Hieu H. Huynh Posted September 22, 2014 at 03:33 PM Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 at 03:33 PM Last month at the annual meeting of my non-profit organization, we held our elections. Instead of paper ballots, we used handheld voting devices. For example, to vote for "Mr. Smith" press "1", to vote for "Ms. Jones" press "2". The results for one of the offices was as follows: for Mr. Smith - 8,400for Ms. Jones - 8,300invalid entries - 300total entries - 17,000 Our President ruled that Mr. Smith was declared elected without including the invalid votes and disregarded a second ballot. This ruling stood after several points of order and discussion among the members. Here's the applicable section from our bylaws: A majority of all votes cast shall be required for the election of theInternational President-Elect, each of the two (2) vice presidents, the InternationalPresident if applicable, and each of the international directors. In the event any ballotcast does not show a majority for any nominee for any of those offices, there shall befurther balloting for that office. Prior to the second ballot, the nominee having the lowestvote on the first ballot shall be dropped, and on each succeeding ballot the sameprocedure shall be followed until a nominee shall have received a majority of all votescast. In case of a tie between two remaining nominees, the election shall be decided bylot. Here are my questions: 1. Should the invalid entries be included? 2. If there is to be a second ballot, should Ms. Jones be dropped from the ballot as suggested by our bylaws? 3. Since the rule in our bylaws of dropping the lowest vote-getter from subsequent ballots is a rule that takes away the right of a member to seek office, could this rule in our bylaws be suspended? 4. Since there are no paper ballots to recount, is a motion to do a revote in order? 5. Should this section in our bylaws be amended to make it clearer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted September 22, 2014 at 03:48 PM Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 at 03:48 PM Last month at the annual meeting of my non-profit organization, we held our elections. Instead of paper ballots, we used handheld voting devices. For example, to vote for "Mr. Smith" press "1", to vote for "Ms. Jones" press "2". The results for one of the offices was as follows: for Mr. Smith - 8,400for Ms. Jones - 8,300invalid entries - 300total entries - 17,000 Our President ruled that Mr. Smith was declared elected without including the invalid votes and disregarded a second ballot. This ruling stood after several points of order and discussion among the members. First, I must ask you a question: What, exactly, do you mean by "invalid entries"? That is not a term used by RONR. In the meantime, maybe these two paragraphs regarding recording the votes from page 415 of RONR will be helpful: "Recording the Votes. In recording the votes cast, the principle followed is that a choice has no mandate from the voting body unless approval is expressed by more than half of those entitled to vote and registering any evidence of having some preference. Accordingly, the tellers ignore blank ballots and other ballots that indicate no preference, treating them as abstentions. (Blank ballots are sometimes cast by members to conceal the fact that they do not wish to vote.) All ballots that indicate a preference—provided they have been cast by persons entitled to vote—are taken into account in determining the number of votes cast for purposes of computing the majority. Each such ballot is credited to the voter's [page 416] preferred candidate or choice if the meaning of the ballot is clear and the choice is valid. Unintelligible ballots or ballots cast for an unidentifiable or ineligible candidate are treated instead as illegal votes —that is, they are counted as votes cast but are not credited to any candidate or choice. Similarly, a ballot that contains votes for too many candidates for a given office is counted as one illegal vote cast for that office, because it is not possible for the tellers to determine which candidate(s) the voter prefers." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Posted September 22, 2014 at 03:55 PM Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 at 03:55 PM 5. Should this section in our bylaws be amended to make it clearer? No, I think that section is clear enough. What isn't clear is the section that allows you to use the electronic voting method instead of ballots. If you were using ballots, people could write in a candidate who isn't listed. Perhaps that is why you have so many invalid votes. (I'm assuming you would get that if someone presses 3 instead of 1 or 2.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted September 22, 2014 at 04:08 PM Author Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 at 04:08 PM Before voting, all candidates including floor candidates are assigned a number. Invalid entries are those not assigned to a candidate or if more than one number is pressed. Electronic voting is not in our bylaws as far as I know (I'll recheck). Does a ballot necessarily mean a paper ballot? Must our bylaws have a section on using electronic devices instead of paper ballots in order to use them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted September 22, 2014 at 04:16 PM Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 at 04:16 PM If you were using ballots, people could write in a candidate who isn't listed. Perhaps that is why you have so many invalid votes. (I'm assuming you would get that if someone presses 3 instead of 1 or 2.) I'm thinking that is probably the case, too, but I'm hoping for confirmation from Mr. Huynh as to just what those "invalid entries" consist of. Will the machines even accept a vote for number 3 if there are only two candidates in the race? If they do, then is a vote for the non-existent candidate number 3 an "illegal vote" for an unidentifiable or ineligible candidate as RONR defines the term and to be used in counting the votes cast? Or is it a way of abstaining, much as voting for a comic book character* when using paper ballots, and to be ignored as a blank ballot? Note: I see that Mr. Huynh just confirmed that the invalid entries were cast for a number without a candidate or that more than one number was pressed, complicating things even further. Edited to add: My comment at the end of the first paragraph which says that votes for a comic book character are treated as blank ballots is incorrect. They are counted as illegal votes and count toward the total number of votes cast but not as votes for a particular candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted September 22, 2014 at 04:27 PM Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 at 04:27 PM Before voting, all candidates including floor candidates are assigned a number. Invalid entries are those not assigned to a candidate or if more than one number is pressed. Based on that explanation from Mr. Huynh, I think the president probably treated the "invalid entries" as blank ballots not indicating a preference for any candidate and that they therefore should be ignored as abstentions or blank ballots. I cannot say that I think his ruling was unreasonable, but it could have been appealed to the assembly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Posted September 22, 2014 at 05:25 PM Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 at 05:25 PM Before voting, all candidates including floor candidates are assigned a number. Invalid entries are those not assigned to a candidate or if more than one number is pressed. Electronic voting is not in our bylaws as far as I know (I'll recheck). Does a ballot necessarily mean a paper ballot? Must our bylaws have a section on using electronic devices instead of paper ballots in order to use them? The RONR definition of a ballot is a "slip of paper." As will voting by ballot, RONR only allows electronic voting when it is expressly stated by the assembly or in their rules. Since your rules call for a ballot, a ballot must be used. If you want to use electronic voting, you need to amend your bylaws. It appears that the 300 votes are the least of your worries. The whole election should be declared null and void, since the wrong voting method was used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted September 22, 2014 at 06:12 PM Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 at 06:12 PM Before voting, all candidates including floor candidates are assigned a number. Invalid entries are those not assigned to a candidate or if more than one number is pressed. Electronic voting is not in our bylaws as far as I know (I'll recheck). Does a ballot necessarily mean a paper ballot? Must our bylaws have a section on using electronic devices instead of paper ballots in order to use them? Using your method, I do not see how write-ins are possible, as they would be on a paper ballot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted September 22, 2014 at 06:19 PM Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 at 06:19 PM The RONR definition of a ballot is a "slip of paper." As will voting by ballot, RONR only allows electronic voting when it is expressly stated by the assembly or in their rules. Since your rules call for a ballot, a ballot must be used. If you want to use electronic voting, you need to amend your bylaws. It appears that the 300 votes are the least of your worries. The whole election should be declared null and void, since the wrong voting method was used. I've been concerned about that point since the beginning, but I'm not ready yet to declare that I think the election is null and void. First, we don't know exactly what...and in what context... the bylaws say about the need to use ballots. The terms ballot, ballots and balloting are used with electronic voting, too. Second, I think we need to look at the purpose of a rule (or bylaw provision) requiring the use of ballots. Is it really to require the use of a slip of paper? What about card stock? Black and white balls? Different colored tokens? I think the secrecy of the vote is the issue, not whether the vote is marked or written "on a slip of paper". Everything I read in RONR and other authorities and books on parliamentary procedure talk about the object of a ballot vote being to preserve the secrecy of the vote. If the electronic device accomplishes that, I'm not convinced that using it is impermissible. Although I think a bylaw amendment specifically authorizing electronic voting is in order and would be a good thing, I'm not convinced yet that it is absolutely necessary. Perhaps this is a matter of interpreting the organizations bylaws which only the organization itself can do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted September 22, 2014 at 06:23 PM Author Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 at 06:23 PM Our bylaws has a section on "Electronic Transmissions" as follows: Electronic TransmissionsUnless otherwise provided in these Bylaws, and subject to policies and proceduresapproved by the Board from time to time, the terms “written” and “in writing” as used inthese Bylaws include any form of recorded message in the English language capable ofcomprehension by ordinary visual means, and may include electronic transmissions,such as facsimile or e-mail, provided(a) for electronic transmissions from the corporation, the corporation has obtained anunrevoked consent from the recipient to the use of such means of communication;(b ) for electronic transmissions to the corporation, the corporation has in effectreasonable measures to verify that the sender is the individual purporting to havesent such transmission; and(c ) the transmission creates a record that can be retained, retrieved, reviewed, andrendered into clearly legible tangible form. This section was probably intended to be for sending out notices and other communications. However, could it be applied to electronic voting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted September 22, 2014 at 09:57 PM Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 at 09:57 PM This section was probably intended to be for sending out notices and other communications. However, could it be applied to electronic voting? Maybe. If you close your eyes. And cross your fingers. And hold your nose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrEntropy Posted September 22, 2014 at 10:02 PM Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 at 10:02 PM Or is it a way of abstaining, much as voting for a comic book character when using paper ballots, and to be ignored as a blank ballot? Can you provide a page reference that backs up this idea that voting for a comic book character is treated as if it were blank? I would think it is the same as any other ineligible candidate, and counted as a vote cast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted September 22, 2014 at 10:03 PM Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 at 10:03 PM Perhaps it would be good to know what parliamentary authority Mr. Huynh's organization has adopted.If it's not RONR he's asking questions on the wrong forum. Would it be any different if they were the old fashioned mechanical voting machines?The old-fashioned mechanical voting machines that I'm familiar with had a provision for casting a write-in vote. I think we are putting the emphasis on a slip of paper when it should be on the secrecy of the vote.Well, not just the secrecy of the vote but the right of every member to vote for whomever he wants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest D. Duck Posted September 22, 2014 at 10:07 PM Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 at 10:07 PM Can you provide a page reference that backs up this idea that voting for a comic book character is treated as if it were blank? I would think it is the same as any other ineligible candidate, and counted as a vote cast. Exactly! Every time someone votes me for his vote is thrown out. It's despicable! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted September 22, 2014 at 10:26 PM Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 at 10:26 PM Can you provide a page reference that backs up this idea that voting for a comic book character is treated as if it were blank? I would think it is the same as any other ineligible candidate, and counted as a vote cast. I'm looking for a citation. You may be right. I was thinking that they are treated as blank ballots or abstentions, but perhaps they are counted as illegal votes along with those for other ineligible candidates. I'll keep looking. I know I've heard it and read it, but perhaps not in RONR. Edited to add: I found what I was looking for, but I remembered in incorrectly. It's a statement in the 10th edition of RONR that was not carried over to the 11th edition. It says, on page 402 starting on line 14: "Unintelligible ballots or ballots cast for an unidentifiable candidate or a fictional character are treated as illegal votes". The "fictional character" language was dropped in the 11th edition, which says in place of it on page 416: "ballots cast for an unidentifiable or ineligible candidate are treated instead as illegal votes". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted September 23, 2014 at 01:09 AM Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 at 01:09 AM Our President ruled that Mr. Smith was declared elected without including the invalid votes and disregarded a second ballot. This ruling stood after several points of order and discussion among the members. Then it would seem to me that the assembly has already made its decision. 1. Should the invalid entries be included? 2. If there is to be a second ballot, should Ms. Jones be dropped from the ballot as suggested by our bylaws? 3. Since the rule in our bylaws of dropping the lowest vote-getter from subsequent ballots is a rule that takes away the right of a member to seek office, could this rule in our bylaws be suspended? 4. Since there are no paper ballots to recount, is a motion to do a revote in order? 5. Should this section in our bylaws be amended to make it clearer? 1. I think you're going to need to interpret your own bylaws on that one. Based on the rules in RONR alone, I don't think I can definitively say whether (or how) a vote for "3," when "3" is not assigned any meaning, should be counted. 2. Again, it's up to your organization to interpret its own bylaws. 3. It seems to me that since there is no possibility for write-in votes under this system, the effect of dropping a candidate is indeed to make the candidate ineligible for office. Rules regarding eligibility for office cannot be suspended. 4. Possibly, but not for the reasons you're looking at. As noted by others, there some questions about whether the system used was proper at all. 5. Yes. Electronic voting is not in our bylaws as far as I know (I'll recheck). Does a ballot necessarily mean a paper ballot? Must our bylaws have a section on using electronic devices instead of paper ballots in order to use them? A ballot vote does not necessarily have to be a paper ballot, but unless the bylaws provide otherwise, a ballot vote must allow for secrecy and for a member to vote for a candidate of his choice, including one who has not been nominated. Your system does not appear to meet the second criterion. The RONR definition of a ballot is a "slip of paper." As will voting by ballot, RONR only allows electronic voting when it is expressly stated by the assembly or in their rules. Since your rules call for a ballot, a ballot must be used. If you want to use electronic voting, you need to amend your bylaws. Electronic methods of voting may be configured to meet the requirements of a ballot vote, although this one does not appear to meet those requirements. Electronic TransmissionsUnless otherwise provided in these Bylaws, and subject to policies and proceduresapproved by the Board from time to time, the terms “written” and “in writing” as used inthese Bylaws include any form of recorded message in the English language capable ofcomprehension by ordinary visual means, and may include electronic transmissions,such as facsimile or e-mail, provided(a) for electronic transmissions from the corporation, the corporation has obtained anunrevoked consent from the recipient to the use of such means of communication;(b ) for electronic transmissions to the corporation, the corporation has in effectreasonable measures to verify that the sender is the individual purporting to havesent such transmission; and(c ) the transmission creates a record that can be retained, retrieved, reviewed, andrendered into clearly legible tangible form. This section was probably intended to be for sending out notices and other communications. However, could it be applied to electronic voting? It's up to your organization to interpret its own bylaws, but no, I'm not sure this is applicable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted September 23, 2014 at 02:13 AM Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 at 02:13 AM Thanks to all for your responses! I learned something not only from this post (my 1st one here!), but from reading other posts in this forum as well. Great job, guys!I'll get with my organization on the electronic voting issue. Hopefully we can work out the bugs in the system so that we don't have to go back to manually counting all those "slips of paper". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Posted September 23, 2014 at 02:09 PM Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 at 02:09 PM Then it would seem to me that the assembly has already made its decision. Electronic methods of voting may be configured to meet the requirements of a ballot vote, although this one does not appear to meet those requirements. I agree that electronic methods could be configured to meet the requirements. As long as the information gathered by the electronic method would make it possible for someone to print paper ballots with the same information as we would've looked for on paper ballots, I see no reason for concern, even if no ever hits the print button. Clearly, the organization has made a decision, but I'm not convinced that the decision they made is consistent with RONR. RONR clearly states, "the voting methods described below are used only when expressly ordered by the assembly or prescribed in its rules." The methods it is referring to are:Voting by BallotMachine or Electronic VotingRoll-call VoteAbsentee VotingVote by MailProxy VotingIt isn't obvious to me that the organization is basing their decision on Electronic Voting being in their bylaws and since the bylaws specify voting by ballot, it would need to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted September 23, 2014 at 02:42 PM Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 at 02:42 PM One thing I'm concerned with: do we at least have a consensus [wince] that this election, with Mr Smith having been declared the elected person, stands, as final? [Post #18:].... As long as the information gathered by the electronic method would make it possible for someone to print paper ballots .. .... It isn't obvious to me that the organization is basing their decision on Electronic Voting being in their bylaws and since the bylaws specify voting by ballot, it would need to be. and Post #16: Then it would seem to me that the assembly has already made its decision. .. but: ... unless the bylaws provide otherwise, a ballot vote must allow for secrecy and for a member to vote for a candidate of his choice, including one who has not been nominated. Your system does not appear to meet the second criterion. (And, of course, what everybody else said.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted September 23, 2014 at 04:45 PM Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 at 04:45 PM Our bylaws has a section on "Electronic Transmissions" as follows: Electronic Transmissions Unless otherwise provided in these Bylaws, and subject to policies and procedures approved by the Board from time to time, the terms “written” and “in writing” as used in these Bylaws include any form of recorded message in the English language capable of comprehension by ordinary visual means, and may include electronic transmissions, such as facsimile or e-mail, provided (a) for electronic transmissions from the corporation, the corporation has obtained an unrevoked consent from the recipient to the use of such means of communication; (b ) for electronic transmissions to the corporation, the corporation has in effect reasonable measures to verify that the sender is the individual purporting to have sent such transmission; and (c ) the transmission creates a record that can be retained, retrieved, reviewed, and rendered into clearly legible tangible form. This section was probably intended to be for sending out notices and other communications. However, could it be applied to electronic voting? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted September 23, 2014 at 04:50 PM Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 at 04:50 PM Several posters are correct in that my organization has moved on (the results stand as final). I doubt that there would be much support from members for nullifying the election. I'll probably recommend a bylaw amendment by adding a line like "Electronic devices may be used for balloting." As a little background, this was the third time that electronic devices have been used in our annual elections. Unfortunately, it was the first time in the last 3 years that "invalid entries" had an effect on the results. To address write-in candidates, what if the procedure included another step like "For a write-in candidate, press any other number"? Does a write-in have to be a "real" candidate or is it enough to indicate that a write-in was desired? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted September 23, 2014 at 05:02 PM Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 at 05:02 PM Several posters are correct in that my organization has moved on (the results stand as final). I doubt that there would be much support from members for nullifying the election. I'll probably recommend a bylaw amendment by adding a line like "Electronic devices may be used for balloting." To address write-in candidates, what if the procedure included another step like "For a write-in candidate, press any other number"? Does a write-in have to be a "real" candidate or is it enough to indicate that a write-in was desired? I think you have several options. One is to have the bylaw amendment provide that "if electronic voting devices are used, write-in candidates need not be allowed". Overnight, as a result of this thread, I did a little online research on handheld electronic voting devices. Such devices that do provide a small keyboard and allow write-in votes do exist, but I'm sure they are more expensive to rent than the simpler ones that allow only numerical choices. As to your question about whether to announce that to vote for a write-in candidate, press any other number: I would not recommend that language. If that is the approach you want to take, I would specify one particular number to be pressed if the voter wants to vote for a write in candidate. As to exactly how to proceed from there, you probably have several options. One such option would be that if the number of voters who pressed the number indicating they want to write in a candidate are not high enough to affect the results, the results stand. But, if there are enough voters who want to vote for a write in candidate that could affect the results and keep a candidate from receiving a majority, then you may have to re-vote that particular race and use old fashioned paper ballots on the now infamous "slips of paper" and count them by hand. All of that would have to be spelled out in your rules for elections, or at least for the elections in which you use the electronic devices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Posted September 23, 2014 at 05:04 PM Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 at 05:04 PM It would do no good to allow for write-ins if you don't know who people are voting for. It would be bad if they got elected and no one knew who they were. One solution is to assign numbers to all members. Then when people voted they could enter any number, not just those of the people who were nominated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted September 23, 2014 at 05:11 PM Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 at 05:11 PM One solution is to assign numbers to all members. Then when people voted they could enter any number, not just those of the people who were nominated. What if they want to vote for someone who isn't a member? It would seem prudent to restrict voting to only those candidates who have been nominated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted September 24, 2014 at 04:44 PM Author Report Share Posted September 24, 2014 at 04:44 PM I think you have several options. One is to have the bylaw amendment provide that "if electronic voting devices are used, write-in candidates need not be allowed". I like the simplicity of this suggestion. If electronic devices are allowed for balloting and write-in candidates are not allowed, then the ruling that "invalid entries" are not to be included in the vote count would have a more firm basis if a similar situation happens again. If "invalid entries" are to be treated as blank votes instead of illegal votes, does that mean that the number of invalid entries is excluded from the election results presented to the assembly (just like the number of blank "slips of paper" are excluded from the report)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.