Absentee voting in case of an Election revote

[Guest Lawrence]

Our organization's bylaws provide that Voting Day is at the May General Meeting and that "Members may cast their ballot in person or in advance." My question is what happens if no candidate receives a majority for a role? Assuming we have a quorum present, do we just re-vote at the meeting until someone is elected? (i.e. if absentee votes would, perforce, only be included in the first round.)

[Josh Martin]

Our organization's bylaws provide that Voting Day is at the May General Meeting and that "Members may cast their ballot in person or in advance." My question is what happens if no candidate receives a majority for a role? Assuming we have a quorum present, do we just re-vote at the meeting until someone is elected? (i.e. if absentee votes would, perforce, only be included in the first round.)

 

"An organization should never adopt a bylaw permitting a question to be decided by a voting procedure in which the votes of persons who attend a meeting are counted together with ballots mailed in by absentees. The votes of those present could be affected by debate, by amendments, and perhaps by the need for repeated balloting, while those absent would be unable to adjust their votes to reflect these factors. Consequently, the absentee ballots would in most cases be on a somewhat different question than that on which those present were voting, leading to confusion, unfairness, and inaccuracy in determining the result." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 423)

 

So RONR doesn't have an answer to your question. It will be up to your organization to interpret its own bylaws. See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 588-591 for some Principles of Interpretation.

[Guest Lawrence]

The end of the section on "Ballot election" (RORN p. 439-441) had given me hope:

 

"Whichever one of the preceding methods of elections is used, if any office remains unfiled after the first ballot, as may happen if there are more than two nominees, the balloting is repeated for that office as many times as neccessary to obtain a majority vote for a single candidate."

 

(I do understand that the RORN methods in this section do not provide for absentee voting.)

[Rev Ed]

The end of the section on "Ballot election" (RORN p. 439-441) had given me hope:

 

"Whichever one of the preceding methods of elections is used, if any office remains unfiled after the first ballot, as may happen if there are more than two nominees, the balloting is repeated for that office as many times as neccessary to obtain a majority vote for a single candidate."

 

So, then do that.  Any 'advance votes' would still go to the same candidates.  One option would be for the Tellers' Report to have a list with three rows: "Absentee/advance votes", "Votes from the Floor", and then "Total Votes."  You then have a column for each candidate.

[jstackpo]

I have to disagree with Rev Ed.  (Which is a fine example of why it is indeed a bad idea to "mix" in meeting votes with absentee votes.)

 

If I were an absentee voter and learned the (non-majority) results of the first round of voting, I might very well wish to vote for someone else - the new information could change my mind.

 

Thus ALL the voters - absentee and present  --  should get to cast a new ballot.  This in turn will require that the entire process be repeated  --  another reason why it is a bad idea in the first place.

[Guest Edgar]

I have to disagree with Rev Ed.

 

Me too. I'd have a row for each candidate and a column for the type of vote.

[Gary Novosielski]

The end of the section on "Ballot election" (RORN p. 439-441) had given me hope:

 

"Whichever one of the preceding methods of elections is used, if any office remains unfiled after the first ballot, as may happen if there are more than two nominees, the balloting is repeated for that office as many times as neccessary to obtain a majority vote for a single candidate."

 

(I do understand that the RORN methods in this section do not provide for absentee voting.)

That section does not presume absentee voting is allowed.  There is a section on mail balloting (which is allowed only if your bylaws so provide), but that section presumes that all votes are absentee votes.

 

But I would still say that if after balloting there remain offices to fill, then you need another round of balloting.  In spite of what Ed says, nothing in RONR would suggest to me that the absentee votes could be reused.

[Josh Martin]

The end of the section on "Ballot election" (RORN p. 439-441) had given me hope:

 

"Whichever one of the preceding methods of elections is used, if any office remains unfiled after the first ballot, as may happen if there are more than two nominees, the balloting is repeated for that office as many times as neccessary to obtain a majority vote for a single candidate."

 

(I do understand that the RORN methods in this section do not provide for absentee voting.)

 

This is entirely correct, but as noted in the pg. 423 citation, some problems are introduced when some members vote in person and some members vote absentee, and so RONR strongly advises not to do that. Your organization will need to interpret its own bylaws.

 

I have to disagree with Rev Ed.  (Which is a fine example of why it is indeed a bad idea to "mix" in meeting votes with absentee votes.)

 

If I were an absentee voter and learned the (non-majority) results of the first round of voting, I might very well wish to vote for someone else - the new information could change my mind.

 

Thus ALL the voters - absentee and present  --  should get to cast a new ballot.  This in turn will require that the entire process be repeated  --  another reason why it is a bad idea in the first place.

 

What should happen is not necessarily what the organization's bylaws provide. (Although I'm not necessarily saying this is wrong.)

 

But I would still say that if after balloting there remain offices to fill, then you need another round of balloting.  In spite of what Ed says, nothing in RONR would suggest to me that the absentee votes could be reused.

 

RONR suggests that the OP's situation should never arise in the first place, so RONR doesn't have an answer for how to handle it.

 

The organization will need to interpret its own bylaws. Either Rev Ed's proposal or Dr. Stackpole's proposal may well end up being correct. Another possibility is that only the members present will be able to vote in additional rounds of voting and the votes of absentees shall not be counted at all in subsequent rounds. This is most certainly the least fair to the absentee voters, but it has the greatest possibility of completing the election in a single meeting. Presumably for this reason, I have seen some organizations which use that procedure.

[jstackpo]

 This is most certainly the least fair to the absentee voters, but it has the greatest possibility of completing the election in a single meeting. Presumably for this reason, I have seen some organizations which use that procedure.

 

I have too, but it was in the bylaws where it should be if the idea appeals to the association.

 

 

[Guest Guest]

So far this hasn't come up in our elections and hopefully this year will likewise be "uneventful."  What I will do if we don't have a majority for a candidate is have the members present (assuming we have a quorum) vote on three options:

 

1) reschedule the vote

2) only those present vote a second round

3) those present vote a second round, but include the absentee ballots in the tally (without telling them how this would affect the outcome.)

 

Thank you for all the comments, clear thinking, various options and considerations.

[Gary Novosielski]

So far this hasn't come up in our elections and hopefully this year will likewise be "uneventful."  What I will do if we don't have a majority for a candidate is have the members present (assuming we have a quorum) vote on three options:

 

1) reschedule the vote

2) only those present vote a second round

3) those present vote a second round, but include the absentee ballots in the tally (without telling them how this would affect the outcome.)

 

Thank you for all the comments, clear thinking, various options and considerations.

 

Well, you have to announce the results of the first round, so they will be able to figure out how this would affect the outcome.  You can't just say a second round is required without announcing the vote count.

 

And how were you going to get them to vote Aye or No on a three way vote?  In fact, who are you expecting to move this motion, you?  If someone else made it would you accept it as being in order?

[jstackpo]

I would venture (opinion here) that any attempt to disenfranchise the absentee voters in that second round could set off a firestorm, particularly if the election is close or contentious, or both.

 

Don't do it!  (Unless you amend the bylaw first.)

[Josh Martin]

So far this hasn't come up in our elections and hopefully this year will likewise be "uneventful."  What I will do if we don't have a majority for a candidate is have the members present (assuming we have a quorum) vote on three options:

 

1) reschedule the vote

2) only those present vote a second round

3) those present vote a second round, but include the absentee ballots in the tally (without telling them how this would affect the outcome.)

 

Well, no, don't do that. I'd submit the options to the assembly and wait for someone to make a motion for one of them (or perhaps something else none of us have thought of). That motion will then be subject to debate and amendment, and ultimately members will vote yes or no on it.

 

In the long run, of course, the bylaws should be amended to address how such issues are handled - or better yet, amended so that they don't combine votes at a meeting with absentee votes.

 

Well, you have to announce the results of the first round, so they will be able to figure out how this would affect the outcome.  You can't just say a second round is required without announcing the vote count.

 

I think what the OP is saying is that he will not inform the assembly of which votes are absentee votes, so that they will not know how including those votes in subsequent rounds (or not) will affect the outcome. This is exactly what RONR recommends in such cases.