voting for unopposed candidates

[Guest John]

If a candidate is running unopposed, does that automatically make them the person in the position. The vote is by secret ballot and our bylaws state that all winners have to get the majority vote but is silent on the subject of unopposed candidates.

[Guest Edgar]

If a candidate is running unopposed, does that automatically make them the person in the position. The vote is by secret ballot and our bylaws state that all winners have to get the majority vote but is silent on the subject of unopposed candidates.

If your bylaws require a ballot vote than a ballot vote you must have. If not, the chair can declare a sole nominee elected "by acclamation".

[Guest Edgar]

If your bylaws require a ballot vote than a ballot vote you must have. If not, the chair can declare a sole nominee elected "by acclamation".

then . . . then . . . then . . .

[Guest Johnn]

Thank you for your response. Under the ballot vote, would that person still have to get the majority vote or the amount of votes would not matter

[Guest Edgar]

Thank you for your response. Under the ballot vote, would that person still have to get the majority vote or the amount of votes would not matter

He'll still need a majority but, if he's the only candidate, that shouldn't be a problem.

[Guest John]

Thank you very much. That helps a lot because in the process of a ballot vote, there is a misconception that an unopposed candidate is an automatic winner. However, some of us are under the impression that if the person does not receive the majority vote then the position remains open and at the time of installation of officers the newly elected president can appoint someone to the open position.

[Guest Edgar]

However, some of us are under the impression that if the person does not receive the majority vote then the position remains open and at the time of installation of officers the newly elected president can appoint someone to the open position.

Not so fast. If no one receives a majority on the first round of voting, you have an "incomplete election". So you keep voting until someone is elected. An incomplete election does not trigger any mid-term vacancy-filling provisions you might have (e.g. appointment by the president).

However if this candidate is truly unopposed, a majority vote is virtually guaranteed.

[Guest Guest]

Are you saying that people have to vote for the person? What happens if people elect not to vote for the person which would cause them not to get the majority vote? I'm a little unsure what you mean the the majority vote is guaranteed. We are currently going through elections with several people running for office unopposed. There is question regarding the capabilities of some of them to do the job competently and members feel that because they are unopposed does not mean that they should be automatic and are opting not to vote for them. So that's my question. If the person running unopposed for a position and does not get the majority vote, leaving the position open at the end of elections, what happens then?

[Guest Edgar]

If the person running unopposed for a position and does not get the majority vote, leaving the position open at the end of elections, what happens then?

The election doesn't end until it's complete.

So, as indicated, you keep voting (at the next meeting if necessary) until someone, anyone, is elected. But if the unopposed candidate votes for himself, and no one votes for anyone else (for that particular office), he wins because he received a majority (actually all) of the votes cast for that particular office. The only way to "vote against" someone is to vote for someone else. "Not voting" (i.e abstaining) won't do it.

[Gary c Tesser]

Is it clear?

If one or two members vote for the unopposed candidate (even if only the candidate himself), then the tally will be those one or two votes for him, and zero votes for anyone else. That's how "he received a majority (actually all) of the votes cast for that particular office" (well said, Edgar).

If a few members don't want him to serve, then enough of them have to cast a larger number of votes for someone else.

[Gary Novosielski]

Thank you very much. That helps a lot because in the process of a ballot vote, there is a misconception that an unopposed candidate is an automatic winner. However, some of us are under the impression that if the person does not receive the majority vote then the position remains open and at the time of installation of officers the newly elected president can appoint someone to the open position.

Actually, both of those points of view are incorrect:

Since your bylaws require a ballot vote, and are silent on unopposed candidates, you must have a ballot vote and election is not automatic. But it is true that an unopposed candidate is almost guaranteed to win.

Your confusion seems to be over the meaning of what you call "the majority vote". That does not mean that they need to get the votes of a majority of members. It only means they must get a majority of the votes actually cast for that office. In other words, they must receive more votes than everyone else put together (for that office). But if nobody else is running (for that office), it would certainly take a very well-run write-in campaign to defeat an unopposed candidate. Even if a number of voters decide not to vote (to abstain) on the election for that office, the unopposed candidate is likely to receive a number of votes (only one is required) and unless there are as many or more write-in votes for other people, the unopposed candidate will almost certainly win.

But if no majority is received on the first ballot, you need to have a second and possibly subsequent ballots until someone is elected to that office. You may not leave it open and use the vacancy-filling provisions to appoint someone.

What you have in that case is NOT a vacancy, it is an incomplete election.