Suspend the Rules - Election Tiebreaker

[Josh Martin]

Suppose an assembly has two candidates for a position and the election has continued to result in a tie after several rounds of voting. The assembly's rules do not specify the method of voting, and it has conducted the election by roll call. Is it in order to Suspend the Rules in order to provide for a tiebreaker (such as a coin toss)? If not, what is the minimum level of rule that would be required to put such a system in place? A rule for the session, a special rule of order, or a rule in the Bylaws?

[Guest George Mervish]

I can't see why a majority vote, via a roll call vote, can't order it.

[Shmuel Gerber]

I can't see why a majority vote, via a roll call vote, can't order it.

And why should we care about what "George Mervish" can't see?

[Dan Honemann]

Suppose an assembly has two candidates for a position and the election has continued to result in a tie after several rounds of voting. The assembly's rules do not specify the method of voting, and it has conducted the election by roll call. Is it in order to Suspend the Rules in order to provide for a tiebreaker (such as a coin toss)? If not, what is the minimum level of rule that would be required to put such a system in place? A rule for the session, a special rule of order, or a rule in the Bylaws?

The rules which cannot be suspended are described on pages 263-65. As best I can determine, what is being proposed would not involve the suspension of any such rule. As a consequence, I think it would be in order to move to suspend the rules which interfere with the use of a coin toss as a tiebreaker.

In my opinion, a permanent rule of this nature could be put in place by the adoption of a special rule of order, except that, if it is to apply to the election of officers, it would need to be in the bylaws.

[Dan Honemann]

I can't see why a majority vote, via a roll call vote, can't order it.

I doubt that taking a roll-call vote on the motion to suspend the rules in this situation will reduce the vote required for adoption of the motion to suspend the rules.

[George Mervosh]

I doubt that taking a roll-call vote on the motion to suspend the rules in this situation will reduce the vote required for adoption of the motion to suspend the rules.

No of course not, that's just how they were voting in the election in post #1, but my mis-spelled namesake and alter ego thought, in essence, a majority was deciding who would be elected by agreeing to a coin toss, therefore, there is no need to suspend any rules since the majority is dictating the conditions upon which it will decide the matter. But I see you don't agree, so suspend the rules it is!

[J. J.]

The rules which cannot be suspended are described on pages 263-65. As best I can determine, what is being proposed would not involve the suspension of any such rule. As a consequence, I think it would be in order to move to suspend the rules which interfere with the use of a coin toss as a tiebreaker.

In my opinion, a permanent rule of this nature could be put in place by the adoption of a special rule of order, except that, if it is to apply to the election of officers, it would need to be in the bylaws.

I think suspending the rules in this manner would violate the FPPL regarding the transfer of votes. I do not believe that could be suspended.

However, provided a ballot was not required, the majority could easily decide that the "winner" of the coin toss receives that majority's vote.

I don't believe that as a matter of correct procedure, the rules could be suspended, by a 2/3 vote to permit a coin toss. I do believe that the majority may make its decision on whom to elect or chose (within any eligibility requirements) based on whatever criteria it chooses, including which candidate calls "heads." Unless a ballot is required, the majority can certainly make that decision to elect by unanimous consent.

[Dan Honemann]

I think suspending the rules in this manner would violate the FPPL regarding the transfer of votes. I do not believe that could be suspended.

However, provided a ballot was not required, the majority could easily decide that the "winner" of the coin toss receives that majority's vote.

I don't believe that as a matter of correct procedure, the rules could be suspended, by a 2/3 vote to permit a coin toss. I do believe that the majority may make its decision on whom to elect or chose (within any eligibility requirements) based on whatever criteria it chooses, including which candidate calls "heads." Unless a ballot is required, the majority can certainly make that decision to elect by unanimous consent.

So the assembly cannot agree to suspend the rules against having the tie decided by a coin toss because that would violate the rule against giving the right to vote to a nonmember (RONR, 11th ed., p. 263, ll. 22-23)??

Well, then, based upon the footnote on that page, I'm gratified to learn that the rules can be suspended to allow the coin to speak in debate.

[J. J.]

So the assembly cannot agree to suspend the rules against having the tie decided by a coin toss because that would violate the rule against giving the right to vote to a nonmember (RONR, 11th ed., p. 263, ll. 22-23)??

Well, then, based upon the footnote on that page, I'm gratified to learn that the rules can be suspended to allow the coin to speak in debate.

No, not that fundamental principle. Try p. 444, ll. 2-7 and p. 407, p. 8-10. Two thirds of the assembly could not transfer that vote to something or someone else.

Dan, even if you and were both members, you could not write on a signed ballot, "Credit my vote however J. J. votes," and have it counted. It would be fine for you to look at my signed ballot and then cast your vote for the same choice that I made. You would not need to suspend the rules to do that.

[Dan Honemann]

No, not that fundamental principle. Try p. 444, ll. 2-7 and p. 407, p. 8-10. Two thirds of the assembly could not transfer that vote to something or someone else.

Dan, even if you and were both members, you could not write on a signed ballot, "Credit my vote however J. J. votes," and have it counted. It would be fine for you to look at my signed ballot and then cast your vote for the same choice that I made. You would not need to suspend the rules to do that.

Yes, cumulative voting violates a fundamental principle of parliamentary law, but that has absolutely nothing to do with what we are now considering.

Yes, it is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that each member of an assembly is entitled to only one vote on a question, but that has absolutely nothing to do with what we are now considering.

[J. J.]

Yes, cumulative voting violates a fundamental principle of parliamentary law, but that has absolutely nothing to do with what we are now considering.

Yes, it is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that each member of an assembly is entitled to only one vote on a question, but that has absolutely nothing to do with what we are now considering.

The reason that both proxy voting and cumulative voting is a violation of an FPPL is that it transfers votes. That is what you are doing with the coin toss, transferring the votes of the members to something else.

And again, nothing would prevent a bare majority, something less than 2/3, from voting on something based on a coin toss.

[Guest Edgar]

That is what you are doing with the coin toss, transferring the votes of the members to something else.

The next time I have to vote I think I'll send a quarter in my place. If it's heads I'm voting for Washington. Tails, Washington.

[George Mervosh]

I'm still curious. The rule is a majority decides who it will elect. Why does the majority who decides who it will elect need a 2/3 vote when that majority says a coin toss will decide the matter? The majority still has elected that person.

[J. J.]

The next time I have to vote I think I'll send a quarter in my place. If it's heads I'm voting for Washington. Tails, Washington.

So long as the rules permit the transfer of votes, it's fine.

[Dan Honemann]

I'm still curious. The rule is a majority decides who it will elect. Why does the majority who decides who it will elect need a 2/3 vote when that majority says a coin toss will decide the matter? The majority still has elected that person.

If an election is being conducted by ballot or by roll call, the rule is that repeated voting must take place in those instances where no candidate has received a majority of the votes cast. This rule must be suspended (two-thirds vote required) in order to provide for a tiebreaker, such as a coin toss, in place of repeated voting. (if a ballot vote has been mandated by a provision in the bylaws, however, this rule cannot be suspended.)

But if the assembly simply goes ahead and conducts a coin toss, the chair declares the winner elected, no point of order is raised, and the meeting is adjourned, no point of order contesting the validity of the election can be raised at some later point in time based upon a claim that action has been taken in violation of a fundamental principle of parliamentary law. No fundamental principle of parliamentary law has been violated.

[Gary Novosielski]

Is it just me, or did there used to be something in RONR about a coin flip that I can't find any more?

[George Mervosh]

If an election is being conducted by ballot or by roll call, the rule is that repeated voting must take place in those instances where no candidate has received a majority of the votes cast. This rule must be suspended (two-thirds vote required) in order to provide for a tiebreaker, such as a coin toss, in place of repeated voting. (if a ballot vote has been mandated by a provision in the bylaws, however, this rule cannot be suspended.)

But if the assembly simply goes ahead and conducts a coin toss, the chair declares the winner elected, no point of order is raised, and the meeting is adjourned, no point of order contesting the validity of the election can be raised at some later point in time based upon a claim that action has been taken in violation of a fundamental principle of parliamentary law. No fundamental principle of parliamentary law has been violated.

Thank you very much!

[J. J.]

If an election is being conducted by ballot or by roll call, the rule is that repeated voting must take place in those instances where no candidate has received a majority of the votes cast. This rule must be suspended (two-thirds vote required) in order to provide for a tiebreaker, such as a coin toss, in place of repeated voting. (if a ballot vote has been mandated by a provision in the bylaws, however, this rule cannot be suspended.)

Two questions.

1. Regarding ballots, wouldn't p. 413. ll. 1-9 apply to ballots? If not why not? (Not rhetorical.)

2. If the vote is by roll call, isn't the rule being suspended the rule for repeated voting by the same method? For example if the vote had been taken by roll call, it would be out of order to move to take a voice vote (p. 285, ll. 22-26).

But if the assembly simply goes ahead and conducts a coin toss, the chair declares the winner elected, no point of order is raised, and the meeting is adjourned, no point of order contesting the validity of the election can be raised at some later point in time based upon a claim that action has been taken in violation of a fundamental principle of parliamentary law. No fundamental principle of parliamentary law has been violated.

I tend to agree, but I'm interested in the why.

[Dan Honemann]

Two questions.

1. Regarding ballots, wouldn't p. 413. ll. 1-9 apply to ballots? If not why not? (Not rhetorical.)

2. If the vote is by roll call, isn't the rule being suspended the rule for repeated voting by the same method? For example if the vote had been taken by roll call, it would be out of order to move to take a voice vote (p. 285, ll. 22-26).

I tend to agree, but I'm interested in the why.

1. A motion to suspend the rules in order to allow the use of a coin toss as a tie breaker will not force the disclosure by any member of who it is that he has voted for.

2. Yes, the rule being suspended is the rule which requires repeated voting by the same method.

[Dan Honemann]

Is it just me, or did there used to be something in RONR about a coin flip that I can't find any more?

I don't recall any (which doesn't mean much), but I do know that General Robert liked the idea of drawing lots to break ties when electing members of boards by ballot (PL, p. 238).

[George Mervosh]

I don't recall any (which doesn't mean much), but I do know that General Robert liked the idea of drawing lots to break ties when electing members of boards by ballot (PL, p. 238).

Interestingly enough, he never mentions suspending the rules to permit it, correct?

[Dan Honemann]

Interestingly enough, he never mentions suspending the rules to permit it, correct?

No - he doesn't seem to have said much about it at all.

[J. J.]

One of the differences, since we have now delved into the second and third decades of the 20th Century, is that ROR did not require officers to be elected by a majority, if a special rule would permit it.

[Dan Honemann]

One of the differences, since we have now delved into the second and third decades of the 20th Century, is that ROR did not require officers to be elected by a majority, if a special rule would permit it.

Be that as it may, it seems clear that General Robert did not believe that allowing a tie to be broken by drawing lots (or by a coin toss) in order to decide the outcome of an election would violate any fundamental principle of parliamentary law.

[J. J.]

Be that as it may, it seems clear that General Robert did not believe that allowing a tie to be broken by drawing lots (or by a coin toss) in order to decide the outcome of an election would violate any fundamental principle of parliamentary law.

Well, he did feel that it would not need to be in the bylaws. It is a different potential FPPL that I am looking at, though not one that would deal directly with the transfer of votes. And because it is potential, I'd prefer not to discuss it on a public message board.