose the method to be used. A majority vote will decide the method to use. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 438, l. 34 - p. 439, l. 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted October 30, 2011 at 03:33 PM Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 at 03:33 PM One final question: if the constitution doesn't state anything, should such an election use paper ballots or be decided by a simple show of hands?It is up to the assembly to decide what method of voting they want to use (see RONR pp. 409-410 and 412-423 for all the methods available). However, using a voice vote or show of hands vote is less than optimal with contested elections because the election for that particular office is over as soon as someone gets a majority vote (RONR pp. 442-443). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted October 30, 2011 at 03:41 PM Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 at 03:41 PM One final question: if the constitution doesn't state anything, should such an election use paper ballots or be decided by a simple show of hands?Ballot voting is preferable (though necessarily required) for elections. With multiple candidates and the need for a precise count of votes, a simple show of hands (which might be fine for "yes" or "no" questions) may not be so simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted October 30, 2011 at 03:45 PM Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 at 03:45 PM Ballot voting is preferable (though necessarily required) for elections.Male that "not necessarily required". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.