Voting

[Guest Joe]

Our fraternal organization recently held their yearly election of officers. When the voting took place for the presidency the chosen voting committee counted the votes for both candidates and found a vote that was not either of the two candidates names. The President ordered a revote. Is that correct in doing so? The vote was very close.

[Edgar Guest]

Members are free to vote for whomever they want, whether that person was nominated or not. The only reason to have voted again would have been if no candidate received a majority (i.e. more than half) of the votes cast.

[Bruce Lages]

No, that was not correct. Unless you have rules to the contrary, members are free to vote for any eligible candidate. If this vote was for an eligible candidate, it should simply have been credited to that candidate. What was the outcome of the election? Did one the candidates receive a majority (more than half) of the votes cast? If so, that is your new president. If no one received a majority, then you will re-vote once, or maybe more times, until someone receives a majority. And again, unless your rules specifically prohibit it, make sure to count any write-in votes.

 

In this case, if one of the candidates in the original round of voting did receive a majority of the votes cast - and that can be clearly shown - I think it would be appropriate to raise a point of  order at the time of the ordered re-vote, that the election has already been decided. However, there may be different opinions on this, so stay tuned.

[Richard Brown]

Unless your bylaws prohibit voting for write in candidates, it was definitely wrong for the president to declare the election void for that reason even if that one vote could have made a difference in the outcome.  If there was a winner by more than one vote, then it was an even more egregious error by the president.

 

It's not clear from your post whether the president declared that there was no winner.  However, assuming that he either ruled that there was no winner or that the election was void, and nobody raised a point of order or appealed from his ruling, that presents a more complicated situation.  Errors in announcing the result of a vote must be objected to at the time of the breach (the ruling)  by someone raising a point of order.  If nobody did that and everyone acquiesced to the chair's ruling, I think you may be stuck with having to have a new election (or re-vote).  If you have already revoted, then the issue is moot except for the educational value of having learned from the experience.

 

Stay tuned.  I may be wrong and I'm sure others will weigh in.

[manAscending]

Members are free to vote for whomever they want, whether that person was nominated or not.

 

A sincere question from a curious learner of parliamentary procedure:

 

I understand that under RONR, election write-ins are permitted.  Can someone elaborate why nominations are necessary when write-ins are allowed and the bylaws are otherwise silent on the issue?  It seems to me that write-ins would make the process of nominating people a waste of time.  Even the importance of being able to debate a nomination isn't clear to me.  The only reason I can think nominations are helpful in an organization that allows write-ins is because they demonstrate that a particular candidate has a small amount of support.  What am I missing, or what other reasons for nominations are there in situations where members could elect any other eligible non-nominated member?

[Hieu H. Huynh]

RONR says the following:

 

"Strictly speaking, nominations are not necessary when an election is by ballot or roll call, since each member is free to vote for any eligible person, whether he has been nominated or not. In most societies, however, it is impractical to proceed to an election without first making nominations. While members are always free to "write in," on a ballot, the name of an eligible person who has not been nominated, or to vote for an eligible non-nominee during a roll-call vote, under normal conditions it is likely that most members will confine their choice to the nominees. Without nominations, voting might have to be repeated many times before a candidate achieved the required majority." (p. 430, l. 17 to p. 431, l. 8)

[Josh Martin]

I understand that under RONR, election write-ins are permitted. Can someone elaborate why nominations are necessary when write-ins are allowed and the bylaws are otherwise silent on the issue? It seems to me that write-ins would make the process of nominating people a waste of time. Even the importance of being able to debate a nomination isn't clear to me. The only reason I can think nominations are helpful in an organization that allows write-ins is because they demonstrate that a particular candidate has a small amount of support. What am I missing, or what other reasons for nominations are there in situations where members could elect any other eligible non-nominated member?

Nominations are not necessary if the election is taken by ballot or roll call. An assembly may, if it wishes, conduct an election without any nominations. Most assemblies find nominations to be helpful, however, since they serve as a guide for members who have some amount of support and who are (presumably) willing to serve in the office, since a member who was present and was nominated would probably say something if unwilling.

Nominations are debatable in order for members to explain why a certain nominee is the best candidate for office.