Guest Tom Posted May 18, 2012 at 01:38 PM Report Share Posted May 18, 2012 at 01:38 PM If multiple people are running for office, can we have an elimination vote? Example, if four people run for president can we have a run off vote narrowing the last vote down to just two people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted May 18, 2012 at 01:42 PM Report Share Posted May 18, 2012 at 01:42 PM No, not according to the rules in RONR. All candidates remain on the ballot, and you keep voting until someone gets a majority (more than half) of votes cast. See RONR (11th ed.) p. 441 ll. 5-10 for supporting citation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Learning Posted May 18, 2012 at 01:51 PM Report Share Posted May 18, 2012 at 01:51 PM Is the footnote on that page not applicable, or you just didn't care to point it out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted May 18, 2012 at 02:33 PM Report Share Posted May 18, 2012 at 02:33 PM Yes, it is applicable (it is a "new" provision in the 11th ed of RONR).But read it with care -- the only way to make a run-off election "really" work -- that is, mandate that the "fewest vote candidate" cannot be elected is through a bylaw amendment.Also if you have an election with more than three candidates, the book is not clear (at all!) whether you drop all but the top two candidates for the run-off, or drop only the one "bottom" candidate in the run off. Interestingly, which choice you make -- put it in your rules -- can make a difference in the final outcome of a close fought race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted May 18, 2012 at 04:03 PM Report Share Posted May 18, 2012 at 04:03 PM Also if you have an election with more than three candidates, the book is not clear (at all!) whether you drop all but the top two candidates for the run-off, or drop only the one "bottom" candidate in the run off. You could do either, I suppose, but the book suggests (pretty clearly) dropping "the nominee with the fewest votes".But of course, short of a bylaws amendment, there's nothing to really stop people from voting for whom they please, whether on the ballot or off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted May 18, 2012 at 04:29 PM Report Share Posted May 18, 2012 at 04:29 PM You could do either, I suppose, but the book suggests (pretty clearly) dropping "the nominee with the fewest votes".From a practical point of view, if you have a many many candidate election (e.g. the New Hampshire Presidential Primaries - there were 20 or more last time around) dropping only the single lowest candidate means you still have to run repeated elections. This rather defeats the purpose of a run-off.But whatever Guest Tom, or Guest Learning, decides upon, it should certainly be adopted as a rule, best placed in the bylaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted May 18, 2012 at 04:51 PM Report Share Posted May 18, 2012 at 04:51 PM Is the footnote on that page not applicable, or you just didn't care to point it out?No, nothing that carefully planned. I was just rushing to get off the computer, and didn't read the page with complete attention . The new language is interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.