Suspension of write-in votes

[Sean Hunt]

Is it in order, with unanimous consent or otherwise, to suspend the rules to prohibit write-in votes in an election? I don't have my copy of RONR handy and am trying to prepare for an online meeting, and free ballot-tallying software that allows for write-in votes is hard to come by.

[Dan Honemann]

I think that any prohibition against casting write-in votes would have to be in the bylaws.

However, since there must already be authorization in your bylaws for voting in the manner in which you are voting, you may want to examine these bylaw provisions carefully to see if they contain anything which might relate to this question.

[Transpower]

I think the answer is "No."  RONR (11th ed.), p. 431, ll. 1-2:  "While members are always free to 'write-in,' on a ballot, the name of an eligible person who has not been nominated..."
 

[Dan Honemann]

1 hour ago, Transpower said:

I think the answer is "No."  RONR (11th ed.), p. 431, ll. 1-2:  "While members are always free to 'write-in,' on a ballot, the name of an eligible person who has not been nominated..."
 

There's no doubt about what the rule is. The question asked is whether or not it can be suspended.

[Gary Novosielski]

I think the freedom to vote (freely) is a basic right of membership, and any abridgment of that right would need to be in the bylaws.   

[Sean Hunt]

9 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I think that any prohibition against casting write-in votes would have to be in the bylaws.

However, since there must already be authorization in your bylaws for voting in the manner in which you are voting, you may want to examine these bylaw provisions carefully to see if they contain anything which might relate to this question.

Are you suggesting that, in a meeting held by telecommunications (properly authorized), it is out of order to request a ballot vote without explicit or implicit authorization from the bylaws?

[Sean Hunt]

7 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

I think the freedom to vote (freely) is a basic right of membership, and any abridgment of that right would need to be in the bylaws.   

For the sake of an argument (I think I know what you'll say but I'm interested if you agree), what makes this different from an election viva voce? In such an election, a member must nominate someone in order to vote for them. Does the right to vote include the right to vote for someone without nominating them first?

[Gary Novosielski]

In a viva voce election, the only two choices are Aye and No.  As a practical matter, you have to know what you're voting on, so nominations are needed.  One candidate is voted on at a time.  Without nominations, a viva voce election would imply that the chair would say "One, two, three, Vote!", and members would simultaneously call out a name, which might make determining a majority problematic.  

In a ballot election, nominations are unnecessary.  In the simplest case, blank sheets of paper can serve as ballots and anyone can write in any eligible name.

What should be in place is the least restrictive method that makes sense, given the voting method.

[Dan Honemann]

13 hours ago, Sean Hunt said:

Are you suggesting that, in a meeting held by telecommunications (properly authorized), it is out of order to request a ballot vote without explicit or implicit authorization from the bylaws?

I said that, in my opinion, any prohibition against casting write-in votes would have to be found in your bylaws, and suggested that, since there must be something in your bylaws authorizing your "online meeting", you look at those provisions to see if there is anything in them which might relate to your question.

Your bylaws may themselves contain such a prohibition, or may confer sufficiently broad authority upon your membership, a board, or a committee, to adopt rules relating to online meetings which might contain such a prohibition. Whether they do or they don't is a question for your organization to determine.

[Sean Hunt]

9 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

In a viva voce election, the only two choices are Aye and No.  As a practical matter, you have to know what you're voting on, so nominations are needed.  One candidate is voted on at a time.  Without nominations, a viva voce election would imply that the chair would say "One, two, three, Vote!", and members would simultaneously call out a name, which might make determining a majority problematic.  

In a ballot election, nominations are unnecessary.  In the simplest case, blank sheets of paper can serve as ballots and anyone can write in any eligible name.

What should be in place is the least restrictive method that makes sense, given the voting method.

Interesting. I'm not sure how compelling I find this argument. Perhaps a more compelling argument, however, is that a member has the right when voting by ballot to cast their vote anonymously. Requiring a nomination means that they must publicly declare their support for the candidate.