Permissibility of approval voting

[Sean Hunt]

At a recent meeting, in what was perhaps a moment of weakness, I allowed a motion (to suspend the rules) to decide on the filling of a blank by means of an approval vote (wherein each voter casts votes for any number of options, and the option with the most votes wins). In retrospect, I am unsure about whether approval vote is consistent with the FPPLs, and accordingly whether or not the decision was null and void.*

So the first and most obvious FPPL that could be considered to be violated is the FPPL that only one question may be considered at a time. But voting on multiple questions at once (such as taking a single ballot to elect a group of officers) is often done to expedite business, and does not violate the FPPL.

And it could be considered that it violates the FPPL of "one member, one vote", but if we view it as a series of distinct votes on each option (as in the usual method of voting to fill ballots), then each member is voting on the question separately. And it's not necessarily the case that a member needs the ability to express discontent with the options with a vote against, because in the case of an election, a member does not have the right to vote against all candidates; his only recourse is to nominate another candidate. The issue of a variable threshold for making the decision doesn't in and of itself seem to violate a FPPL.

But put together, the mechanism of approval voting is at least unsettling from an FPPL perspective, and I could see some argument that you must either consider it one question (or else voters have no way of opposing a proposal) or multiple (or else voters are violating the "one member, one vote" rule since they can cast votes for any number of options).

I was a bit surprised to see no mention of approval voting in RONR or anywhere on this forum (that I could find, anyway), and I'd appreciate some insight.

* The pedants out there will probably argue that for filling a blank, the use of approval voting does not constitute a continuing breach since the final motion was adopted by a majority vote. However, after having admitted the motion to use approval voting for filling a blank, I also admitted one to use the same method for selecting committee members since at that point it would have been far less productive for me to rule it out of order, and this decision is potentially null and void.

[Dan Honemann]

At a recent meeting, in what was perhaps a moment of weakness, I allowed a motion (to suspend the rules) to decide on the filling of a blank by means of an approval vote (wherein each voter casts votes for any number of options, and the option with the most votes wins). In retrospect, I am unsure about whether approval vote is consistent with the FPPLs, and accordingly whether or not the decision was null and void.*

So the first and most obvious FPPL that could be considered to be violated is the FPPL that only one question may be considered at a time. But voting on multiple questions at once (such as taking a single ballot to elect a group of officers) is often done to expedite business, and does not violate the FPPL.

And it could be considered that it violates the FPPL of "one member, one vote", but if we view it as a series of distinct votes on each option (as in the usual method of voting to fill ballots), then each member is voting on the question separately. And it's not necessarily the case that a member needs the ability to express discontent with the options with a vote against, because in the case of an election, a member does not have the right to vote against all candidates; his only recourse is to nominate another candidate. The issue of a variable threshold for making the decision doesn't in and of itself seem to violate a FPPL.

But put together, the mechanism of approval voting is at least unsettling from an FPPL perspective, and I could see some argument that you must either consider it one question (or else voters have no way of opposing a proposal) or multiple (or else voters are violating the "one member, one vote" rule since they can cast votes for any number of options).

I was a bit surprised to see no mention of approval voting in RONR or anywhere on this forum (that I could find, anyway), and I'd appreciate some insight.

* The pedants out there will probably argue that for filling a blank, the use of approval voting does not constitute a continuing breach since the final motion was adopted by a majority vote. However, after having admitted the motion to use approval voting for filling a blank, I also admitted one to use the same method for selecting committee members since at that point it would have been far less productive for me to rule it out of order, and this decision is potentially null and void.

As best I can determine, the voting method you describe violates no fundamental principle of parliamentary law.

[Gary Novosielski]

Based on the principle of majority rule, I'm generally uncomfortable with approval voting in that a small minority can vote to do something that a majority oppose. I'm presuming that a vote with no choices marked, presumably by someone who opposed the motion entirely, would be counted as an abstention. (This discomfort might go away in the case of an election, where the rule already exists that opposition to one candidate can only be expressed by supporting another.)

But for filling a blank in a main motion (or amendment) that will have its up-or-down vote later, I not only don't see a continuing breach, I don't see a breach in the first place. I think the motion to suspend the rules was in order.

[jstackpo]

Sorry to come in a little late on this one...

If you do the math (or enough test cases) you'll see that approval voting or a series of votes to fill a blank will (presuming all the voters are consistent as they vote) generate exactly the same outcome.

With one exception: in approval voting where you vote either "Yes" or "no" (or abstain) on all the options all at once, it is possible to end up with more than one choice getting a majority. Then you select the greatest majority as the winner.

In RONR's fill the blank system, you stop voting as soon as an option gets a majority. This leaves unanswered the question of whether another choice further down the line might have done better.

I'll leave it to the readers to decide which is more "fair", or which system correctly encapsulates the collective will of the voters. (Hint: it ain't obvious!)