Voting

[Guest Paul Carney]

In a voting situation there are six candidates running for three positions. The person charing the vote (secret ballad) states that you must vote for three out of six. If you only vote for one or two, your vote will not count. I believe this is out of order. Is that correct?

[George Mervosh]

You are correct. RONR (11th ed.), p. 407

[Gary Novosielski]

In a voting situation there are six candidates running for three positions. The person charing the vote (secret ballad) states that you must vote for three out of six. If you only vote for one or two, your vote will not count. I believe this is out of order. Is that correct?

The chair is wrong, and you're right.

A member has the right to abstain from one or more choices, and still have the remaining choices counted. Even if the ballot is marked "Vote for three", the member may interpret that as "Vote for no more than three." But a ballot marked for more candidates than allowed would not counted for any of them.

[BryanSullo]

. . . secret ballad . . .

Must be a musical group. This would certainly make votes more interesting!

Seriously, though, you should check your by-laws and any special rules of order to make sure you don't have rules that differ from RONR. (My guess is that you don't, but you never know.)

Edit: And, yes, I know George's and Garry's signatures say substantially the same thing, but who reads those things? (And I wanted to get in the comment about the "secret ballad".)

[David A Foulkes]

(And I wanted to get in the comment about the "secret ballad".)

That's what the use to vote at the Grammys.

[Josh Martin]

Seriously, though, you should check your by-laws and any special rules of order to make sure you don't have rules that differ from RONR. (My guess is that you don't, but you never know.)

Just the Bylaws will be sufficient for this particular question. A special rule of order is not sufficient to deprive members of the right to partially abstain.

[alanh49]

Just the Bylaws will be sufficient for this particular question. A special rule of order is not sufficient to deprive members of the right to partially abstain.

Why not, were does it say in RONR that this is one of those rules that can only be altered by a provision of the bylaws?

[David A Foulkes]

Why not, were does it say in RONR that this is one of those rules that can only be altered by a provision of the bylaws?

There are a number of references that offer strong support that a member's voting rights can only be curtailed either by disciplinary procedures or the bylaws, with no reference to special rules of order, etc.. P. 6fn, p. 406 ll. 25-30, p. 571 l. 34ff, among others.

[George Mervosh]

Why not, were does it say in RONR that this is one of those rules that can only be altered by a provision of the bylaws?

The rule on p. 407 doesn't appear to be rule of order which can be suspended, therefore, a special rule of order to supercede the existing rule would not be adequate.

[alanh49]

There are a number of references that offer strong support that a member's voting rights can only be curtailed either by disciplinary procedures or the bylaws, with no reference to special rules of order, etc.. P. 6fn, p. 406 ll. 25-30, p. 571 l. 34ff, among others.

The rule on p. 407 doesn't appear to be rule of order which can be suspended, therefore, a special rule of order to supercede the existing rule would not be adequate.

But, we're not talking about taking away anyone right to vote only their right to partially abstain. A special rule of order can says you need a vote of some portion [majority 2/3 ...] of the members present in order to adopt something. In which case not vote has the same effect as voting no.

So if an SRO can take away your right to abstain in full why not one that takes away the right to abstain in part

Nothing in RONR says that a rule has to be suspend-able before an SRO can supersede it

[Gary Novosielski]

But, we're not talking about taking away anyone right to vote only their right to partially abstain. A special rule of order can says you need a vote of some portion [majority 2/3 ...] of the members present in order to adopt something. In which case not vote has the same effect as voting no.

Though an abstention sometimes has the same effect as a No vote, it never is a No vote. But since it does not express support for a proposal, it can cause a motion to fail when the rules provide for some minimum level of support.

But even then, an abstention is not a vote. The right to vote on, or to abstain from voting on, one or more choices on a ballot, is a right that cannot be removed by anything short of discipline or bylaws provision. What is being abridged is not the right to "partially abstain" (whatever that might mean). What is being abridged is clearly the right to vote.

Throwing away part of an otherwise valid ballot does not cause an abstention to have the effect of a No vote. Rather, it causes a legal vote in support of one or more candidates not to be counted, and that deprives the member of a fundamental right of membership.

[J. J.]

The rule on p. 407 doesn't appear to be rule of order which can be suspended, therefore, a special rule of order to supercede the existing rule would not be adequate.

There is a right to abstain created in RONR, p. 407. As it is a right, it cannot be suspended (p. 264, ll. 6-14).

That said, there is nothing in RONR that indicates that in order to remove or modify this right, the bylaws must so state. A special rule could be created limiting the ability to abstain, e.g. not counting ballots with partial votes.

See NP, 1st Quarter, 2003, Q & A 26, (Sutphin, et al., p. 7), specifically for RONR (10th ed.), and for a general situation PJ, January 2005, "Parliamentary Authorities' Rules Shift Function," (pp. 3-11, especially pp. 1-5).

[Josh Martin]

Throwing away part of an otherwise valid ballot does not cause an abstention to have the effect of a No vote. Rather, it causes a legal vote in support of one or more candidates not to be counted, and that deprives the member of a fundamental right of membership.

Well, you wouldn't throw it away unless (ironically) the rules specified that it was to be treated as an abstention. Otherwise, it would be treated as an illegal vote, which is still counted.

There is a right to abstain created in RONR, p. 407. As it is a right, it cannot be suspended (p. 264, ll. 6-14).

That said, there is nothing in RONR that indicates that in order to remove or modify this right, the bylaws must so state. A special rule could be created limiting the ability to abstain, e.g. not counting ballots with partial votes.

See NP, 1st Quarter, 2003, Q & A 26, (Sutphin, et al., p. 7), specifically for RONR (10th ed.), and for a general situation PJ, January 2005, "Parliamentary Authorities' Rules Shift Function," (pp. 3-11, especially pp. 1-5).

J. J. could an assembly limit a member's right to vote by a special rule of order? If so, why? And if not, why could the right to abstain be limited by a special rule of order?

[Guest George Mervosh]

Well, you wouldn't throw it away unless (ironically) the rules specified that it was to be treated as an abstention. Otherwise, it would be treated as an illegal vote, which is still counted.

J. J. could an assembly limit a member's right to vote by a special rule of order? If so, why? And if not, why could the right to abstain be limited by a special rule of order?

I think JJ is saying his rule doesn't take away your right to partially abstain but it would be counted as an illegal vote if you exercise that right. I can't quite get my head around that though.

Ct1

[J. J.]

J. J. could an assembly limit a member's right to vote by a special rule of order? If so, why?

To case a vote, no, because that can only be limited by the bylaws.

And if not, why could the right to abstain be limited by a special rule of order?

The society can adopt a special rule that says the tellers will not tally partial ballots, nor credit them to any candidate. That effectively denies the right to abstain.

Nothing in RONR states that it is necessary to rely on the bylaws to abridge the right to abstain.

I would make a similar argument regarding disciplinary action and special rules. If an assembly would wish to supersede some right associated disciplinary act by a special rule, it may. It could not, however, suspend such a right.

I would also note that the assembly may create a right by a special rule, unless RONR requires that right to be placed in the bylaws. A special rule, for example, could be created to permit members to participate in debate via speaker phone. It could not, however, create a special rule to permit members to vote in a roll call by speaker phone.

This might go to advanced discussion.

[Josh Martin]

This might go to advanced discussion.

Fair point. I think we've certainly strayed from the original question.

[Gary Novosielski]

To case a vote, no, because that can only be limited by the bylaws.

The society can adopt a special rule that says the tellers will not tally partial ballots, nor credit them to any candidate. That effectively denies the right to abstain.

The concept of "partial abstention" is not a useful one in my view, as it obscures what is actually going on. It may lead to statements like the one above, which somehow draws a distinction between denying the right to vote and simply failing to tally ballots on which votes are recorded. That is truly a distinction without a difference.

If a ballot bearing the instruction "Vote for three" is cast, bearing votes for only two candidates, then failing to tally that ballot, per some special rule of order, constitutes a denial of the right to vote. Twice.

[alanh49]

The concept of "partial abstention" is not a useful one in my view, as it obscures what is actually going on. It may lead to statements like the one above, which somehow draws a distinction between denying the right to vote and simply failing to tally ballots on which votes are recorded. That is truly a distinction without a difference.

If a ballot bearing the instruction "Vote for three" is cast, bearing votes for only two candidates, then failing to tally that ballot, per some special rule of order, constitutes a denial of the right to vote. Twice.

I disagree if one is given a ballot and the opportunity to vote one has not been denied the right to vote but you are being compelled to vote for at least one candidate you don't really want to vote for

[J. J.]

The concept of "partial abstention" is not a useful one in my view, as it obscures what is actually going on. It may lead to statements like the one above, which somehow draws a distinction between denying the right to vote and simply failing to tally ballots on which votes are recorded. That is truly a distinction without a difference.

If a ballot bearing the instruction "Vote for three" is cast, bearing votes for only two candidates, then failing to tally that ballot, per some special rule of order, constitutes a denial of the right to vote. Twice.

The person did vote, so there was no denial of the right to vote.

[J. J.]

I disagree if one is given a ballot and the opportunity to vote one has not been denied the right to vote but you are being compelled to vote for at least one candidate you don't really want to vote for

...or not to vote at all, or cast a ballot that you know will be void.

[Dan Honemann]

The person did vote, so there was no denial of the right to vote.

Now this is really funny.

[Dan Honemann]

I disagree if one is given a ballot and the opportunity to vote one has not been denied the right to vote but you are being compelled to vote for at least one candidate you don't really want to vote for

I find this reasoning downright scary.

[Gary Novosielski]

The person did vote, so there was no denial of the right to vote.

So your position is that if I have the right to vote, and do vote, but then my vote is not counted, that I have not been denied my rights?

It seems obvious to me that the right to vote includes the right to have that vote counted. Any other interpretation is absurd.