Definition of Simple Majority

[tahford195]

My organization elected a new vice president.

Three names were on the ballot.

A number count of eligible voting members was not given, nor the number of votes casts for each candidate.

Our by-laws states: Officers shall be elected by simple majority of members present and voting.

How do I or can I question the election results?

[Trina]

The term 'simple' majority is not used in RONR. A majority means more than half of the votes cast. Since your bylaws use the phrase 'present and voting', it seems to boil down to the same thing -- to be elected, a candidate must receive more than half of the votes cast. The 'number count of eligible voting members' didn't need to be reported (some of those eligible people may have abstained from voting, in which case their mere presence has no effect on the outcome). However, a count of the votes cast for each candidate should have been reported, prior to any announcement of who won the election. You could have raised a point of order to that effect at the time.

Have the ballots been saved?

[Tim Wynn]

My organization elected a new vice president.

Three names were on the ballot.

A number count of eligible voting members was not given, nor the number of votes casts for each candidate.

Our by-laws states: Officers shall be elected by simple majority of members present and voting.

How do I or can I question the election results?

A tellers' report should have been presented, detailing the total votes cast, the votes necessary for election, the number of votes receives by each candidate, and the number of illegal votes.

See RONR (11th ed.), p. 444, l. 35 - p. 446, for information on contesting the result.

See p. 419, ll. 1-9, for ordering a recount.

[Guest Edgar]

Have the ballots been saved?

And not just saved but securely preserved "under seal" (p.418).

[Trina]

My organization elected a new vice president.

Three names were on the ballot.

A number count of eligible voting members was not given, nor the number of votes casts for each candidate.

Our by-laws states: Officers shall be elected by simple majority of members present and voting.

How do I or can I question the election results?

In a three-way race, getting a majority is certainly possible, but it's also possible that the people who did the counting just assumed that a strong plurality was adequate. For example, 29 votes are cast, candidate A gets 14, B gets 7, and C gets 8. Did A win? No -- even though A got significantly more votes than either B or C, 14 is not more than half of 29. Presenting a teller's report to the assembly would help catch and rectify any processing errors of this sort.

[sMargaret]

Some people think that presenting a teller's report is wrong, because it might lead to hurt feelings or psychological trauma in the people who didn't win.

These people are incorrect for a variety of reasons, such as the one you've brought up.

RONR, 11th edition, page 418: "The teller's report is entered in full in the minutes, becoming a part of the official records of the organization. Under no circumstances should this be omitted in an election or in a vote on a critical motion out of a mistaken deference to the feelings of unsuccessful candidates or members of the losing side."

[jstackpo]

Here's some more reasons....

Indeed it is the proper thing to do, to read out the numerical vote results for the members to hear -- see p. 417, line 18 ff. - and to include them in the minutes

Consider some possibilities:

1) The winner got nearly all the votes and the loser has had a long history of fruitlessly running for office. Reading the vote count might send him a message, that it is time to quit making a fool of himself.

2) The vote is "reasonably" close. This way the loser will be encouraged to try again, as it seems, by the vote, that he has a good deal of potential, and many friends, but just went up against a better person this time. This may help to keep a good candidate in the game.

3) The vote is "extremely" close - one or two votes different. The assembly may very well want to order a recount (RONR p. 419, line 1, see index also) just to be sure of the result. This way there are no (or fewer) hard feelings.

4) The president, when declaring who won, makes a simple mistake and names the wrong person, or he does not understand the vote required to adopt the motion (majority, 2/3, &c.) and states the "wrong" outcome.

5) The tellers make an error. Reading the results out loud may not help to catch this but studying the printed documentation in the minutes at leisure probably would. The documentation would also serve as evidence if there were serious questions about the outcome.

Without the teller having read the numbers, how will anybody (except the teller, if he is paying attention) know to correct this?

6) The winner of the election (or partisans of the winning side of a critical issue) could weigh the numerical results in terms of whether they have a "mandate" to proceed at full bore, or whether there might be some fence mending to look after first.

If the vote results were not made immediately available to the membership, none of the above good things could happen.

And this listing doesn't even mention the myriad possibilities for knavery or outright fraud that are available when vote counts are kept secret.