Election tie

[Diaana]

Our little league board held its first meeting since board elections tonight. First order of business was to elect officers. There was a tie vote for president. The secretary then declared that the absent members would vote via email to break the tie. Our constitution does not include any information on voting via emails or texts. Is this a violation of procedure and if so, what can be done at this point since the meeting was adjourned with the tie remaining.

[Richard Brown]

Yes, it is a violation of the rules to allow absent members to vote via email unless your bylaws specifically allow it.

 

Without such an authorization, you have an incomplete election and keep voting... and re-voting... until someone wins a majority of the votes.   Since the meeting has adjourned, you continue voting at the next meeting or, if special meetings are authorized, a special meeting can be held to complete the election.

 

In the alternative, the candidates can agree between themselves that one of them will voluntarily withdraw and that they will flip a coin or draw straws to determine which one it will be.  It is also possible to re-open nominations and a dark horse candidate will emerge as the winner.  Since RONR provides that write in votes must be permitted unless your bylaws provide otherwise, it is possible that someone who wasn't even nominated will win.

[Timothy]

Yes, it is a violation of the rules to allow absent members to vote via email unless your bylaws specifically allow it.

 

Without such an authorization, you have an incomplete election and keep voting... and re-voting... until someone wins a majority of the votes.   Since the meeting has adjourned, you continue voting at the next meeting or, if special meetings are authorized, a special meeting can be held to complete the election.

 

In the alternative, the candidates can agree between themselves that one of them will voluntarily withdraw and that they will flip a coin or draw straws to determine which one it will be.  It is also possible to re-open nominations and a dark horse candidate will emerge as the winner.  Since RONR provides that write in votes must be permitted unless your bylaws provide otherwise, it is possible that someone who wasn't even nominated will win.

 

I have nothing against that as a way to decide; after all, "the lot causes contentions to cease," but where do you find that in RONR?

[Richard Brown]

I have nothing against that as a way to decide; after all, "the lot causes contentions to cease," but where do you find that in RONR?

On page 441:  "When repeated balloting for an office is necessary, individuals are never removed from candidacy on the next ballot unless they voluntarily withdraw—which they are not obligated to do."

 

I merely suggested one way by which a candidate (or candidates) might determine whether to voluntarily withdraw.  One might withdraw because he's ready to go home or has a hot date waiting, but that isn't in RONR either, is it?  

 

Edited to add:  The footnote on page 441 does provide a method that can be utilized by the assembly to whittle down the number of nominees in the event there are more than two nominees and no candidate receives a majority of the votes:

 

"An organization could suspend the rules, or adopt a special rule of order, so that the nominee with the fewest votes is dropped from the list of nominees for succeeding ballots in the expectation that voters will then confine their choice to the remaining nominees. Only a bylaws provision, however, could make the dropped nominee ineligible for election so as to render illegal any subsequent votes cast for that nominee. (See pp. 430–31.)"

 

I'm fairly confident that an assembly could also adopt a motion or special rule of order that in the event of a tie, the winner shall be determined by lot.  Such a motion would probably require a two thirds vote because it amounts to a suspension of the rules.

[Josh Martin]

I'm fairly confident that an assembly could also adopt a motion or special rule of order that in the event of a tie, the winner shall be determined by lot. Such a motion would probably require a two thirds vote because it amounts to a suspension of the rules.

Such a motion is in order so long as the bylaws do not require a ballot vote for election (and yes, it requires a 2/3 vote). A rule in the bylaws requiring a ballot vote for elections cannot be suspended.