voting in directors

[Guest Beth]

Our association just held their annual meeting and there were 2 director-at-large positions open. We had 1 person running and one that was nomiated from the floor. When the votes was counted one clearly had a majority of the votes and one received only 2, not a majority. The members present assumed that since there were 2 position open and 2 people running that the second person was also voted in. Our by-laws state that we must follow roberts rules of order unless specified other other wise. There is nothing in our by-laws concerning taking the top votes, so I feel that Roberts rules of order would apply here. Any person not received a majority of the votes would not be a director.

Please help and I need an answer very quickly.

[Guest RHW]

Just a thought--how can two people both get a majority of the same vote? I would think since only two were on the ballot that the two are elected.

[Josh Martin]

Our association just held their annual meeting and there were 2 director-at-large positions open. We had 1 person running and one that was nomiated from the floor. When the votes was counted one clearly had a majority of the votes and one received only 2, not a majority. The members present assumed that since there were 2 position open and 2 people running that the second person was also voted in. Our by-laws state that we must follow roberts rules of order unless specified other other wise. There is nothing in our by-laws concerning taking the top votes, so I feel that Roberts rules of order would apply here. Any person not received a majority of the votes would not be a director.

Please help and I need an answer very quickly.

Well, first of all, unless your Bylaws require a ballot vote and do not provide an exception for this scenario, the chair should have simply declared the candidates elected by acclamation.

If a ballot vote was required, then you are correct that only the candidate(s) who receive a majority are elected. If fewer than all of the positions are filled, another round of balloting is held for the remaining positions with the remaining candidates.

However, it is too late to complain about this now. A Point of Order regarding the declaration of a vote must be timely. See Official Interpretation 2006-18.

Just a thought--how can two people both get a majority of the same vote?

It's possible if the election is done properly. When multiple identical positions are elected, members should be instructed to vote for a number of candidates up to the number of positions available. In this case, members could vote for up to two candidates. For the purposes of computing a majority, each ballot cast with at least one marked candidate is treated as one vote. Thus, it is possible for multiple candidates to receive a majority.

I would think since only two were on the ballot that the two are elected.

If the Bylaws do not require a ballot election (or provide an exception for this scenario), the chair may simply declare the candidates elected by acclamation. If a ballot vote is required, however, then only those candidates who receive a majority are elected. If the assembly is strongly opposed to one of the candidates, then they may wish to write-in other candidates or to reopen nominations.

[tctheatc]

And would the second candidate's tally be considered a majority (2-0) or would it be 2 out of the total number of valid ballots cast?

[Sean Hunt]

And would the second candidate's tally be considered a majority (2-0) or would it be 2 out of the total number of valid ballots cast?

The latter. The procedure is described in more detail in RONR, but you calculate the total number of valid ballots that have at least one valid vote on them, and tally the votes for each candidate. Then each candidate who receives a majority, defined as "more votes than half the total", is elected. In the event that more candidates receive a majority than there are available spots (this can happen if there are multiple spots available), then those with the most votes are elected. In no case is a candidate whose name appears on half or fewer of the valid ballots (with valid votes) elected.

[Guest Beth]

Thanks this really helps, if not for this vote, but for all future voting. And to answer one question the membership was instructed to vote for two. When filling the voting cards there were some very strong no's placed next to the one person's name that received only 2 votes. I had 5 no votes next to his name. 2 votes for and the rest of the 20 ballets had no mark next to his name.

[Gary c Tesser]

I often have trouble with this. Like now.

Say a hundred ballots are turned in, for two open identical seats. Seventy of them have Josh Martin's name checked off. Twelve of them also have Sean Hunt's name checked off. As I read it (p. 412 ff, p. 441), the unmarked thirty are disregarded; Mr Martin gets 70 votes out of 70 cast, winning. Mr Hunt gets twelve out of 70, failing to achieve a majority. Is that so?

[Guest Edgar]

When filling the voting cards there were some very strong no's placed next to the one person's name that received only 2 votes. I had 5 no votes next to his name.

Well of course the "no's" don't count. You either vote for someone, or someone else, or you don't vote at all.

[Josh Martin]

Thanks this really helps, if not for this vote, but for all future voting. And to answer one question the membership was instructed to vote for two. When filling the voting cards there were some very strong no's placed next to the one person's name that received only 2 votes. I had 5 no votes next to his name. 2 votes for and the rest of the 20 ballets had no mark next to his name.

In the future, it may be wise to inform members that the only effective way to vote against a candidate is to vote for someone else. While the candidate in question was not elected on the first ballot, when there is only one candidate he is certain to attain a majority unless nominations are reopened or there is a concerted write-in effort. Votes simply marked "No" are treated as abstentions.

I often have trouble with this. Like now.

Say a hundred ballots are turned in, for two open identical seats. Seventy of them have Josh Martin's name checked off. Twelve of them also have Sean Hunt's name checked off. As I read it (p. 412 ff, p. 441), the unmarked thirty are disregarded; Mr Martin gets 70 votes out of 70 cast, winning. Mr Hunt gets twelve out of 70, failing to achieve a majority. Is that so?

You've got it. A second round of balloting would then be held for the remaining position.

[Gary c Tesser]

Thanks.

It's absurd.

[Sean Hunt]

Thanks.

It's absurd.

Well, if there wasn't an additional candidate, I should have been acclaimed. If I wasn't, then there isn't enough support for me apparently, and it's good to send it for another ballot.

[David A Foulkes]

Say a hundred ballots are turned in, for two open identical seats. Seventy of them have Josh Martin's name checked off. Twelve of them also have Sean Hunt's name checked off. As I read it (p. 412 ff, p. 441), the unmarked thirty are disregarded; Mr Martin gets 70 votes out of 70 cast, winning. Mr Hunt gets twelve out of 70, failing to achieve a majority. Is that so?

You've got it. A second round of balloting would then be held for the remaining position.

So, of the 58 ballots with only Josh Martin's name checked off, they are not counted as abstentions in the candidacy of Sean Hunt? If they aren't votes for Sean Hunt (which they aren't), or votes for another nominee (which they aren't) and they aren't abstentions, then what are they? If 70 votes were cast, and Sean got 12, who got the other 58?

[Gary c Tesser]

Well, if there wasn't an additional candidate, I should have been acclaimed. If I wasn't, then there isn't enough support for me apparently, and it's good to send it for another ballot.

You should have been acclaimed if one person, the nominator, wanted you in, and nobody else cared, but you fail to be elected if another eleven take the trouble to vote for you..

(Oh, and I wisht I thought of what David Foulkes said. But he usually thinks of what he thinks of better than I do, or at least usually sooner.)

[Josh Martin]

So, of the 58 ballots with only Josh Martin's name checked off, they are not counted as abstentions in the candidacy of Sean Hunt? If they aren't votes for Sean Hunt (which they aren't), or votes for another nominee (which they aren't) and they aren't abstentions, then what are they? If 70 votes were cast, and Sean got 12, who got the other 58?

When there are multiple identical positions, each ballot which is marked for at least one candidate is counted as one vote cast. In the hypothetical example provided, 58 such votes were cast for me and 12 of them were cast for me and Mr. Hunt. No one is voting "on the candidacy of Mr. Hunt." They are voting for who should hold the two identical positions, and they may vote for up to two eligible people.

I realize this looks ridiculous with only two candidates (which is why acclamation would be preferable unless a ballot vote is required), but if there were more than two candidates it would make much more sense.

[Guest Beth]

This the same problem we have. THere were 40 posible votes for 2 same type of positions. It must be a pallet vote. One person received 40 votes and the other person only received 2 votes. Everyone else did not think he was right for the position. So they did not vote for him. He was nomiated as a write in and received a second.

If I am understanding you right we should have voted again. If the same 2 people voted and everyone else abstanded he would have still got in because the unmarked votes would not have counted and it would have been 2 - 2 not 2- 38.

[Josh Martin]

This the same problem we have. THere were 40 posible votes for 2 same type of positions. It must be a pallet vote. One person received 40 votes and the other person only received 2 votes. Everyone else did not think he was right for the position. So they did not vote for him. He was nomiated as a write in and received a second.

If I am understanding you right we should have voted again. If the same 2 people voted and everyone else abstanded he would have still got in because the unmarked votes would not have counted and it would have been 2 - 2 not 2- 38.

Correct.

[J. J.]

I think this was the example used.

Two positions are open.

Ninety ballots are cast with at least one vote on it, with the following results:

40 ballots are marked for Patterson and Wagner.

4 ballots are marked for Patterson alone.

46 ballots are marked for Wagner alone.

Total:

Patterson, 44 votes.

Wagner, 86 votes.

Even though the election was uncontested, Patterson does not have a majority, 46 (in whole numbers), and is not elected. A second ballot, with just Patterson on it, would be needed. Write in votes or reopening nominations would be possible.

[Guest Beth]

If we put it in our By-laws that a person must received majority of the votes to be elected to the board and if majority of the vote is not received then the position will remain open. Would this work.

I think a position is better open that filled with some one that is going to be trouble. This type of nomiation will not happen again as several of us have found back up people to run in the future if we get this type of nomiation from the floor, but we would rather just be able to leave the position open by not giving a person a majoriy vote.

[David A Foulkes]

If we put it in our By-laws that a person must received majority of the votes to be elected to the board and if majority of the vote is not received then the position will remain open. Would this work.

I'll assume that RONR is your adopted parliamentary authority. That said, this is the standard anyway, so it's best not to clutter up the bylaws with something that is already in "the rules" (RONR in this case). In order to allow a plurality that is not a majority to elect, that must be included in the rules (special rules, bylaws, etc). But, redundantly including in the bylaws an existing rule found in the parliamentary authority just opens up the possibility that an ambiguity is created, or some other complication that causes more problems than you are trying to solve by doing so.

The better solution might be to hold nominations and elections for each office individually to avoid this confusion of multiple-office ballots. Also, educating the membership on the rules could be helpful. Also, as noted previously, if there are an equal number of nominees for the number of offices open (as in your case with 2 nominees for 2 positions), the chair can declare the nominees elected by acclamation, unless the bylaws require a ballot vote even in the case of a sole nominee.

Also, in the case of an office for which no nominee receives a majority of votes, the position is not left open. This does not create a vacancy in the office. You would have an incomplete election and should then hold another ballot vote (and another, and another) until someone does receive a majority of votes.

[Josh Martin]

If we put it in our By-laws that a person must received majority of the votes to be elected to the board and if majority of the vote is not received then the position will remain open. Would this work.

I think a position is better open that filled with some one that is going to be trouble. This type of nomiation will not happen again as several of us have found back up people to run in the future if we get this type of nomiation from the floor, but we would rather just be able to leave the position open by not giving a person a majoriy vote.

You can put whatever you want in your Bylaws (so long as it does not conflict with a higher-level rule or applicable law), but since you're thinking "outside of the box" of RONR, be sure to think through all the ins and outs of how this works. Do you wish to provide that members may vote "no" or "none of the above" in order to facilitate this, or is an abstention treated as a "no" vote for this purpose? If an election does result in an open position, is it treated as an incomplete election (in which case the society must hold another election) or as a vacancy (in which case you may follow any vacancy-filling procedures in your Bylaws)? What happens if the society chooses not to fill a critical office such as President or Treasurer? And so on.

Personally, I think it is best to stick with the default rules and if a situation arises where the only candidates are clearly unsuited to the position, postpone the election (after electing any suitable candidates) to another meeting and work to find other candidates in the meantime.

I'll assume that RONR is your adopted parliamentary authority. That said, this is the standard anyway, so it's best not to clutter up the bylaws with something that is already in "the rules" (RONR in this case). In order to allow a plurality that is not a majority to elect, that must be included in the rules (special rules, bylaws, etc). But, redundantly including in the bylaws an existing rule found in the parliamentary authority just opens up the possibility that an ambiguity is created, or some other complication that causes more problems than you are trying to solve by doing so.

Since Beth already seems clear about the rules of RONR, I think she has something else in mind than restating the existing rules.

The better solution might be to hold nominations and elections for each office individually to avoid this confusion of multiple-office ballots.

It is generally ill-advised to hold separate elections for multiple identical positions (unless it is a case where they have different terms of office or something of that nature). In such cases, members will generally run for only one of the positions available. This becomes problematic when all of the most popular candidates run for the same position, while the unpopular candidates run for another.

Also, as noted previously, if there are an equal number of nominees for the number of offices open (as in your case with 2 nominees for 2 positions), the chair can declare the nominees elected by acclamation, unless the bylaws require a ballot vote even in the case of a sole nominee.

Yes, but Beth stated in Post #15 that a ballot vote is required.

Also, in the case of an office for which no nominee receives a majority of votes, the position is not left open. This does not create a vacancy in the office. You would have an incomplete election and should then hold another ballot vote (and another, and another) until someone does receive a majority of votes.

Yes, that is the rule under RONR. Beth's proposal appears to be to amend the Bylaws to provide otherwise. This is certainly possible, although in my opinion it is ill-advised.