sandib Posted February 14, 2012 at 05:15 AM Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 at 05:15 AM Confused ( and obviously dense). RONR 11th, pg.416,line27 states that ballots by persons not intitled to vote are excluded in computing the majority. Yet on pg. 417, line 24 TELLERS' REPORT, the number used to compute the majority, included the 7 votes for Mr. Friend (ineligible). I am assuming that (ineligible) means Mr. Friend was not eligible for the position for which he received 7 votes, not that the 7 votes were cast by ineligible voters. Am I correct ? Have I confused anyone else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted February 14, 2012 at 06:20 AM Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 at 06:20 AM Looks correct to me. Otherwise the book is inconsistent, and maybe wrong about something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted February 14, 2012 at 07:21 AM Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 at 07:21 AM Here, look at the numbers, on the bottom of p. 417. 97 votes, legitimate votes, were cast, excluding any cast by, say, non-members, as p. 416, lines 27 - 30 says. Now here are the candidates without problems:Miller .... 51Wilson /// 24Strong ... 14_______________total .... 89So 89 votes for those three, out of the 97, leaves 8 more to account for. Friend (illegible) gets seven, mis-folded are 1. So it adds up. There's no room for any seven ineligible voters, or for any, for that matter.(Now watch me zing cancelling meetings, in a nearby thread, at 2 in the morning.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted February 15, 2012 at 12:06 AM Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 at 12:06 AM Confused ( and obviously dense). RONR 11th, pg.416,line27 states that ballots by persons not intitled to vote are excluded in computing the majority. Yet on pg. 417, line 24 TELLERS' REPORT, the number used to compute the majority, included the 7 votes for Mr. Friend (ineligible). I am assuming that (ineligible) means Mr. Friend was not eligible for the position for which he received 7 votes, not that the 7 votes were cast by ineligible voters. Am I correct ?Yes, this is correct. Ballots which were clearly cast by persons not entitled to vote would not be included in the tellers' report - they would be ignored the same as blanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted February 15, 2012 at 02:12 AM Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 at 02:12 AM Confused ( and obviously dense). RONR 11th, pg.416,line27 states that ballots by persons not intitled to vote are excluded in computing the majority. Yet on pg. 417, line 24 TELLERS' REPORT, the number used to compute the majority, included the 7 votes for Mr. Friend (ineligible). I am assuming that (ineligible) means Mr. Friend was not eligible for the position for which he received 7 votes, not that the 7 votes were cast by ineligible voters. Am I correct ? Have I confused anyone else?I'm not sure what you're confused about... and I'm not convinced that you're dense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandib Posted February 15, 2012 at 03:12 AM Author Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 at 03:12 AM Of course, it all makes sense now. Maybe I should try getting more sleep. Thank you, thank you.Our club has an election coming up the end of March so never fear, " I'll be baaack" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.