Guest mike Posted March 31, 2015 at 06:06 PM Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 at 06:06 PM We're resigned to having in person and absentee voting for our officers' election as specified by our by-laws. Our by-laws also require that the absentee ballots be signed so those vote won't be "secret". In order to prevent duplicate voting (1) can we require that the in person ballots be signed so we can compare in person voters to absentee voters or (2)require ids to vote in person. We anticipate both of these options would be resisted by the members so Any other ideas or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted March 31, 2015 at 06:14 PM Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 at 06:14 PM A ballot vote is, by definition, a secret vote. There should be no way to tell, by looking at a ballot, which member submitted it. Requiring an ID is reasonable though you'd better let the members know about this rule well in advance. And how will you "ID" the absentee voters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted March 31, 2015 at 06:35 PM Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 at 06:35 PM In order to prevent duplicate voting (1) can we require that the in person ballots be signed so we can compare in person voters to absentee voters or (2)require ids to votein person. We anticipate both of these options would be resisted by the members soThe first issue will be a question of bylaws interpretation. If the absentee votes are not required to be secret, it is possible that the other ballots are also not required to be secret. So far as RONR is concerned, a ballot vote is, by definition, a secret ballot. A rule which requires a member to present an ID in order to receive a ballot would be in order.Any such rules would have to be adopted by the membership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted March 31, 2015 at 06:39 PM Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 at 06:39 PM . . . If the absentee votes are not required to be secret, it is possible that the other ballots are also not required to be secret. Didn't we just have a question like this? I'd rather say something like: if the in-person ballot votes are required to be secret it's possible that the absentee ballots are also required to be secret. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted March 31, 2015 at 06:40 PM Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 at 06:40 PM Didn't we just have a question like this? I'd rather say something like: if the in-person ballot votes are required to be secret it's possible that the absentee ballots are also required to be secret.I'd rather say something like that too, but it appears that the bylaws specifically require the absentee ballots to be signed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted March 31, 2015 at 06:42 PM Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 at 06:42 PM I'd rather say something like that too, but it appears that the bylaws specifically require the absentee ballots to be signed. FWIW, here's the recent topic. As before, I suspect the bylaws require that absentee ballots be signed because they didn't know of the "two-envelope method". If I were a member I'd argue that signing the envelope satisfies the requirement for a signed ballot. In other words, I'd interpret the rule in favor of the word "ballot" and not the word "signed". I certainly wouldn't argue that just because a few absentee ballots might need to be signed, all the members voting at the meeting must waive the secrecy of their votes. If I'm present at the meeting and I'm told that I must sign my ballot, I'll ask why. And if I'm told that it's because those who aren't at the meeting had to sign their ballots I think I'd "resist" (as Guest_mike predicts the members will). Apologies for the rant but the sanctity of the secret ballot is pretty important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Lages Posted March 31, 2015 at 07:48 PM Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 at 07:48 PM As Edgar has suggested, using RONR's two-envelope mail ballot procedure should take care of your concerns about the secrecy of the ballots. You can find the detailed description of this method in RONR, 11th ed. p. 424, l.34 - p. 425, l.32. Better yet, you probably should read the entire section entitled A VOTE BY MAIL, beginning on l.4 of p. 424. I highly recommend adopting this practice for your organization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted April 1, 2015 at 12:48 PM Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 at 12:48 PM It would certainly be in order for a member to present ID at the time of casting the ballot, if he were not well known to the tellers. Ballots should be folded twice before placing in the ballot box to allow subsequent detection of palmed multiple ballots. (I'm not a big fan of tight control of blank ballots, since ballots can, in theory, be blank paper) Members who vote should have their names checked off on a list of eligible voters that has been provided to the tellers. That list can then be compared to the absentee ballots to see if any of those should be disqualified. None of this should be interpreted to mean that it is ever a good idea to mix absentee ballots and live votes. It's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.