Looking for a way out of a problem

[Robert B Fish]

This is a real situation that I've "changed to protect [whoever]."  I'm seeking a solution, rather than statements - which will likely come anyhow - that the organization should have thought of that or that then need to figure it out.  (Both are true but that doesn't change the situation.)

 

The organization is a national one and is divided into 10 districts of approximately equal membership, most spanning several states.  The CONSTITUTION states that each district shall have 2 delegates to the Executive Council but that no district may have more than one delegate from an individual state.  The terms of delegate are 4 years, with one elected each 2 years.  This takes care of the 1 per state requirement since, in 2016 if the other seat is filled with someone from New York, no one from New York can run for the seat that's up that year.

 

Vacancies are appointed temporarily by the chairman and serve until the next election.  Hence the problem: the delegate from New York died and the chairman appointed as her replacement a member from the small sliver of Pennsylvania making up part of that district.  The other delegate is from the small sliver of Ohio that makes up the rest of the district.

 

The delegate from Ohio, whose term is expiring is running for delegate, term ending 2020.  The appointed delegate from Pennsylvania is running for delegate, term ending 2018.  Members from New York will likely be nominated for both seats and the seats - being separate offices - will be balloted separately.  It's a real possibility that the candidates from New York will gather the majority for both seats, thereby violating the prohibition in the Constitution.

 

Can any of the "election experts" on this forum figure out a reasonable way out of this?  

 

-Bob

[Chris Harrison]

Why not hold a ballot vote for seat #1 with all candidates eligible?  Then if a New York candidate wins no one from New York would be eligible for election to seat #2.

[Gary Novosielski]

Members from New York will likely be nominated for both seats and the seats - being separate offices - will be balloted separately.  It's a real possibility that the candidates from New York will gather the majority for both seats, thereby violating the prohibition in the Constitution.

 

Can any of the "election experts" on this forum figure out a reasonable way out of this?  

 

-Bob

 

When you say members from New York will be nominates for both seats, do you mean a given member or members will be nominated for more than one seat?  If that's the case, the problem can't occur.  It will be impossible for any two nominees, let alone two from NY, to gain a majority for the first seat.  That's the essence of Chris H's. suggestion.

 

It could certainly be said that this would put anyone running only for the second seat at a disadvantage.  If there is no logical reason for giving priority to one seat over another, I'd suggest a coin flip to determine the order of balloting.