More unusual election voting

[Sean Hunt]

To avoid derailing the other thread even more, I have two simple questions to offer in response to Dan's post, but I will make a new topic.

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.

I do think that this is the correct assessment of the rules, but this raises two interesting questions:

1) After voting on some candidates viva voce, is a motion to take the vote on the remaining candidates by ballot in order? i.e. after the assembly rejects Mr. A and Mr. B viva voce, taking the vote on Mr. C, Mr. D, and Mr. E, the remaining candidates, by ballot.

2) If the answer to 1) is yes, could a motion be made immediately after a viva voce vote in an election to retake that vote, in conjunction with the votes on the remaining candidates, by ballot? i.e. after the assembly rejects Mr. A and Mr. B viva voce, taking the vote on Mr. B, Mr. C, Mr. D, and Mr. E by ballot.

I think the answer to 2) is a simple no, as changing the balloting style in this fashion on the question of Mr. B's election is not only changing the manner of voting, but also the nature of the question, as explained several posts up in the thread I linked above.

As for 1), the issue with potentially allowing this motion is that, in effect, it allows the supporters of Mr. A or Mr. B another chance to elect (by write-in only) their preferred candidate, even though the matter of their election has already been settled. But I don't think that this would violate the principle that the assembly cannot be asked to decide the same question twice in one session, as it is a different question. So I would have to say that the motion is in order, and it would be valid to elect Mr. A or Mr. B by write-in ballot, but that they could not be nominated.

[J. J.]

1) After voting on some candidates viva voce, is a motion to take the vote on the remaining candidates by ballot in order? i.e. after the assembly rejects Mr. A and Mr. B viva voce, taking the vote on Mr. C, Mr. D, and Mr. E, the remaining candidates, by ballot.

No, based on p.408, ll. 9-14.

[George Mervosh]

No, based on p.408, ll. 9-14.

Before the chair puts the question on Mr. C, J.J., what's being interrupted?

[J. J.]

Before the chair puts the question on Mr. C, J.J., what's being interrupted?

He put the question on the assumed motion to fill the blank in the motion "That ____ be nominated."

[George Mervosh]

He put the question on the assumed motion to fill the blank in the motion "That ____ be nominated."

You mean "be elected"? Well that question was put individually for Mr. A. and Mr. B. and is put individually in a viva voce election for the remainder of Sean's nominees. So nothing is being interrupted.

I think the answer to #1 is yes and if it's not I don't believe it's because of the cited passage.

[J. J.]

You mean "be elected"? Well that question was put individually for Mr. A. and Mr. B. and is put individually in a viva voce election for the remainder of Sean's nominees. So nothing is being interrupted.

I think the answer to #1 is yes and if it's not I don't believe it's because of the cited passage.

Yes, be elected.

I do not agree that it is individual but it is a specific vote to fill a blank in the assumed motion "that ___ be elected." That motion would behave a bit differently than a regular motion (and does on a number of levels).

For example, if this were a main motion "That we hold our annual meeting in Chicago, IL," it would be in order to strike out "Chicago IL," and insert "Pittsburgh, PA." Debate is limited to the merits of both cities as the site. My understanding (and I find this more confusing than reconsider) is that you can strike out "Pittsburgh, PA," and insert "Reno, NV," but the debate would be limited to the merits of Pittsburgh and Reno. If I wanted to say how much I want Butte, MT, I could not. Each choice would have to be made, stated and put separately.

If this was the motion were "That we hold our annual meeting in _________," many choices could be pending at the same time, "Chicago, IL," "Pittsburgh, PA," "Reno, VA," "New York, NY," Tucumcari, NM," and "Butte, MT." I can speak on the virtues of Butte, right after you speak on Pittsburgh, and right before Sean speaks in favor of Reno. I can even submit my suggestion of Butte without seeking recognition.

When the time comes to vote, after suggestions are closed, all choices may be considered, though not necessarily in the order made.

In short, filling a blank behaves differently than a regular motion, in a number of situations, including this one. It really is not an individually put motion in the same way an amendment would be (or an individually stated motion as an amendment would be).

[George Mervosh]

In between announcing the results for Mr. B and putting the question on Mr. C. there is no interruption of any vote that is being taken, because, no vote is being taken, though it is a small window of opportunity. But you're never going to agree. so I'll stop now. Maybe I'm wrong. I just don't see it.

[J. J.]

In between announcing the results for Mr. B and putting the question on Mr. C. there is no interruption of any vote that is being taken, because, no vote is being taken, though it is a small window of opportunity. But you're never going to agree. so I'll stop now. Maybe I'm wrong. I just don't see it.

I think that still part of the same round of voting. I think that is backed up by the wording on p. 442, ll. 25-26. The chair would even say, "The question is on Mr. C."

Let me pose a middle question. After the announcement of the result of Mr. B, do you think it would be in order for a member to say, "I move to suspend the rules and re-open debate?"

[Trina]

J.J., in the other thread you said at one point:

If this is similar to filling a blank, you could continue...

Are you now confident that a viva voce election is actually a case of filling a blank, not just 'similar' to it?

[George Mervosh]

I think that still part of the same round of voting. I think that is backed up by the wording on p. 442, ll. 25-26. The chair would even say, "The question is on Mr. C."

Let me pose a middle question. After the announcement of the result of Mr. B, do you think it would be in order for a member to say, "I move to suspend the rules and re-open debate?"

I'd rather know the answer to this one, if, after the assembly votes no for Mr. A & Mr. B, and just after the announcement on Mr. B and before the question is put on Mr. C. is it in order to move to reconsider the vote on Mr. A or Mr. B, or both?

[J. J.]

J.J., in the other thread you said at one point:

Are you now confident that a viva voce election is actually a case of filling a blank, not just 'similar' to it?

Well, there are differences; the direct question "That ____ be elected... " is not put and would be out of order.

[J. J.]

I'd rather know the answer to this one, if, after the assembly votes no for Mr. A & Mr. B, and just after the announcement on Mr. B and before the question is put on Mr. C. is it in order to move to reconsider the vote on Mr. A or Mr. B, or both?

I honestly think you have to finish the round of voting to entertain the motion to reconsider.