yet more odd election voting

[Trina]

In the recent lengthy thread:

http://robertsrules....an-a-plurality/

Mr. Honemann said:

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.

I'm curious what the situation would be if the assembly was essentially planning a ballot-type vote, but decided to implement the voting by having members stand to show their vote in order to save time (let's assume vote by ballot is not actually required in the bylaws). The chair would then say: "Those in favor of H for treasurer, please stand... Be seated. Those in favor of S for treasurer, please stand... Be seated. Those in favor of M for treasurer, please stand... Be seated." The chair would then announce the counted results.

If no one receives a majority on the first round, are repeated rounds automatically permitted (under the rules for a ballot election, specifically p. 440 l. 22) -- since the assembly has not yet decided anything after the first round of voting?

I was wondering about this while reading the other thread -- I could easily imagine J.J.'s hypothetical assembly thinking that 'viva voce' just meant that the members were waiving the privacy of their votes and speeding up the rounds of voting; but not realizing that they were actually changing the fundamental nature of the question being voted on (as explained by Mr. Honemann in the quoted paragraphs).

[David A Foulkes]

But rising and raised hand votes are referenced within the viva voce voting section, and thus seem to be lumped in there procedurally-wise. Thus, after each nominee is voted on, the results for that nominee would be announced, deciding each question (shall H be elected? aye/no...shall S be elected? aye/no....) individually and at that time. At the end, after no nominee is elected, the situation is the same as mentioned in the other thread(s) that the individual questions cannot again come before the assembly (same session, same day, and all that, barring Reconsideration), as it has rendered a decision on each.

[Trina]

But rising and raised hand votes are referenced within the viva voce voting section, and thus seem to be lumped in there procedurally-wise. Thus, after each nominee is voted on, the results for that nominee would be announced, deciding each question (shall H be elected? aye/no...shall S be elected? aye/no....) individually and at that time. At the end, after no nominee is elected, the situation is the same as mentioned in the other thread(s) that the individual questions cannot again come before the assembly (same session, same day, and all that), as it has rendered a decision on each.

It's not the rising versus shouting 'aye' that I was trying to get at -- it was the lack of a 'no' vote on each candidate that (I think) makes the difference.

[David A Foulkes]

It's not the rising versus shouting 'aye' that I was trying to get at -- it was the lack of a 'no' vote on each candidate that (I think) makes the difference.

But why does the chair not call for the no vote with each nominee?

[Trina]

But why does the chair not call for the no vote with each nominee?

Because the hypothetical assembly in post #1 wanted the basic structure of a ballot vote, but without the actual mechanics of distributing, collecting, and counting the pieces of paper. Are you saying that the assembly is not permitted to do this?

[David A Foulkes]

Because the hypothetical assembly in post #1 wanted the basic structure of a ballot vote, but without the actual mechanics of distributing, collecting, and counting the pieces of paper. Are you saying that the assembly is not permitted to do this?

Far be it from me to make such a sweeping pronouncement (I'm mostly asking questions to try and understand your premise), but if the assembly has no "rule or established custom prescribing the method of voting in elections... each assembly should adopt .....the procedure best suited to its purposes and need." So, who decided to hold the vote by this variation of the ballot method? Was a motion to do so adopted? And how could the assembly adopt a motion to hold the vote by a method that is not provided for in RONR? Perhaps by Suspending the Rules?

In my ruminative opinion, if you want a ballot vote, hold a ballot vote. If you want a rising vote, hold a rising vote.

[Trina]

Far be it from me to make such a sweeping pronouncement (I'm mostly asking questions to try and understand your premise), but if the assembly has no "rule or established custom prescribing the method of voting in elections... each assembly should adopt .....the procedure best suited to its purposes and need." So, who decided to hold the vote by this variation of the ballot method? Was a motion to do so adopted? And how could the assembly adopt a motion to hold the vote by a method that is not provided for in RONR? Perhaps by Suspending the Rules?

In my ruminative opinion, if you want a ballot vote, hold a ballot vote. If you want a rising vote, hold a rising vote.

Well, let's assume the assembly usually conducts elections by ballot (although that method is not specifcally required in the bylaws). At the previous annual meeting, the election went on for three hours, due to repeated rounds of balloting. This year, member A rises and says, "I don't think we want a repetition of last year's election, and I know that many of us want to be home in time for tonight's episode of '24'. Therefore I propose that we rise to vote rather than using paper ballots. We will lose the privacy of paper ballots and there will be no opportunity for write-in votes. I move to suspend the rules in order to take the vote as described."

Assuming the assembly adopts this (casually worded) motion, are further rounds of voting automatically permitted if no candidate receives a majority on the first round (on the principle that the assembly has not yet made a decision), even though this is not a ballot election as described in RONR (p. 439 ff.)?

[David A Foulkes]

Assuming the assembly adopts this (casually worded) motion, are further rounds of voting automatically permitted if no candidate receives a majority on the first round (on the principle that the assembly has not yet made a decision), even though this is not a ballot election as described in RONR (p. 439 ff.)?

Well, you make it sound so sensible, and yet...... (gee, this limb seems to be getting thinner and thinner the farther out I crawl)

I'd venture to say that assigning (some of) the characteristics of one method of voting (ballot) to another (what is essentially a rising vote) is problematic. As you've noted, privacy is dispensed with, as is the opportunity for write-in voting. And yet, unlike a regular (uncounted) rising vote, this one would be counted and the no vote would never be called for. It creates a new type of voting procedure undocumented in RONR, and much like proxy voting and teleconferencing, I'd think rules would also need to be adopted to handle the vagaries of (anticipated) outcomes, such as incomplete elections, for which RONR offers no definitive resolution.

Perhaps that casually worded motion would better serve the assembly as a more formally worded resolution, detailing such points as repeated voting in the case of an incomplete election.

(Oh, look -- little buds!)

[Dan Honemann]

Well, let's assume the assembly usually conducts elections by ballot (although that method is not specifcally required in the bylaws). At the previous annual meeting, the election went on for three hours, due to repeated rounds of balloting. This year, member A rises and says, "I don't think we want a repetition of last year's election, and I know that many of us want to be home in time for tonight's episode of '24'. Therefore I propose that we rise to vote rather than using paper ballots. We will lose the privacy of paper ballots and there will be no opportunity for write-in votes. I move to suspend the rules in order to take the vote as described."

Assuming the assembly adopts this (casually worded) motion, are further rounds of voting automatically permitted if no candidate receives a majority on the first round (on the principle that the assembly has not yet made a decision), even though this is not a ballot election as described in RONR (p. 439 ff.)?

If you are going to make up your own method of voting, I think you are going to have to do a much better job of it (and put it in the bylaws if you are going prohibit write-in votes in what is essentially a ballot election), but please do all of this someplace else.

[Sean Hunt]

If you are going to make up your own method of voting, I think you are going to have to do a much better job of it (and put it in the bylaws if you are going prohibit write-in votes in what is essentially a ballot election), but please do all of this someplace else.

I agree, especially given the difficulty of ensuring that no one votes more than once in such a vote.

[Trina]

I agree, especially given the difficulty of ensuring that no one votes more than once in such a vote.

But solutions to that practical detail aren't hard to imagine. Also, the same potential problem is there in any vote taken by this method -- what prevents a member who stood for 'aye' on a run-of-the-mill motion from standing again for 'no'?

I doubt that this detail of implementation is behind Mr. Honemann's comment.

Perhaps the message is that an assembly that adopts a novel voting method must define all the details (as Mr. Foulkes earlier suggested), and that the criterion that the assembly has not decided anything cannot be used in itself to automatically allow further rounds of voting by the novel method.

The problem with the write-in votes could be finessed out of the hypothetical situation, but I doubt that would address the underlying complaint.

[Josh Martin]

Because the hypothetical assembly in post #1 wanted the basic structure of a ballot vote, but without the actual mechanics of distributing, collecting, and counting the pieces of paper. Are you saying that the assembly is not permitted to do this?

Well, the hypothetical assembly is certainly permitted to do this, but there's no need to invent a new system of voting for it. An election by roll call follows "the basic structure of a ballot vote, but without the actual mechanics of distributing, collecting, and counting the pieces of paper." I think that it would even be in order for the assembly to Suspend the Rules so that the procedure for a roll call vote would be used, but that the results would not be recorded in the minutes (although this would require more than a 2/3 vote if the assembly has a special rule permitting a minority of less than 1/3 to order a roll call vote). This accomplishes the same ends as the procedure you have proposed, but avoids some of the problems with it.

Also, the same potential problem is there in any vote taken by this method -- what prevents a member who stood for 'aye' on a run-of-the-mill motion from standing again for 'no'?

Nothing, but when the only options are "Yes" and "No" I imagine most members would realize that voting for both would be pointless. In an election, where there may be many choices, the possibility that a member may become confused and vote for too many candidates is much greater.

Perhaps the message is that an assembly that adopts a novel voting method must define all the details (as Mr. Foulkes earlier suggested), and that the criterion that the assembly has not decided anything cannot be used in itself to automatically allow further rounds of voting by the novel method.

Yes, I think this is correct.