Guest Arick Decker Posted December 23, 2013 at 06:00 AM Report Share Posted December 23, 2013 at 06:00 AM Several days ago at a regular monthly meeting we held our elections. Prior to elections the floor is opened to nominations. Member A nominated himself, Was placed on the ballot and tied for a position. The president rather than breaking the tie called for a revote. Member A was elected into office. Member A does not meet the requirements for office, but his nomination was not challenged by anyone at the meeting. How can we correct this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted December 23, 2013 at 07:34 AM Report Share Posted December 23, 2013 at 07:34 AM If Member A is really truly ineligible to serve, then the votes that were cast for him were illegal votes (and count as such). If the ballots have been retained securely, the membership assembly can order a recount. If, in the recount, someone else gets more than half of the votes cast (votes for Member A add into the total, but won't help anyone be elected, remember), he's elected; if not, which is likely, you'll have to ballot again. (Maybe I'm leaving something out.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted December 23, 2013 at 11:10 AM Report Share Posted December 23, 2013 at 11:10 AM If you can't do what Gary said, then next meeting raise the point of order (or the chair can rule on his own) that the election is invalid because Fred is ineligible to serve. The set up and run another election. From scratch. Fred's ineligibility MUST be made clear in the bylaws. Read them carefully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted December 23, 2013 at 11:42 AM Report Share Posted December 23, 2013 at 11:42 AM Thanks, John. (I particularly felt my first clause was lacking, but couldn't put my finger on it.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted December 23, 2013 at 11:46 AM Report Share Posted December 23, 2013 at 11:46 AM 2:34 AM is much to early to get into theology: "first clause". Next you will be wondering how "unmoved mover" fits into RONR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted December 23, 2013 at 11:49 AM Report Share Posted December 23, 2013 at 11:49 AM ... If, in the recount, someone else gets more than half of the votes cast (votes for Member A add into the total, but won't help anyone be elected, remember), he's elected; if not, which is likely, ...(Maybe I'm leaving something out.)John (or anyone else) -- I'm tentatively thinking I was being too much of a pusillanimous pussyfooter (chess jargon, I'm told): it's not just unlikely that anyone else can get a majority, it's (arithmetically) impossible, since Member A ("Fred" to his friends and college graduates) already has a majority of those votes. Yes? [Edited to reply to Post 5:["theology": :-) ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted December 23, 2013 at 12:31 PM Report Share Posted December 23, 2013 at 12:31 PM John (or anyone else) -- I'm tentatively thinking I was being too much of a pusillanimous pussyfooter (chess jargon, I'm told): it's not just unlikely that anyone else can get a majority, it's (arithmetically) impossible, since Member A ("Fred" to his friends and college graduates) already has a majority of those votes. Yes? [Edited to reply to Post 5:["theology": :-) ] But isn't making certain that Member A does, in fact, have a majority of the votes cast the reason for the recount? If you're so sure about it, why order a recount? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted December 24, 2013 at 11:46 AM Report Share Posted December 24, 2013 at 11:46 AM But isn't making certain that Member A does, in fact, have a majority of the votes cast the reason for the recount? If you're so sure about it, why order a recount?No, because nobody cares whether Member A ("Fred" to his friends, college graduates, and -- OK skip it) got a majority or not; what is of issue is whether anyone else, whom we hope is elegible to serve, got a majority (which I'm suspecting is impossible) ... Oh.Um. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted December 24, 2013 at 11:52 AM Report Share Posted December 24, 2013 at 11:52 AM No, because nobody cares whether Member A ("Fred" to his friends, college graduates, and -- OK skip it) got a majority or not; what is of issue is whether anyone else, whom we hope is elegible to serve, got a majority (which I'm suspecting is impossible) ... Oh.Um. Oh, um, is right. There was nothing wrong with your initial response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted December 24, 2013 at 11:57 AM Report Share Posted December 24, 2013 at 11:57 AM Is your point that, since we accept that Member A got a majority of the votes, it necessarily follows that nobody else got a majority of the votes, and it's pusillanimous pussyfooting to dither that it might be otherwise once it's determined that the votes for Member A are not valid but illegal votes, since that doesn't change the tally? Man, sometimes in retrospect I wish I'd minored in arithmetic in law school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted December 24, 2013 at 12:18 PM Report Share Posted December 24, 2013 at 12:18 PM And that therefore a recount can only tell us what we already know so it would be a waste of time, almost a definitive waste of time (teachers of wastes of time could cite it), and that therefore there is no reason to go ahead with the next balloting? [Edit: that should be "there is no reason NOT to go ahead with the next balloting."] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted December 24, 2013 at 12:23 PM Report Share Posted December 24, 2013 at 12:23 PM My point was that there was nothing wrong with your initial response (post #2). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted December 24, 2013 at 06:06 PM Report Share Posted December 24, 2013 at 06:06 PM My point was that there was nothing wrong with your initial response (post #2).You need to stop overthinking everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.