Balloting on suggestions

[J. J.]

An assembly that meets annually (not a convention) wants to hold a semi-annual, "gathering." It will be for social and educational purposes, but will not be a business meeting. Some members oppose the idea, but there is a lot of contention about where it will be held. A member properly made a motion, that is before the assembly, "That we have a three day semiannual gathering for educational and social purposes on June 15-18, 2013, in _________ ."

There are five suggestions made in this order:

A. Albany, NY.

B. Augusta, GA

C. Albuquerque, NM

D. Alkader, IA

E. Ashtabula, OH

There are no further suggestions.

All have some supporters and the location will be more contentious as the main motion.

The majority decides to have a ballot on the suggestions. They wish to use one sheet of paper for balloting and think it will be less time consuming to be able to collect and count all the ballots at once, instead of potentially five separate ballots. The majority does agree to this process.

The ballot will be formed like this:

Circle "Yes" or "No" to indicate how you will vote on each suggestion to fill the blank in the pending motion:

A. Albany, NY Yes No

B. Augusta, GA Yes No

C. Albuquerque, NM Yes No

D. Alkader, IA Yes No

E. Ashtabula, OH Yes No

The members are instructed that they should vote against any option that is not their preferred option. In other words, if they want option C, they will vote for option C, they will vote against option, A, B and D, E

The vote is taken and the tellers report the following:

A (and it will be spelled out in the report) 100 votes cast, needed to adopt, 51

yes 40; no 60

B 90 votes cast, needed to adopt, 46

yes 20 ; no 70

C. 100 votes cast, needed to adopt, 51

yes 55; no 45

D. 80 votes cast, needed to adopt, 41

yes 20; no 70 60

E. 98 votes cast, needed to adopt, 50

yes 28; no 70

The teller hands a copy of the report to the chair (since they have all that extra paper) and reads the first result. The chair repeats it, and declares A lost. The same procedure happens with B. When C occurs the chair repeats the result and declares suggestion C adopted. He then says, "The motion before the assembly is That we have a three day semiannual gathering for educational and social purposes on June 15-18, 2013, in Albuquerque, NM ."

Is there any violation of the rules in this?

[Josh Martin]

An assembly that meets annually (not a convention) wants to hold a semi-annual, "gathering." It will be for social and educational purposes, but will not be a business meeting. Some members oppose the idea, but there is a lot of contention about where it will be held. A member properly made a motion, that is before the assembly, "That we have a three day semiannual gathering for educational and social purposes on June 15-18, 2013, in _________ ."

There are five suggestions made...

The teller hands a copy of the report to the chair (since they have all that extra paper) and reads the first result. The chair repeats it, and declares A lost. The same procedure happens with B. When C occurs the chair repeats the result and declares suggestion C adopted. He then says, "The motion before the assembly is That we have a three day semiannual gathering for educational and social purposes on June 15-18, 2013, in Albuquerque, NM ."

Is there any violation of the rules in this?

This seems to be blending the rules for a ballot vote and a voice vote for filling a blank. In the general case, when members vote by ballot on filling a blank, it is handled much like an election.

Nonetheless, if the assembly wishes to use this unusual method, I do not see any rule in RONR which would prevent it.

[Sean Hunt]

I could see a claim that it amounts to a straw poll on the never-reached options, but that seems like a poor argument against it since straw polls are disallowed due to being dilatory, whereas this is clearly time-saving, not time-wasting.

[Guest Edgar]

A member properly made a motion, that is before the assembly, "That we have a three day semiannual gathering for educational and social purposes on June 15-18, 2013, in . . . Alkader, IA".

Where is this mythical place?

Clearly the obvious choice is Albany, NY.

[J. J.]

This seems to be blending the rules for a ballot vote and a voice vote for filling a blank. In the general case, when members vote by ballot on filling a blank, it is handled much like an election.

Nonetheless, if the assembly wishes to use this unusual method, I do not see any rule in RONR which would prevent it.

Well, I would not call it a blending, just following the rules in an unusual circumstance. The unusual circumstance is that this is by ballot and blanks are normally filled by voice vote. There is no rule to prohibit them to be taken by ballot.

Posted Today, 07:13 PM

I could see a claim that it amounts to a straw poll on the never-reached options, but that seems like a poor argument against it since straw polls are disallowed due to being dilatory, whereas this is clearly time-saving, not time-wasting.

Well, in theory, the result of those "post majority" counts would not be disclosed (even if D got more votes that option C). I think you could argue that having a separate ballot on each option was more dilatory, though I don't think that would be a legitimate argument.

Where is this mythical place?

Elkader, Iowa is the county seat of Clayton County. I've never been there, but about two decades ago, I spoke to a few people there. Very friendly and helpful in my experience. Sorry for the misspelling; transliteration from Arabic is difficult.

http://en.wikipedia....i/Elkader,_Iowa

[Dan Honemann]

There appears to me to be a great deal wrong with this procedure, so perhaps I've got some of the facts wrong.

As I read it, if the members present all obeyed the instruction to vote for only one of the five options, then either 153 or 163 members cast ballots (depending upon whether the error in the report of the voting for D is in the number of vote cast, the number for, or the number against).

Am I correct so far?

[J. J.]

There appears to me to be a great deal wrong with this procedure, so perhaps I've got some of the facts wrong.

As I read it, if the members present all obeyed the instruction to vote for only one of the five options, then either 153 or 163 members cast ballots (depending upon whether the error in the report of the voting for D is in the number of vote cast, the number for, or the number against).

Am I correct so far?

No, you are completely wrong.

There was no case where more than 100 people voted for or against any suggestion, though some abstained. The instruction was "that they should vote against any option that is not their preferred option." In other words, if they wanted option B, they should vote against options A, C, D, and E.

In the case of D, while there were 100 members in the room, only 80 voted (the no votes should be 60) on suggestion D. 20 chose not to vote.

[Dan Honemann]

No, you are completely wrong.

There was no case where more than 100 people voted for or against any suggestion, though some abstained. The instruction was "that they should vote against any option that is not their preferred option." In other words, if they wanted option B, they should vote against options A, C, D, and E.

In the case of D, while there were 100 members in the room, only 80 voted (the no votes should be 60) on suggestion D. 20 chose not to vote.

But J.J., since there are a total of 165 "for" votes cast, if there were only 100 members present obviously at least 65 members voted in favor of more than one proposal.

[J. J.]

But J.J., since there are a total of 165 "for" votes cast, obviously at least 65 members voted in favor of more than one proposal.

No, each "for" vote is on a single suggestion. It applies to single suggestion. There is no rule or instruction that they can only vote for one suggestion.

If this were a counted voice vote on the suggestions, you would have this result:

A yes 40; no 60, suggestion A is lost

B yes 20 ; no 70, suggestion B is lost

C. yes 55; no 45, suggestion C is adopted. The assembly returns to the main motion.

Now, obviously, at least 15 people voted in favor of more than one option, but these are separate votes on separate suggestions, they are not to be added together. Neither the rules nor the chair's instructions (even if binding and not advisory) prevent a member for voting in favor of more than one suggesting, being voted on individually.

You cannot add the votes on separate and independent suggestions together without violating page 164 ll. 25-26.

[Dan Honemann]

Post #1:

"The members are instructed that they should vote against any option that is not their preferred option. In other words, if they want option C, they will vote for option C, they will vote against option, A, B and D, E."

Post #9:

"There is no rule or instruction that they can only vote for one suggestion."

Okay, which is it?

[J. J.]

Post #1:

"The members are instructed that they should vote against any option that is not their preferred option. In other words, if they want option C, they will vote for option C, they will vote against option, A, B and D, E."

Post #9:

"There is no rule or instruction that they can only vote for one suggestion."

Okay, which is it?

The instruction is that they "The members are instructed that they should vote against any option that is not their preferred option." It is advisory, similar to the commentary found on p. 443, ll. 1-3. It is advisory, so members understand for an early suggestion, which they oppose, to be defeated, they should vote against that earlier proposal.

I would add that advising the members that they should vote against a non preferred option in no way is equivalent to saying that they must (or should) vote in favor of only one option. Had there been an parliamentary inquiry to that effect, the answer would have been that an individual member may certainly vote in favor of more than one suggestion and a previous vote in favor of a different suggestion in no way prevents him from voting in a on a subsequent suggestion. That would be an identical answer to the inquiry, if this was a voice vote.

[Dan Honemann]

The instruction is that they "The members are instructed that they should vote against any option that is not their preferred option." It is advisory, similar to the commentary found on p. 443, ll. 1-3. It is advisory, so members understand for an early suggestion, which they oppose, to be defeated, they should vote against that earlier proposal.

Okay, I think I understand. However, what is said on page 164, lines 25-26, as well as what is said on page 443, lines 1-3, obviously contemplates successive votes, as indicated by the importance placed upon the order in which suggestions are voted upon, and also as illustrated in all of the examples provided. Your single ballot scheme doesn't comply with any of this.

[J. J.]

Okay, I think I understand. However, what is said on page 164, lines 25-26, as well as what is said on page 443, lines 1-3, obviously contemplates successive votes, as indicated by the importance placed upon the order in which suggestions are voted upon, and also as illustrated in all of the examples provided. Your single ballot scheme doesn't comply with any of this.

I think it would, at least as the announcement and ballot position would. These are separate and successive votes. Suggestion A will be dealt with first, and the others in succession. I see no violation of the rule on page 164, ll. 25-26. Each suggestion is truly treated as an "independent original" and is "voted on separately until one is approved by a majority."

As noted, the result would be the same if Suggestion E had 70 yes votes and 28 no votes. Because Suggestion C was "approved by the majority" it would fill the blank, without any regard to subsequent ballots.

I'm not seeing any violation of the rules for filling a blank.

[Dan Honemann]

I think it would, at least as the announcement and ballot position would. These are separate and successive votes. Suggestion A will be dealt with first, and the others in succession. I see no violation of the rule on page 164, ll. 25-26. Each suggestion is truly treated as an "independent original" and is "voted on separately until one is approved by a majority."

As noted, the result would be the same if Suggestion E had 70 yes votes and 28 no votes. Because Suggestion C was "approved by the majority" it would fill the blank, without any regard to subsequent ballots.

I'm not seeing any violation of the rules for filling a blank.

J.J., separate and successive votes occur only when the result of one vote is announced before the next vote is taken. Look at the examples in the book.

Oh, never mind.

[J. J.]

J.J., separate and successive votes occur only when the result of one vote is announced before the next vote is taken. Look at the examples in the book.

Oh, never mind.

Well, I'm not seeing that to be part of the rule. Each suggestion is being handled as "an independent original to be voted on separately." I think it would meet the "separately and successively" standard as well.

The only differences that I could see between this and a counted voice vote is voter anonymity and that the voter would know the result of a previous vote when voting. If each suggestion is an "independent original" what the assembly decided on a previous suggestion, or what they will decide on a future suggestion shouldn't may a difference.

[Dan Honemann]

Well, I'm not seeing that to be part of the rule. Each suggestion is being handled as "an independent original to be voted on separately." I think it would meet the "separately and successively" standard as well.

The only differences that I could see between this and a counted voice vote is voter anonymity and that the voter would know the result of a previous vote when voting. If each suggestion is an "independent original" what the assembly decided on a previous suggestion, or what they will decide on a future suggestion shouldn't may a difference.

I suspect another big difference is that, by properly following the rules for voting on suggestions for filling blanks, the chair will avoid being tossed out of office for trying to declare C as being the assembly's choice instead of E, when E gets 70 votes and C only gets 55 (as suggested in post #13).

[Trina]

This is an interesting discussion. When RONR describes votes to fill a blank, or the procedure for a viva-voce election, the earlier-listed suggestions clearly have an advantage over the later-listed suggestions. As soon as a proposal or a candidate gets a majority, the voting is over, and the will of the assembly on the later-listed suggestions is never measured. In J.J.'s proposal, the assembly expresses an opinion on all the options, but the advantage of the earlier-listed suggestions is maintained by the order in which the chair reads the results. Despite the advice in RONR (various citations can be found on pp. 162-167) to vote on proposals to fill a blank in a logical order, one can certainly imagine situations where the best or most logical order simply isn't clear. In those situations, the advantage bestowed on the earlier-listed proposals could be described as arbitrary, and perhaps even unfair, especially in the eyes of members who favor one of the later-listed proposals.

As Mr. Honemann points out, having the assembly vote on all of the proposals (which is an intrinsic part of the voting method proposed in the original post) is a non-trivial difference in practice. Some members certainly will know that a later-listed proposal (the modified outcome of the vote on E) received a higher vote of approval than the proposal that was declared adopted (proposal C). At a minimum, the tellers know, and the chair knows. Soon other members are likely to know.

Perhaps the question is whether this is a sufficiently different voting method that the assembly should first make a decision to vote in this manner (describing all the details carefully in the motion that describes the proposed voting method), rather than assuming that this method is simply a variant on filling the blank, and is therefore adequately covered already in RONR. This would be similar to choosing some other non-standard method (for example, putting the names of the five cities on slips of paper in a hat, and having a member pull out a name at random).

And while they're at it (describing and approving a new voting method, that is), I think they should make use of the additional information that will be in hand, by agreeing to sort the proposals, in descending order of the number of 'yes' votes received, before the chair reads through and announces the results. That way the option with 70 'yes' votes would be read first, and since 70 is clearly a majority of 98, that option would be chosen. That would appear to be a better assessment of the will of the assembly in such a situation.

[Shmuel Gerber]

This is an interesting discussion. . . .

"Interesting" is not the adjective I would use. More like "nutty." :-)

J.J. says, "I would not call it a blending, just following the rules in an unusual circumstance. The unusual circumstance is that this is by ballot and blanks are normally filled by voice vote."

Perhaps the text could be more specific about how to conduct a ballot vote to fill a blank in a pending motion, but the idea that this is how it should be done, according to the rules in RONR, is quite absurd.

[J. J.]

I suspect another big difference is that, by properly following the rules for voting on suggestions for filling blanks, the chair will avoid being tossed out of office for trying to declare C as being the assembly's choice instead of E, when E gets 70 votes and C only gets 55 (as suggested in post #13).

Well, if C receives a majority, the results for D and E will not be reported.

I think the chair could be equally likely to be tossed out when the members say, "E is a lot better option, let's vote on that!"

[J. J.]

"Interesting" is not the adjective I would use. More like "nutty." :-)

J.J. says, "I would not call it a blending, just following the rules in an unusual circumstance. The unusual circumstance is that this is by ballot and blanks are normally filled by voice vote."

Perhaps the text could be more specific about how to conduct a ballot vote to fill a blank in a pending motion, but the idea that this is how it should be done, according to the rules in RONR, is quite absurd.

You really have not answered the question. Is the method out of order, and what would be the grounds for ruling it out of order? I have not come up with any.

I would also note that this was brought up by a real, non theoretical, question by a poster who wanted to do this correctly.

I can look at a few aspects:

A. Is each suggestion treated as "an independent original to be voted on separately until one is approved by the majority (p. 164, ll. 25-26)." I think so.

B. Can several "independent original" motions, or suggestions, be balloted on using the same sheet of paper, by . Yes, provided that each segment is treated separately (p. 413, ll. 21-23).

C. Can a motion Relating to Methods of Voting or To the Polls set a specific time to open the polls on a question. Yes (p. 286, ll. 15-18).

D. Is the motion dilatory. Arguably, no, since in most cases, it will take less time to process the motion.

So, does this method actually violate any rules? Could this method be used if the majority approves of it?

[Shmuel Gerber]

You really have not answered the question. Is the method out of order, and what would be the grounds for ruling it out of order? I have not come up with any.

I would also note that this was brought up by a real, non theoretical, question by a poster who wanted to do this correctly.

If I'm chairing the meeting, my answer is that it's out of order because it's nutty. :-)

If they want to do this correctly, then the assembly can order that the vote on filling the blank be taken by ballot. At that point, the question is handled like an election, as Josh Martin has said. One ballot is taken on all the choices, with each member voting for one choice. If no choice attains a majority, the balloting is repeated, and the members who voted for the less popular choices can take the previous results into account when casting their next ballot.

The fact that a question is worded as, "What rule does it violate if such and such [made up off the cuff] procedure is done?" rather than, "What is the correct procedure?" is already an indication that things are off track.

[Tim Wynn]

If I'm chairing the meeting, my answer is that it's out of order because it's nutty. :-)

I couldn't agree more.

J.J. lost me at "Hello." It seems clear that he's missing the point that a vote can't be both TAKEN on all suggestions at once and COUNTED one at a time until one receives a majority.

It's out of order, because it's NOT in order.

[J. J.]

If I'm chairing the meeting, my answer is that it's out of order because it's nutty. :-)

If they want to do this correctly, then the assembly can order that the vote on filling the blank be taken by ballot. At that point, the question is handled like an election, as Josh Martin has said. One ballot is taken on all the choices, with each member voting for one choice. If no choice attains a majority, the balloting is repeated, and the members who voted for the less popular choices can take the previous results into account when casting their next ballot.

Well, that suggestion, no pun intended, would violate p. 164, ll.25-26. I don't think that is a bad way of handling it, only that it violates that particular rule; the suggestions are no longer treated as an "independent original."

The fact that a question is worded as, "What rule does it violate if such and such [made up off the cuff] procedure is done?" rather than, "What is the correct procedure?" is already an indication that things are off track.

The correct procedure would be a method acceptable to the majority, that doesn't otherwise violate the rules (like the last suggestion). So, does this method actually violate any rules?

[J. J.]

I couldn't agree more.

J.J. lost me at "Hello." It seems clear that he's missing the point that a vote can't be both TAKEN on all suggestions at once and COUNTED one at a time until one receives a majority.

Why not? There is an example where a vote would be ignored based on the results of an earlier vote.

[Dan Honemann]

Why not? There is an example where a vote would be ignored based on the results of an earlier vote.

J.J., I'm afraid it's time to give this up. There are rules in RONR on how to conduct a ballot vote, and your rules (including the bit about keeping a part of the tellers' report to the assembly a secret from the assembly) simply do not comply.

You're welcome to join in the discussion in Part II, however, so long as you don't try to interject any of this stuff. The question raised in Part II is where I thought you might have been heading when this all started.