Elections by less than a plurality

[Sean Hunt]

I think have the same doubts about this that Trina says she had; the whole thing appears a bit odd. It seems to me that the case of an election has to be an exception to any rules about not voting on the same question twice at the same session, particularly by the same method. Otherwise, why is reballoting at the same session possible? Especially if there are no new nominees, the assembly faces the same choices on the second ballot as it did on the first.

The key distinction, to me, is that in a ballot, the assembly is not being presented with a dichotomous choice. The other forms of voting present two options ultimately: accept or reject. Moreover, except in the case of a tie, the rejection represents the decision of the majority of the assembly.

In the case of balloting, however, the assembly has a number of choices, not even counting the possibility of write-in candidates. As a result, the only outcome that can wholly be viewed as the decision of the majority is an elected candidate.* Since members have had only the option of voting for one candidate, a candidate's failure to be elected cannot be taken as the majority deciding not to elect that candidate. In a two-candidate election with a tie, even, we cannot be sure that some of the members voting for one candidate would not approve of the other, were that candidate the only course of action.

By contrast, the nature of a series of viva voce elections is a series of accept-reject votes. Any difficulty that this method presents with selecting an officer (in particular, the possibility of members voting against an early candidate to preserve their ability to vote for a later one) is, in my opinion, a large part of why it should be recommended against for elections.

* Or, in theory, a majority of ballots being illegal as protest votes. Bearing in mind, however, the principle that the only way to validly contest an election is to offer a competing nomination (which justifies the acclamation of a lone nominee), then this certainly cannot be accepted as an election result, even if all the illegal votes were clearly intentionally illegal.

[Dan Honemann]

I think have the same doubts about this that Trina says she had; the whole thing appears a bit odd. It seems to me that the case of an election has to be an exception to any rules about not voting on the same question twice at the same session, particularly by the same method. Otherwise, why is reballoting at the same session possible? Especially if there are no new nominees, the assembly faces the same choices on the second ballot as it did on the first.

But not being allowed to vote again by the same method (after a voice or rising vote) is the part you said there should be no doubt about, so obviously I am not helping at all.

There is a vast difference in this connection between an election by ballot and a viva-voce election. The basic principle involved here is that, once an assembly has decided a question, it cannot be asked to decide the same question again during the same session, except (in this case) through a motion to reconsider a negative vote. (RONR, 11^th ed., p. 75, ll. 7-10; p. 136, ll. 26-28; p. 337, ll. 7-12)

During a viva-voce election, the assembly is asked to vote directly on the question of whether or not a certain person shall be elected to a certain office (let’s say Mr. A to the office of President, as in the example on p. 442), and it decides this question by its vote. If it decides this question in the affirmative, the election is over. If it decides this question in the negative, it then goes on to vote on someone else. In either case, the assembly has decided the question as to whether or not Mr. A will be elected to the office of President, and it cannot be asked to decide this question again at the same session (except upon reconsideration in the case of a negative vote).

During an election by ballot, the assembly is called upon to decide whom it will choose to elect among a group of candidates, and until one of them receives the requisite number of votes, the assembly has not decided anything. As a consequence, it can be, and is, called upon to ballot again and again until it reaches a decision.

[Trina]

I'm a bit troubled by the claim that there is rule stating that the assembly cannot vote by the same method twice. The text says: "It is never in order to move that the vote on a question be taken a second time by the same method (p. 285, ll. 25-27)."

The key word is move. On a second round of voting in an election, no one is moving to take the vote by the same method, anymore than no one moved to vote by voice on the first round. Arguably, if a standing vote was ordered on the first election, a standing vote would be required on subsequent rounds, based on the same citation.

In most questions, where there is a yes or no choice on the motion, there could not be a second round of voting; permitting it would tantamount to reconsidering (or rescinding) the question. In the case where there is a three way or greater choice, it would not be tantamount to reconsidering (or rescinding) the question. The question was not decided by the vote.

(And yes, I think this would apply to filling blanks, though the question could be voted on with an unfilled blank as well, as noted.)

I agree that the assembly should have a way to continue working to complete the election at the same session, and with all the candidates continuing to compete on an even footing, if that is the wish of the assembly. That is why I have doubts about the use of reconsider (as mentioned earlier by Mr. Honemann) -- not that it isn't proper according to the rules, but that it seems the assembly should have other tools available beyond reconsider. Suspending the rules to allow continued rounds of voting (as in your scenario 3a) seems to work.

On the other hand, relying on the narrow reading of the word "move" in the p. 285 citation seems to me a very weak reed to lean on. Is it really plausible that the citation was meant to disallow a motion to vote again in the same way, but not to disallow the action of voting again in the same way?

This narrow way of interpreting the text would lead to problems all over the place, I suspect. For example, p. 296 ll. 21-23 regarding the right to withdraw a motion. Read narrowly, if the chair for some reason has neglected to state the motion, and the assembly has simply started to debate, the maker of the motion could decide 20 minutes later to withdraw his motion -- after all, the motion was never stated by the chair, therefore the motion does not yet really belong to the meeting, therefore the maker need not request the assembly's permission to withdraw his own motion...

[George Mervosh]

Post #52 was very illuminating.....thanks

[Dan Honemann]

I agree that the assembly should have a way to continue working to complete the election at the same session, and with all the candidates continuing to compete on an even footing, if that is the wish of the assembly. That is why I have doubts about the use of reconsider (as mentioned earlier by Mr. Honemann) -- not that it isn't proper according to the rules, but that it seems the assembly should have other tools available beyond reconsider. Suspending the rules to allow continued rounds of voting (as in your scenario 3a) seems to work.

Our primary concern is to understand what the rules are, and as best I can determine there is still a great deal of misunderstanding about them in this connection. Under such circumstances, speculation about what one thinks the rules should be is not at all helpful.

And, yes, most rules can be suspended in order to enable an assembly to do lots of things that it cannot do in accordance with the rules, but mentioning this is not very helpful either if the rules themselves are misunderstood.

I'm afraid that a great deal of apparent confusion in this thread has been caused by my speculation about the propriety, under existing rules, of a motion to conduct an election by ballot after all nominees have been rejected in a viva-voce election. I apologize for this, and withdraw my suggestion that it might be in order. With this off the table, I do not think that there should be any misunderstanding about the rules which we have been discussing.

[J. J.]

On the other hand, relying on the narrow reading of the word "move" in the p. 285 citation seems to me a very weak reed to lean on. Is it really plausible that the citation was meant to disallow a motion to vote again in the same way, but not to disallow the action of voting again in the same way?

Well, the rule, as I would see it, would prevent a "switch back." The first round of voting, the vote is taken by a voice vote. If on the second round (we can debate the method of getting to that second round), a member moves "That the vote be taken by signed ballot." That vote does not produce a majority, and the assembly goes to the third round. Under the rule on p. 285, it would be out of order for a member to move, "That the vote be taken via voice," unless the rules were suspended to permit it.

In a first round, the vote is taken by voice. If, under the circumstances, a second round is in order, is a motion needed to conduct that round by voice vote?

[J. J.]

There is a vast difference in this connection between an election by ballot and a viva-voce election. The basic principle involved here is that, once an assembly has decided a question, it cannot be asked to decide the same question again during the same session, except (in this case) through a motion to reconsider a negative vote. (RONR, 11^th ed., p. 75, ll. 7-10; p. 136, ll. 26-28; p. 337, ll. 7-12)

In terms of renewal, I'm wondering if this is a change in circumstances (p. 338, ll. 7-9). Politically, there could be.

[Dan Honemann]

In terms of renewal, I'm wondering if this is a change in circumstances (p. 338, ll. 7-9). Politically, there could be.

Well, it's an interesting theory, but I'm not buying it.

[Shmuel Gerber]

Post #52 was very illuminating.....thanks

Yeah, Mr. Honemann has a confounding knack for explaining things in such a way that further disagreement seems nothing but foolhardy.

But, as suggested by his initial dubiety,* there are aspects of this scenario that leave a bit of a puzzle. I think I'll start another Advanced Discussion topic about this.

[Edit: Looks like Sean Hunt beat me to it.]

*You can look up this word, like I did.

[Trina]

Our primary concern is to understand what the rules are, and as best I can determine there is still a great deal of misunderstanding about them in this connection. Under such circumstances, speculation about what one thinks the rules should be is not at all helpful.

I was not really speculating about what the rules should be; rather, I was trying to see if a particular reading of the rules would lead to improbable consequences (if there had been no route for the assembly to complete the election at the same session, while still continuing to consider all of the nominees, I would have viewed that as an improbable consequence, and would then have given greater credence to J.J.'s reading of the rule on p. 285). Proof by contradiction is one valid approach to problems in many arenas, although I concede it's easy to make errors in defining one's premises in this particular domain. I'll accept that the approach was 'not at all helpful' to others; however, it was helpful to me .

Like Mr. Mervosh, I found your explanation in post #52 illuminating.

[Sean Hunt]

I apologize for elongating this monstrous thread, but I just noticed the topic subject properly, and I hope most others will agree with me that a group less than a plurality should never, ever elect.

[alanh49]

Would a motion to elect the treasurer by ballot without nomination be in order and if not why?

The assembly may have decided that they don't want H S or M to be their treasurer but they have not decided who they do want

So for me at least that makes it a new question and since it is a new question I think members can vote for H S or M if they want.

[J. J.]

Would a motion to elect the treasurer by ballot without nomination be in order and if not why?

I think the rules could be suspended to elect one of the people Treasurer.

I'm not seeing this as a renewal situation.

[Trina]

I apologize for elongating this monstrous thread, but I just noticed the topic subject properly, and I hope most others will agree with me that a group less than a plurality should never, ever elect.

I was puzzled about the title of the thread also. I think J.J. was probably pointing out that using the viva voce approach to the election could indeed lead to the election of a candidate who would have received less than a plurality, had the election been conducted by ballot. Thus, in the initial example (back at post #1) it is clear that at least 91 members were present and voting. Suppose M was elected by a vote of 25 in favor (after the more popular -- but more controversial -- candidates H and S were defeated) in the viva voce election. Had a ballot election been conducted, and had M received 25 votes out of 91 cast, he would have received less than a plurality.

That's my guess, anyway, about the title...

[Dan Honemann]

I was puzzled about the title of the thread also. I think J.J. was probably pointing out that using the viva voce approach to the election could indeed lead to the election of a candidate who would have received less than a plurality, had the election been conducted by ballot. Thus, in the initial example (back at post #1) it is clear that at least 91 members were present and voting. Suppose M was elected by a vote of 25 in favor (after the more popular -- but more controversial -- candidates H and S were defeated) in the viva voce election. Had a ballot election been conducted, and had M received 25 votes out of 91 cast, he would have received less than a plurality.

That's my guess, anyway, about the title...

What in the world difference does it make how many votes were cast on other questions?

[Trina]

What in the world difference does it make how many votes were cast on other questions?

I didn't say M actually was elected by less than a plurality -- just offering a guess on the title of this thread, which seemed to cause consternation to Mr. Hunt in post #61. The number of votes cast on the other questions makes no 'difference' at all when evaluating the outcome of the vote on M's election. The number of votes cast on the other questions simply gives some indication of the number of voters in the room.

[Dan Honemann]

I didn't say M actually was elected by less than a plurality -- just offering a guess on the title of this thread, which seemed to cause consternation to Mr. Hunt in post #61. The number of votes cast on the other questions makes no 'difference' at all when evaluating the outcome of the vote on M's election. The number of votes cast on the other questions simply gives some indication of the number of voters in the room.

But offering that guess as an explanation for the title is really no better than saying that the title makes no sense at all, so why offer it?

Oh, never mind.

[Trina]

...

Where does the title of the thread come in? The assembly in your OP was attempting to conduct a regular majority vote, wasn't it? No desire expressed for plurality vote, and no attempt to implement plurality vote...

...

But offering that guess as an explanation for the title is really no better than saying that the title makes no sense at all, so why offer it?

Oh, never mind.

Yup, I agree. Or, presciently, agreed several days ago.

[J. J.]

But offering that guess as an explanation for the title is really no better than saying that the title makes no sense at all, so why offer it?

Oh, never mind.

I realized the tittle is a misnomer, but I didn't realizing that until after I posted it.