Tie Ballot Vote

[Guest Jim VFD]

An election took place, has always included nominations from the floor on election day and absentee ballots, which resulted in a tie. The chair then announced a run off election would take place immediately to break the tie. It was also announced the absentee ballots would not be counted. Was the correct procedure followed under Roberts Rule of Order as the by-laws do not address?

 

[Edgar Guest]

Was the correct procedure followed under Roberts Rule of Order as the by-laws do not address?

 

No.

 

Firstly, you should never combine absentee votes with "in-person" votes.

 

Secondly, you don't hold a "run-off". All candidates remain on the ballot (except, perhaps, those that voluntarily withdraw).

[Guest Jim VFD]

Thanks for the response.

The count was separate, but the total included both, which resulted in the tie.

Then the chair announce a "run off election" to take place and called for another other nominations from the floor, there were none and passed out ballots, collected them counted them and announced a winner. Yet, at that time the absentees were not counted.

Thanks again!

[jstackpo]

If I was a concerned absentee, I would scream bloody murder.  (In the parliamentary correct form of raising a point of order at the next meeting I was at, of course.)

 

My right to vote (even though in a somewhat flawed system) was clearly denied me.  P. 251, (e) covers this situation. 

 

The election needed to get past the tie vote should have included all eligible voters, just as the first one did.

[Gary Novosielski]

An election took place, has always included nominations from the floor on election day and absentee ballots, which resulted in a tie. The chair then announced a run off election would take place immediately to break the tie. It was also announced the absentee ballots would not be counted. Was the correct procedure followed under Roberts Rule of Order as the by-laws do not address?

 

Not even close.

 

There is no such thing as a run-off election under RONR.  The correct procedure is a second ballot, with no candidates dropped, and of course ALL members given notice of the vote and the opportunity to participate.

[George Mervosh]

Not even close.

 

There is no such thing as a run-off election under RONR.  The correct procedure is a second ballot, with no candidates dropped, and of course ALL members given notice of the vote and the opportunity to participate.

 

Gary, if there's going to be a second ballot in this election, are you saying they can't reballot right then and there and include the votes of those who voted via absentee ballot?

[jstackpo]

Jumping in for Gary,

 

Correct.  The people at the meeting have new information about the election (i.e., the tied result) that could induce them to change their votes.

 

The absentees don't have this information, which is a denial of their rights.

 

Best bet is to do away with the "mixed" (in-house and out-house) voting altogether.

[Gary Novosielski]

Well, since it's not correct to count absentees and live votes in the first place, I have a hard time endorsing the notion of doing it again.  

 

Also, an important part of subsequent ballots is voting with full knowledge of how the previous round turned out.  Just counting the first ballots over again doesn't accomplish that.

 

Ultimately, it's a bad situation either way, and since it would never arise under the rules in RONR, it's going to be up to local interpretation.

[George Mervosh]

Since the question is, in essence, who shall we elect to each office, the question remains the same each time it's time to vote.  In a case such as this, where there is a tie on the first round of balloting, why isn't the correct procedure to take another ballot of those present and count the mailed votes?  Just because the mail voters can't change their mind doesn't mean we disregard their vote, and I don't think it's mandatory to send out another ballot because the vote was a tie.  The absentees have to live with the actions of those who were present and eventually changed their mind, but that's the choice they made when they voted like they did.  That's just my take on it.

[Edgar Guest]

 . . . the question remains the same each time it's time to vote. . . . Just because the mail voters can't change their mind doesn't mean we disregard their vote . . . 

 

The question may remain the same but the field of possible answers might change. A candidate might withdraw or nominations might be re-opened. So although the absentees and attendees might be voting on the same question, they are not choosing from the same set of possible answers.

 

It's noble to try to make this work but I fear it's like putting lipstick on a pig.

[Dan Honemann]

It is putting lipstick on a pig, but I agree with George that the absentee votes should be counted. The absentees could have voted for any eligible person, and so the set of possible answers most likely did not change (assuming that makes any difference).

[Edgar Guest]

The absentees could have voted for any eligible person, and so the set of possible answers most likely did not change (assuming that makes any difference).

 

Fair enough. The set of possible answers (i.e. every living human being) won't change. But the set of plausible (for lack of a better word) answers might change. it seems we're handicapping absentee voters and then saying that they imposed this handicap on themselves. I guess I'd be happy if absentee voters were told that their vote would keep being cast regardless of whether their candidate withdrew or additional nominations were made. I guess what this pig needs is more lipstick.