Adey Posted September 11, 2012 at 11:13 PM Report Share Posted September 11, 2012 at 11:13 PM If our bylaws stipulate that voting must be "by written ballot" and that the Robert's Rule of Order must be followed, can "write-in candidates" or "none of the above" be disallowed from the ballot paper? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Schafer Posted September 11, 2012 at 11:30 PM Report Share Posted September 11, 2012 at 11:30 PM No member can be prevented from doing either, if the rules in RONR are followed.A member has the right to cast his vote for anyone he wishes, even if that person has not been nominated (a "write-in" vote). (If a member votes for someone who is not eligible to be elected, then his vote is counted as illegal.)If a member votes for "none of the above," his ballot is treated as an abstention, neither counted for any candidate nor in the total number of votes cast used to determine a majority. The reason is that this ballot does not indicate a preference for the election. (RONR, 11th ed., p. 415, ll. 24-31. See also Official Interpretation 2006-5.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted September 12, 2012 at 01:30 AM Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 at 01:30 AM If our bylaws stipulate that voting must be "by written ballot" and that the Robert's Rule of Order must be followed, can "write-in candidates" or "none of the above" be disallowed from the ballot paper?No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Adey Posted September 14, 2012 at 05:06 PM Report Share Posted September 14, 2012 at 05:06 PM No member can be prevented from doing either, if the rules in RONR are followed.A member has the right to cast his vote for anyone he wishes, even if that person has not been nominated (a "write-in" vote). (If a member votes for someone who is not eligible to be elected, then his vote is counted as illegal.)Thanks!!BTW, is there an "official interpretation" [i.e. page number in the RONR 11th edition] of the above position? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted September 14, 2012 at 05:54 PM Report Share Posted September 14, 2012 at 05:54 PM If our bylaws stipulate that voting must be "by written ballot" and that the Robert's Rule of Order must be followed, can "write-in candidates" or "none of the above" be disallowed from the ballot paper?A special rule of order could be adopted to prevent write-in candidates. But without such a specific rule against it, RONR allows write-in candidates. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 431, ll. 1-2 and p. 414, ll. 3-5. Note that a ballot declaring "none of the above" is an abstention, since it is a method of refraining from voting for anyone. See Official Interpretation 2006-5 at the following address: http://www.robertsrules.com/interp_list.html#2006_5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Lages Posted September 14, 2012 at 09:58 PM Report Share Posted September 14, 2012 at 09:58 PM Tim -Would a special rule of order be sufficient to disallow write-in votes? I'm looking at the footnote on p.441, which stipulates that, when dropping candidates with the fewest votes from a re-balloting, only a bylaw provision can prevent a member from voting for those candidates by write-in. Wouldn't preventing write-in votes at all similarly require a bylaw provision? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted September 14, 2012 at 10:34 PM Report Share Posted September 14, 2012 at 10:34 PM Tim -Would a special rule of order be sufficient to disallow write-in votes? I'm looking at the footnote on p.441, which stipulates that, when dropping candidates with the fewest votes from a re-balloting, only a bylaw provision can prevent a member from voting for those candidates by write-in. Wouldn't preventing write-in votes at all similarly require a bylaw provision?Upon further review, I think such a rule WOULD have to be in the bylaws, primarily because of what is said on p. 413, ll. 1-4, but more importantly because I have a nagging suspicion that Dan will disagree profusely with my first assessment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted September 14, 2012 at 11:13 PM Report Share Posted September 14, 2012 at 11:13 PM Why is it wrong to vote Yes or No (or For or Against) a candidate when electing persons to office? Per RRO; it states that the only way you can vote against a candidate is to vote for another person.If a Nominating Commitee recommends only one candidate [for a written ballot election] and members are neither allowed to vote for write-in candidates nor mark none-of-the-above, it seems like based on all the answers so afr, the result of the election is invalid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted September 14, 2012 at 11:21 PM Report Share Posted September 14, 2012 at 11:21 PM Why is it wrong to vote Yes or No (or For or Against) a candidate when electing persons to office? Per RRO; it states that the only way you can vote against a candidate is to vote for another person.If a Nominating Commitee recommends only one candidate [for a written ballot election] and members are neither allowed to vote for write-in candidates nor mark none-of-the-above, it seems like based on all the answers so afr, the result of the election is invalid.After the report of the nominating committee, the chair MUST call for further nominations from the floor. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 435, ll. 10-12. A "for-or-against" vote is not proper, because a selection must be made. It does no good to select against candidates, unless you are selecting a candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted September 14, 2012 at 11:26 PM Report Share Posted September 14, 2012 at 11:26 PM If a Nominating Committee recommends only one candidate [for a written ballot election] and members are neither allowed to vote for write-in candidates nor mark none-of-the-above, it seems like based on all the answers so far, the result of the election is invalid.You should nominate, and vote for, someone else.bat595 <-- three clearly lower-case letters and three numerals! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adey Posted September 14, 2012 at 11:40 PM Author Report Share Posted September 14, 2012 at 11:40 PM After the report of the nominating committee, the chair MUST call for further nominations from the floor. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 435, ll. 10-12.A "for-or-against" vote is not proper, because a selection must be made. It does no good to select against candidates, unless you are selecting a candidate.It seems somewhat unfair to elect a Search/Nominating Committe that spent over a year searching for the best candidates to recommend to the members...then, turn around and ask for further nominations from the floor. Though I concur with the Rules as stated in the RRO, it seems fair that all eligible candidates should go through the same process....On the second point; members could vote down the loan candidate and a new search would have to be put in place. Then again, this may take too long to elect a suitable candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted September 14, 2012 at 11:50 PM Report Share Posted September 14, 2012 at 11:50 PM It seems somewhat unfair to elect a Search/Nominating Committe that spent over a year searching for the best candidates to recommend to the members...then, turn around and ask for further nominations from the floor.Then skip the electoral process altogether and let the nominating committee make your choices for you.I think that's the way it works in, say, China. And probably some other countries you'd probably not choose to live in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Schafer Posted September 14, 2012 at 11:55 PM Report Share Posted September 14, 2012 at 11:55 PM It seems somewhat unfair to elect a Search/Nominating Committe that spent over a year searching for the best candidates to recommend to the members...then, turn around and ask for further nominations from the floor.I would turn that around and say that if I was a member of an organization, I would be pretty upset if a small subset of the membership -- who happen to serve on the Nominating Committee -- was allowed to choose for me the only one person I'm allowed to vote for. As a member, I have the right to vote for anyone (RONR, 11th ed., p. 431, ll. 1-6) and the right to nominate (p. 3, ll. 5-9). I'm not going to give away those rights to the members of the Nominating Committee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adey Posted September 15, 2012 at 01:54 AM Author Report Share Posted September 15, 2012 at 01:54 AM I'm not going to give away those rights to the members of the Nominating Committee.Excellent...Well, I am still struggling on why is "not proper to vote Yes or No (or For or Against) a candidate when electing persons to office" or why the "only way you can vote against a candidate is to vote for another person." Can you please direct me to where I can find the official interpretation on the expressed concerns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted September 15, 2012 at 02:02 AM Report Share Posted September 15, 2012 at 02:02 AM Well, I am still struggling on why is "not proper to vote Yes or No (or For or Against) a candidate when electing persons to office" or why the "only way you can vote against a candidate is to vote for another person.The point of an election is to elect someone. And to elect someone you have to vote for someone. So while it's certainly proper to vote "Yes" (i.e. put a check next to a candidate's name), you've expressed no choice at all by voting "No". In other words, you haven't voted. You might as well had stayed home.To be more specific, I don't want Mitt Romney to be the next President of the United States. So I'm going to vote for Barack Obama. We have to have a President so if all you have to say is "No" then, again, you might as well stay home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted September 15, 2012 at 02:15 AM Report Share Posted September 15, 2012 at 02:15 AM Excellent...Well, I am still struggling on why is "not proper to vote Yes or No (or For or Against) a candidate when electing persons to office" or why the "only way you can vote against a candidate is to vote for another person." Can you please direct me to where I can find the official interpretation on the expressed concerns?With an election, you're essentially filling a blank in a motion. The motion is "That ______ be elected to the office of president."Instead, let's say the motion is "That the annual excursion be held at ______."The convention committee has proposed Disney World. You can propose Sea World or Universal Studios, etc. However, you're not getting anywhere by simply voting "no." You would end up with the following motion: That the annual excursion be held at no.Furthermore, you can't decide not to elect anyone, since the bylaws dictate that someone must be elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted September 15, 2012 at 02:20 AM Report Share Posted September 15, 2012 at 02:20 AM The point of an election is to elect someone. And to elect someone you have to vote for someone. So while it's certainly proper to vote "Yes" (i.e. put a check next to a candidate's name), you've expressed no choice at all by voting "No". In other words, you haven't voted. You might as well had stayed home.To be more specific, I don't want Mitt Romney to be the next President of the United States. So I'm going to vote for Barack Obama. We have to have a President so if all you have to say is "No" then, again, you might as well stay home.You'll have to be an elector, first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted September 15, 2012 at 02:27 AM Report Share Posted September 15, 2012 at 02:27 AM You'll have to be an elector, first.Fortunately, my electors will vote for the same person I vote for.I'm not sure how it's gonna work out for you all in Florida. If history's any guide, my guess would be "badly". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted September 15, 2012 at 02:35 AM Report Share Posted September 15, 2012 at 02:35 AM Fortunately, my electors will vote for the same person I vote for.I'm not sure how it's gonna work out for you all in Florida. If history's any guide, my guess would be "badly".We're still trying to figure out how to work the voting machines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted September 15, 2012 at 02:40 AM Report Share Posted September 15, 2012 at 02:40 AM To be more specific, I don't want Mitt Romney to be the next President of the United States. So I'm going to vote for Barack Obama. We have to have a President so if all you have to say is "No" then, again, you might as well stay home.That or if there are other candidates on the ballot (from the Libertarians, American Communist Party, etc) you can vote for them or write my name down. If elected I will be willing to serve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adey Posted September 15, 2012 at 06:59 AM Author Report Share Posted September 15, 2012 at 06:59 AM Excellent...Well, I am still struggling on why is "not proper to vote Yes or No (or For or Against) a candidate when electing persons to office" or why the "only way you can vote against a candidate is to vote for another person." Can you please direct me to where I can find the official interpretation on the expressed concerns?RONR (11th ed.), p. 414, 1-5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted September 15, 2012 at 11:34 AM Report Share Posted September 15, 2012 at 11:34 AM RONR (11th ed.), p. 414, 1-5It's always a good sign when the OP answers his/her own question, particularly by providing a citation. Good work, Adey! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adey Posted September 15, 2012 at 01:42 PM Author Report Share Posted September 15, 2012 at 01:42 PM It's always a good sign when the OP answers his/her own question, particularly by providing a citation. Good work, Adey! Thanks David...FYI, I just got my own copy of the RONR [11th edition] yesterday night...via Amazon. I've always relied on the answers provided online. Now, I can confirm some of these answers...before misleading others. BTW, I just came across this forum this week. Great "online class"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.