Ballot voting with unopposed candidates

[doriff22]

Our by laws state that elections have to be done with ballots.  In a recent election process all positions were unopposed except for one.  The ballots were handed out with a 'yes' box and a 'no' box. 

1. Are these legal ballots?

2. If majority is needed for election and more than half abstained from voting does that mean the person was not voted in?

3.  Do ballots have to list the person running?

4.  Can you have one ballot that lists the people running, or do you have to vote on each position separately?

5.  Can this election be nullified and re-done? Was done in December at monthly meeting and next one is in January.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

1. Yes/No boxes are not proper in ballot elections. However, if a point of order was not raised at the elections, the results are final.

2. Abstentions are not counted in the vote totals. Majority refers to those present and voting. Members who abstain are not voting. A 1-0 vote could elect someone.

3. Members are free to write in a name not on the ballot.

4. Voting for all offices on a ballot or voting for each office in sequence are both valid methods.

5. I do not see a reason to nullify this election based on the information given.

[Edgar Guest]

The ballots were handed out with a 'yes' box and a 'no' box. 

 

1. Yes/No boxes are not proper in ballot elections. However, if a point of order was not raised at the elections, the results are final.

 

Might there not be a problem if the "no" votes outnumbered the "yes" votes?

[Dan Honemann]

Might there not be a problem if the "no" votes outnumbered the "yes" votes?

 

Other than the fact that it was done in an improper fashion?

[doriff22]

So the one person who was running unopposed and was voted 'out' by the 'no' votes is valid?  That's not a reason to re-do the election?

[Edgar Guest]

Other than the fact that it was done in an improper fashion?

 

Well, I'm admittedly shooting from the hip here (and I've not exactly been on a hot streak lately) but it seems to me that if the ballot puts Yes/No boxes next to the only candidate listed and the Nos (Noes?) outnumber the Yeses (?), the result would not be (in Mr. Huynh's word) final.

 

Edited to add: As this post seems to suggest:

 

So the one person who was running unopposed and was voted 'out' by the 'no' votes is valid?  That's not a reason to re-do the election?

[Josh Martin]

So the one person who was running unopposed and was voted 'out' by the 'no' votes is valid? That's not a reason to re-do the election?

You would vote again for that position only, since the assembly has not yet completed that election. After all, "No" can't serve in an office, so there is presumably no one in that position now. Make sure to do it properly this time. If members wish to vote against this person, the proper course of action is to vote for someone else.

I concur with Mr. Huynh that, although the votes for the other positions were also conducted improperly, it is too late to raise a Point of Order at this time.

[Edgar Guest]

I concur with Mr. Huynh that, although the votes for the other positions were also conducted improperly, it is too late to raise a Point of Order at this time.

 

Well, when Mr. Huynh answered the question we had been told (Post 1) that "all positions were unopposed except for one". Later (Post 5) we were told that only one person was running unopposed.

[Dan Honemann]

 

Well, I'm admittedly shooting from the hip here (and I've not exactly been on a hot streak lately) but it seems to me that if the ballot puts Yes/No boxes next to the only candidate listed and the Nos (Noes?) outnumber the Yeses (?), the result would not be (in Mr. Huynh's word) final.

 

Edited to add: As this post seems to suggest:

 

 

Well, the result is final in its determination that this candidate has not been elected.

[Edgar Guest]

Well, the result is final in its determination that this candidate has not been elected.

 

Yes, that (indeterminate) result is final. As long as our guest doesn't mistake that to mean the election is complete.

[Josh Martin]

Well, when Mr. Huynh answered the question we had been told (Post 1) that "all positions were unopposed except for one". Later (Post 5) we were told that only one person was running unopposed.

My understanding is that all candidates were unopposed except for one, but only one of the unopposed candidates received more "no" votes than "yes" votes.

[Edgar Guest]

My understanding is that all candidates were unopposed except for one, but only one of the unopposed candidates received more "no" votes than "yes" votes.

 

That certainly seems like the most reasonable interpretation.

[Gary Novosielski]

And when you do another ballot to complete the election, do it right this time:

 

For each office (in this case you only need to do one) put the name of all the nominated candidates (even if there is only one) and always leave room for a write-in vote.   The only proper way of voting against a candidate is to vote for someone else, and if the candidate is unopposed, a write-in is the only way to do that.  But there should also be write-in lines even if an office is contested.  

 

There should never be a "No" box, because electing nobody is not an option.