Election by Default

[Guest Stephen]

I would like to know if there is any kind of 'standing rule' that defines the election of an officer who runs unopposed. I would like to propose a motion: "A member, who is the sole nominee for an office, must still earn a majority vote, in order to gain that office."

In other words, should a member run unopposed for an office, he/she would not be elected to that post by default of no competition. A candidate must still earn a "vote of confidence" from the membership, in the form of a majority vote.

Therefore, would the ballot be reqired to have a "NO", or "None of the Above" box to check?

Would this have to apply to all offices open for election on the ballot?

Or is this a seperate issue all together?

[jstackpo]

There is indeed a default "if there are no opponents the single candidate is elected" rule: p. 441 & 443, provided that a ballot vote is not required. This apples to all offices.

But, on a ballot vote, a "yes/no" option is not proper. If you don't like the single nominated candidate, nominate someone to run against him, or write-in your preference.

[Guest Edgar]

I would like to propose a motion: "A member, who is the sole nominee for an office, must still earn a majority vote, in order to gain that office."

What you want to do is make a motion to amend your bylaws so that a vote by ballot is required for all elections. Otherwise, as Mr. Stackpole noted, the RONR "default" is that the chair can declare an uncontested candidate elected "by acclamation".

[jstackpo]

What you want to do is make a motion to amend your bylaws so that a vote by ballot is required for all elections. Otherwise, as Mr. Stackpole noted, the RONR "default" is that the chair can declare an uncontested candidate elected "by acclamation".

Not the optional "can", but just does it.

The option ("can") to do so was removed in updating from the 10th Ed. to the 11th.

[Guest Edgar]

Not the optional "can", but just does it. The option ("can") to do so was removed in updating from the 10th Ed. to the 11th.

Thanks for that clarification. I see that Notable Change #93 says that the 11th Edition "establishes that acclamation is the required procedure when there is only one nominee and the bylaws do not require a ballot vote [443, 494].

thfbcj

[Dan Honemann]

Thanks for that clarification. I see that Notable Change #93 says that the 11th Edition "establishes that acclamation is the required procedure when there is only one nominee and the bylaws do not require a ballot vote [443, 494].

thfbcj

Well, not everything can be put in these little summaries.

A member can still move that a counted vote or a ballot vote be taken, even if there is only one nominee.

[Guest Guest]

A member can still move that a counted vote or a ballot vote be taken, even if there is only one nominee.

So perhaps "default" would have been a better choice than "required"?

(Note: It's not too late to change that little summary.)

[jstackpo]

But... (just so Guest_Stephen doesn't get a wrong idea):

A "Yes/No" option on that ballot (or even, I [sadly] have to add "None of the Above") is not proper.

A write-in seems to be the only way to express displeasure with a single nominee for an office.

[Dan Honemann]

But... (just so Guest_Stephen doesn't get a wrong idea):

A "Yes/No" option on that ballot (or even, I [sadly] have to add "None of the Above") is not proper.

A write-in seems to be the only way to express displeasure with a single nominee for an office.

Well, this is as it should be. The assembly is obligated to elect somebody.

[Guest Stephen]

Gentlemen,

Thank you for your response. I will make sure a ballot vote is required for all elected offices.

However, you agree that, "A "Yes/No" option on that ballot (or even, I [sadly] have to add "None of the Above") is not proper.

But not prohibitted?

[jstackpo]

If I was handed a ballot with a single name and a "Yes / No " (only) option, I could very well raise a point of order. If the chairman knew the rules he would rule my point well taken and either hold up the election until proper ballots could be prepared or (possibly) instruct people to scratch out the "Yes/No", replace it with a line, upon which to write an "X" if you favored the candidate, do nothing but hand in a blank (unmarked) ballot if you wished to abstain, or write in someone else's name, with an "X" by the written name just to be sure.

Prohibited? You bet. Do you really want to go through all those steps I just described?

[Guest Stephen]

Thanks JD... I just wanted to clarify that point.

[George Mervosh]

Gentlemen,

Thank you for your response. I will make sure a ballot vote is required for all elected offices.

However, you agree that, "A "Yes/No" option on that ballot (or even, I [sadly] have to add "None of the Above") is not proper.

But not prohibitted?

I think based upon what RONR (11th ed.) says on p. 414, ll. 1-5 the chair should rule it's prohibited.

[Josh Martin]

However, you agree that, "A "Yes/No" option on that ballot (or even, I [sadly] have to add "None of the Above") is not proper.

But not prohibitted?

I would say it is prohibited by RONR. I suppose you could adopt a special rule of order to supersede the rule in RONR on this topic, although I fail to see the wisdom in this. Since the assembly is still required to elect someone to the office, such a rule would simply make it easier for members to waste the assembly's time.

If you really come across a case where the only candidate is clearly unsuited to the office and you don't have time to find an alternative, your best option is to postpone the election for that office. The motion to Postpone Definitely is debatable and amendable and requires a majority vote for adoption. If you have time to find an alternative, nominate him or move that the vote be taken by ballot and write him in.

[Gary Novosielski]

Gentlemen, Thank you for your response. I will make sure a ballot vote is required for all elected offices. However, you agree that, "A "Yes/No" option on that ballot (or even, I [sadly] have to add "None of the Above") is not proper. But not prohibitted?

Yes, prohibited.

[Guest Edgar]

But not prohibited?

Prohibited? You bet.

I think based upon what RONR (11th ed.) says on p. 414, ll. 1-5 the chair should rule it's prohibited.

I would say it is prohibited by RONR.

Yes, prohibited.

[George Mervosh]

Interesting. JDS was first, but a citation never hurts........Josh and Gary just like to crash the party late