Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Vote for "Fictional Character"


jstackpo

Recommended Posts

Firstly, I direct you to the last paragraph of my previous response, but I'll bite...

In my yet to be published (not to mention written) first novel one of the fictional characters is named (you guessed it) "None O. T. Above". I voted for him, a fictional person - that's not an "abstention".

Granted, this approaches the Silly File (it worked for Ulysses) but does point out the murkiness of the illegal vs. abstention distinction.

It doesn't seem any murkier than many of the other questions which arise in how to properly count a ballot (and less murky than many such questions, in my opinion). There will always be the oddball ballot which will require a bit of judgment on the part of the tellers or the assembly.

1) Anything written on the paper ballot AT ALL is an "illegal vote" (unless for a "real" or possibly real candidate, of course). It is "indicating a preference" (p. 415), even one in opposition to all the real candidates and counts toward the number of votes cast. Or phrasing it as simply possible: Any non-blank or marked ballot is a vote. That would include "all-crossed-off" ballots.

Well, I grant that this would be less murky, but I'm not sure that makes it better. All this seems to accomplish is to make it easier to waste the assembly's time.

2) Only votes for real (or reasonably legitimate possible) candidates count toward the total votes cast. All others: fiction, crossed-off, whatever, are abstentions. If you aren't serious, you aren't voting.

Well, as Rev Ed pointed out, there are ways other than voting for fictional characters to subvert the rules, and going too far down this path would, in my opinion, be quite a bit more murky than the current rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a resident of Fredericksburg, Virginia, which during the past weekend commemorated the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Fredericksburg. That battle was characterized by repeated brave but hopeless charges by Union troops against Marye's Heights, where Confederates behind a stone wall repeatedly mowed down the advancing Federals. None ever got close to the rebel positions, but Union General Ambrose Burnside, refusing to learn, kept sending more units to be slaughtered.

It is safe to say, I believe, that the authorship team holds to, and will in future editions maintain, the position on this matter so ably articulated by Josh Martin. As Mr. Martin points out, any organization that wishes to be governed by a different rule is free to adopt a special rule of order. In understanding both the existing rule and the rationale for it, I do not think his excellent exposition leaves anything more to be said. Those who continue to think the rule should be changed would be well advised to avoid the mistake of General Burnside, and not keep charging up that hill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...