Structuring a ballot

[Guest Valerie Davis]

I work for a police department and the patrol personnal wanted to find out if the members were interested in changing their work schedule. A survey was conducted and 72% of the members said they wanted a change. A schedule committee was formed, of which I am a member, to do research on the types of schedules that would work for our department. The committee found two (2) options that would work, an 8.5 hour shift and a 12 hour shift. In contrast to most other departments, we don't work our shifts according to straight seniority...meaning the most senior officer doesn't get all the shifts he/she chooses but, we were looking to possibly change this. So, when we presented the two schedules to patrol for a vote, we structured the ballot like this:

Option#1: 8.5 hr shift w/straight seniority

Option#2: 8.5 hr shift w/current seniority

Option#3: 12 hr shift w/straight seniority

Option#4: 12 hr shift w/current seniority

The two options with the highest totals will be put to a final election

Each officer was allowed no more than two (2) selections. They could vote for only one or for two.

We are a 32 member department and the results were as follows:

#1: 10 votes

#2: 8 votes

#3: 23 votes

#4: 12 votes

two (2) blank votes (they were not counted)

The following points of contention have developed in the committee and in patrol:

The option of "No Change" was not included on the first ballot.

Most of the committee members concluded since 72% of the members stated they wanted a change in the initial survey, the "No Change" option was off the table for any and all ballots

The blank votes should have been counted

If I read the rules correctly, this is not the case.

So, the questions are:

Should the "No Change" option be included and if so, is it counted as a blank?

If the "No Change" option is NOT included, are those blank votes counted, regardless how many are received?

[J. J.]

I'm assuming that these are absentee ballots and these are permitted in your bylaws. Conversely, is this effectively a survey?

I would suggest two ballots.

First, the ballots on the particular option, which is what you did in your first ballot.

Second, once a choice is made, a ballot using that specific choice.

For example, in this case, a ballot on the motion, "Shall the shifts be set at a 12 hr shift with straight seniority?"

You want, ultimately, a yes or no answer.

[Gary c Tesser]

I'm assuming that these are absentee ballots and these are permitted in your bylaws. Conversely, is this effectively a survey?

I would suggest two ballots.

First, the ballots on the particular option, which is what you did in your first ballot.

Second, once a choice is made, a ballot using that specific choice.

For example, in this case, a ballot on the motion, "Shall the shifts be set at a 12 hr shift with straight seniority?"

You want, ultimately, a yes or no answer.

Survey? JJ, they were not surveying, they were deciding.

What do you make of those hideous vote totals?

What do you make of the fact that the distributed ballot did not allow for "no change"?

[Gary c Tesser]

J. J., wake up!

[J. J.]

Survey? JJ, they were not surveying, they were deciding.

What do you make of those hideous vote totals?

What do you make of the fact that the distributed ballot did not allow for "no change"?

The "no change" creates a problem.

The rules could be suspended to permit a plurality to fill the blank.

[sMargaret]

Based on the fact that they could make up to two choices, I'm also going to say that it was a survey, not a vote to make a decision.

• "Each officer was allowed no more than two (2) selections. They could vote for only one or for two."
  
• "The two options with the highest totals will be put to a final election"
  

I would suggest that the survey results were not really conclusive. Fortunately, you did promise to do another ballot. This time, can you do two ballots, with only one choice per ballot?

First ballot:

Change to 8.5 hour shift

Change to 12 hour shift

No change to current shifts (assuming you're not currently working 8.5 or 12 hour shifts)

Second ballot:

Straight seniority

Current seniority (with a short description of what that means)

You may actually be able to do both of these on the same piece of paper, just as long as it's really clear that it's only one option in each section being chosen.

[Guest Edgar]

Each officer was allowed no more than two (2) selections. They could vote for only one or for two.

Do you mean they could indicate a first and second choice? If so, those results are not indicated in your totals.

If not, how could anyone logically vote for two options when each option contradicts at least half of another option?

Or am I missing something here.

[jstackpo]

Do you mean they could indicate a first and second choice? If so, those results are not indicated in your totals.

If not, how could anyone logically vote for two options when each option contradicts at least half of another option?

Or am I missing something here.

A system of voting called "Approval Voting" (Brams & Fishburn) allows you to do just that: vote "for" as many of the options as you like (but not all -- that would be pointless) - highest total of votes wins. It is essentially equivalent to RONR's filling blanks as long as that "highest total" reached a majority.

[Guest Valerie Davis]

I'm new to the "forum" world but WOW, you guys are GREAT!!! Thanks for the comments. As for JDStackpole's comments, yours seem to be on point with our dilemma. When we crafted the first ballot, all committee members agreed on the language used and no one made any objections to the "No Change" option being left off. Now that some members of the committee and the general membership aren't pleased with the results...76% for 12 hr straight seniority, they want the "No Change" option included. What is your opinion, on what we should do? The majority of the committee says, don't include it and if the committee was to vote on it, that opinion would win. I welcome everyone/anyone's comments on this issue. Btw, we haven't adhered to any Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) or adopted any bylaws for the committee. The only absolute we all agreed on was the winning selection must have a 70% majority of all legal ballots. Who knew cops were so jacked up???

[Trina]

I work for a police department and the patrol personnal wanted to find out if the members were interested in changing their work schedule. A survey was conducted and 72% of the members said they wanted a change. A schedule committee was formed, of which I am a member, to do research on the types of schedules that would work for our department. The committee found two (2) options that would work, an 8.5 hour shift and a 12 hour shift. In contrast to most other departments, we don't work our shifts according to straight seniority...meaning the most senior officer doesn't get all the shifts he/she chooses but, we were looking to possibly change this. So, when we presented the two schedules to patrol for a vote, we structured the ballot like this:

...

I'm new to the "forum" world but WOW, you guys are GREAT!!! Thanks for the comments. As for JDStackpole's comments, yours seem to be on point with our dilemma. When we crafted the first ballot, all committee members agreed on the language used and no one made any objections to the "No Change" option being left off. Now that some members of the committee and the general membership aren't pleased with the results...76% for 12 hr straight seniority, they want the "No Change" option included. What is your opinion, on what we should do? The majority of the committee says, don't include it and if the committee was to vote on it, that opinion would win. I welcome everyone/anyone's comments on this issue. Btw, we haven't adhered to any Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) or adopted any bylaws for the committee. The only absolute we all agreed on was the winning selection must have a 70% majority of all legal ballots. Who knew cops were so jacked up???

Ummm... how was this 'schedule committee' formed? How did the committee get to decide on the form of the ballot, and how did it get the authority to decide on this 70% rule? Further, I'm not sure there is a deliberative assembly involved anywhere in this situation; and therefore not sure that the rules of parliamentary procedure will serve to answer any of your questions. That's not to say the form of the ballot question is not an interesting or important one; just that I don't yet see how/why this forum will help answer your questions.

Is this all going on in the context of a union meeting, perhaps? You did mention the 'general membership' -- the general membership of what exactly?

[jstackpo]

A slight difference, well maybe not so slight, between "Approval Voting" and "Filling a Blank"....

Approval Voting assumes that one of the options MUST be selected which is why it is usually applied to elections where "none of the above" is not an option. It, in effect, assumes that an incomplete motion reading "We shall elect [blank]" has already been adopted (see p. 430) and that supplying a name for [blank] elects "name" to office.

With the "standard" Filling the Blank (which could be perfectly well filled via Approval Voting) all you have done is, well, fill the blank - see p. 162 ff. At that point you have a main motion reading "We shall do such and so", and that main motion can then be defeated. That is how "Do nothing" (or "none of the above") legitimately finds its way into a multiple choice situation.

[Dan Honemann]

A slight difference, well maybe not so slight, between "Approval Voting" and "Filling a Blank"....

Approval Voting assumes that one of the options MUST be selected which is why it is usually applied to elections where "none of the above" is not an option. It, in effect, assumes that an incomplete motion reading "We shall elect [blank]" has already been adopted (see p. 430) and that supplying a name for [blank] elects "name" to office.

With the "standard" Filling the Blank (which could be perfectly well filled via Approval Voting) all you have done is, well, fill the blank - see p. 162 ff. At that point you have a main motion reading "We shall do such and so", and that main motion can then be defeated. That is how "Do nothing" (or "none of the above") legitimately finds its way into a multiple choice situation.

And, of course, each proposal for filling a blank is voted on separately.

[jstackpo]

Separate votes on each proposal is what RONR specifies, to be sure. However, the Approval voting system, if bylaw authorized, and if the voters are completely consistent, will give exactly the same outcome. Including the possibility that no option gets a majority.

[Guest Valerie]

Thanks again!! All of the comments are informative and are helping to guide me to the truth. Trina to answer you questions: How was the committee formed? Anyone who wanted to be on the committee signed up.

How did we form the ballot and where the 70% rule comes from? The committee decided on the structure of the ballot. We decided to combine the shift type with the seniority issue so as to minimize the number of times the members would have to vote. The union requires a majority of 50 + 1, our village asked that we go with a 2/3rds majority and the committee decided to go with 70% because the change would have such a large effect on most of the officers lives. Is this going on in the context of a union meeting? The union meeting comes after the voting (good insight). General membership? I was referring to the patrol personnel (committee members included).

The more I read the rules and the sections everyone has suggested, I am sure you are right in you comments...nothing about the process has been in keeping with parlimentary rules. I think its unrealistic to inject the rules now.

JDStackpole: Yes, among a lot of other things, we should have done separate ballots.

[Guest Edgar]

I think its unrealistic to inject the rules now.

Yes, just keep marching deeper into the Big Muddy.

[Josh Martin]

Is this going on in the context of a union meeting? The union meeting comes after the voting (good insight). General membership? I was referring to the patrol personnel (committee members included).

Are these ballots in the nature of a survey which will be used as guidance for the union meeting, or are these ballots what will decide the issue?

If the latter, it's unclear whether the ballots are valid. It would depend on what instructions and authority the union gave to the committee, and on the union's rules and any applicable laws.

I think its unrealistic to inject the rules now.

Unless you believe that a.) a substantial majority of the membership agrees with you on this and b.) none of the union members are litigious, I would suggest this is an unwise statement.

Even if a and b are true I still don't much care for the sentiment, but at least nothing terrible is likely to happen.

[Guest Valerie]

Hello Mr. Martin and thank you for your imput. I'll start by responding to the latter portion of your comments. Please pardon me if my comment about not injecting the rules conveyed any sense of disregard for the rules. I've learned more about Parlimentary Procedure in the last two days than I have in my entire life. I'm a law enforcement officer and have nothing but respect for and live and die by rules. I was expressing my frustration with the committee's lack of proper procedure.

On your question of the ballot: The results of the final ballot will be reported to the union and the union will negotiate with the village to include it into the contract. Once the union and village have done their work, the contract, including the schedule, will be given to the members for ratification...50 + 1 = majority. So, I guess the answer to your question is, Yes, the ballot is essentially a survey.

[jstackpo]

One detail that could make a difference in a close vote: your definition of "majority" as 50%+1.

That is NOT the RONR standard definition which is "a majority is more than half". With an odd number of people voting, say 25, your definition would require 14 "Yes" votes to adopt something, the correct definition would require "only" 13. Could start a big fight.

[Guest Valerie]

Thanks JDStackpole but the big fights have already begun

[J. J.]

And, of course, each proposal for filling a blank is voted on separately.

Could they be voted upon on the same ballot, like an election for multiple offices may be voted upon with one ballot?

[Trina]

I'm still not sure that the rules in RONR apply to this situation, as it has played out so far. The issues of the authority of the committee (where did that authority come from?) and the instructions given to the committee (did any larger assembly actually give instructions to the committee?) seem very murky.

As for the current dissatisfaction, though:

Thanks JDStackpole but the big fights have already begun

perhaps some light could be shed by comparing the process to what what would happen (under the rules in RONR) if a group were electing someone to an office.

1) In the end, one person must be elected to the office (similarly, one scheduling option must ultimately be chosen).

2) A nominating committee may be formed to make recommendations on candidates (somewhat as the scheduling committee narrowed down all imaginable new schedules to 4 possibilities).

3) Additional nominations may be made from the floor, with any individual member allowed to make such a nomination (in this situation no individual 'nominations' were solicited or allowed, so the individuals who would have nominated 'no change' or 'current schedule' for a spot on the ballot didn't get a chance to do so, and are now dissatisfied that their 'candidate' didn't get a fair shake).

4) Write-in votes are permitted (no such option in this situation, so the voters felt limited to the choices pre-selected by the scheduling committee).

5) Majority vote elects, with multiple rounds of balloting taking place if no candidate wins on the first ballot (this situation was handled very differently, with the 2 votes per voter rule, and the 70% requirement decided -- again, on what authority, who knows -- by the scheduling committee).

I'm not claiming this is a perfect analogy, but it may help to understand why there is now dissatisfaction among the members. If the ballots were in the nature of a survey, the well-known fact remains that the selection of questions in a survey will almost inevitably skew the results.

...

When we crafted the first ballot, all committee members agreed on the language used and no one made any objections to the "No Change" option being left off. Now that some members of the committee and the general membership aren't pleased with the results...76% for 12 hr straight seniority, they want the "No Change" option included. What is your opinion, on what we should do? The majority of the committee says, don't include it and if the committee was to vote on it, that opinion would win. I welcome everyone/anyone's comments on this issue. Btw, we haven't adhered to any Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) or adopted any bylaws for the committee. The only absolute we all agreed on was the winning selection must have a 70% majority of all legal ballots.

...

I still wonder if the committee really had any authority in the first place. If not, then this is all a tempest in a teapot, and has no effect on the ultimate decision made by the 'general membership'. Perhaps, if a union meeting is coming up (as I think you suggested in one of your posts) the issue could be resolved at that meeting.

As to what 'we' do next, that depends on who 'we' is. If 'we' is the committee, the committee should look to its authority (if any) and its instructions (if any) before deciding how to proceed.

edited to add:

Looking back at the original post

I work for a police department and the patrol personnal wanted to find out if the members were interested in changing their work schedule. A survey was conducted and 72% of the members said they wanted a change.

...

The option of "No Change" was not included on the first ballot.

Most of the committee members concluded since 72% of the members stated they wanted a change in the initial survey, the "No Change" option was off the table for any and all ballots

...

I'll point out that 72% saying they want 'a change' does not logically lead to the conclusion that 72% will be in favor of the specific options for change that were ultimately presented to them. As an extreme example, suppose only one new schedule option is presented -- something that virtually everyone will hate; I'll leave the details up to you. In that case, it's a pretty good bet that the 72% in favor of 'a change' will not translate into 72% in favor of the new awful schedule, even though it certainly qualifies as 'a change'.

[Dan Honemann]

Could they be voted upon on the same ballot, like an election for multiple offices may be voted upon with one ballot?

What I said was that each proposal for filling a blank is voted on separately, and as a consequence, I'm afraid I don't understand this question. I don't see how voting on multiple suggestions for filling a single blank is anything like voting in an election to fill multiple offices.

Part of the problem may be that I made my comment in response to something or other, but without attempting to have it relate to the situation presented in this thread (which I don't understand either, and will leave to other brave souls like Trina to figure out).

[jstackpo]

I don't see how voting on multiple suggestions for filling a single blank is anything like voting in an election to fill multiple offices.

Well, an election is identical to "fill the blank" if the election is being done viva-voce - p.442.

Viva-voce may not be a "suitable" way to do an election, but it remains in the book.

[J. J.]

What I said was that each proposal for filling a blank is voted on separately, and as a consequence, I'm afraid I don't understand this question. I don't see how voting on multiple suggestions for filling a single blank is anything like voting in an election to fill multiple offices.

Suggestions to fill a blank in a motion are A, B, C, and D. The society wishes to vote on the suggestions by ballot. Would there be anything that would violate the rules if the assembly would print all options on a single sheet of paper with a "yes" or "no" option for each option and take the vote that way? I think that would be in order under the rules (though there might be practical problems with it).

Part of the problem may be that I made my comment in response to something or other, but without attempting to have it relate to the situation presented in this thread (which I don't understand either, and will leave to other brave souls like Trina to figure out).

You and I both. My question applies to the general case.

[Dan Honemann]

Well, an election is identical to "fill the blank" if the election is being done viva-voce - p.442.

Viva-voce may not be a "suitable" way to do an election, but it remains in the book.

Yes, but as I think you mentioned somewhere up above, the device of filing a blank can be equated with an election only in those situations in which the assembly is under an obligation to fill the blank.