Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums
J. J.

Preferential Voting by a Special Rule

Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

This is obviously taken completely out of context, and is abbreviated to such an extent that I find it unrecognizable.

I shall find it for you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:
2 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

J.J., I'm sorry, but I simply do not see any connection.

 

 

The connect was in regard to Shmuel's statement about continuing to vote.  I have noted that you have indicated in the past that the assembly could not vote again on the same question (except in elections) by the same method.  It seems that preferential voting does permit that, quite clearly. 

It looks like preferential voting would be a violation of the FPPL, which does say "one-and only one- vote on a question." 

I might add that I do agree with Shmuel this FPPL does not prohibit multiple rounds of voting in elections (and presumably your opinion that it would not prohibit voting on the same question by a different method of voting).  I would have added, to p. 407, l. 4, the words "each time the question is put."  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, J. J. said:

The connect was in regard to Shmuel's statement about continuing to vote.  I have noted that you have indicated in the past that the assembly could not vote again on the same question (except in elections) by the same method.  It seems that preferential voting does permit that, quite clearly. 

It looks like preferential voting would be a violation of the FPPL, which does say "one-and only one- vote on a question." 

I might add that I do agree with Shmuel this FPPL does not prohibit multiple rounds of voting in elections (and presumably your opinion that it would not prohibit voting on the same question by a different method of voting).  I would have added, to p. 407, l. 4, the words "each time the question is put."  :)

 

I'm sure we can all agree that continuing to vote in a ballot election when no candidate receives a majority on the first ballot (which is what Shmuel was referring to) violates no fundamental principal of parliamentary law, nor does it violate anything said on page 285, lines 10-27. Under this method of voting, balloting must be repeated as many times as is necessary to obtain a majority vote for a single candidate, and each such occasion is a part of a single process. If no candidate has a majority, the chair simply declares “no election”, and directs that new ballots be distributed.

I’m inclined to agree with you, however, that this repeated balloting may appear, on the face of it, to violate the rule as stated on page 407, lines 1-10, in that members are certainly voting more than once on the same question. If so, we’ll let Shmuel figure out how to fix it. The fact is, of course, that this rule is not intended to apply to any situation such as this, where all members vote again on the same question as a part of the normal voting process, but it does mean that each time the balloting is repeated, no member is entitled to more than one vote.

I think that preferential voting is even less likely to appear to violate this one man, one vote rule, since on each such ballot members simply indicate their second, third (and so on) choices after having indicated their first choice, each of which choice is a different thing. But in any event, the one man, one vote rule simply means that no member can cast more than one of these ballots.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would go with choosing a second, third, et cetera, is one member casting more than one vote when the question is put only once.  I will grant that each vote is, in the case of preferential voting, of different weight.  On that ground, I would say that the rules could not be suspended to permit preferential voting.

That, however, does not answer my broader query. :) Could a special rule order permit something that is an FPPL, but is not required to be in the bylaws to be effective (i.e., would not run afoul of the footnote on p. 16), to be overridden?  Another, nonvoting, example was suggested, that of a special rule that would permit two questions to be pending at once.  

In other words, even if we agreed that preferential voting was an FPPL (and we don't), could a special rule authorize it, except in cases of officer elections?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, J. J. said:

I would go with choosing a second, third, et cetera, is one member casting more than one vote when the question is put only once.  I will grant that each vote is, in the case of preferential voting, of different weight.  On that ground, I would say that the rules could not be suspended to permit preferential voting.

That, however, does not answer my broader query. :) Could a special rule order permit something that is an FPPL, but is not required to be in the bylaws to be effective (i.e., would not run afoul of the footnote on p. 16), to be overridden?  Another, nonvoting, example was suggested, that of a special rule that would permit two questions to be pending at once.  

In other words, even if we agreed that preferential voting was an FPPL (and we don't), could a special rule authorize it, except in cases of officer elections?   

The answer to your question remains as previously indicated -- preferential voting can be authorized by a special rule of order, except with respect to the election of officers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

The answer to your question remains as previously indicated -- preferential voting can be authorized by a special rule of order, except with respect to the election of officers.

Just to be clear, even if that type of voting was established to violate an FPPL (and we do disagree on if it is an FPPL)? 

[I'm not disagreeing with that premise, but I do want to clarify it.] 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, J. J. said:

Just to be clear, even if that type of voting was established to violate an FPPL (and we do disagree on if it is an FPPL)? 

[I'm not disagreeing with that premise, but I do want to clarify it.] 

You won't get an answer to this sort of question from me because the premise (that preferential voting violates a fundamental principle of parliamentary law) is fatally flawed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

You won't get an answer to this sort of question from me because the premise (that preferential voting violates a fundamental principle of parliamentary law) is fatally flawed.

Okay, were are in agreement that there is an FPPL of  "Only one question can be considered at one time... "  Could a special rule be adopted permit several motions to be pending at one time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose you mean to ask if a special rule can be adopted to permit several motions to be considered at one time, and I think the answer is no. This assumes that "considered" means what I think it means, and maybe also that the rule relates to consideration of main motions*. Got that ?  :)

-----------------------------

* I have a vague recollection of coming to this conclusion about the rule relating only to main motions sometime in the past for some reason or other, but I have long since forgotten what that was all about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I suppose you mean to ask if a special rule can be adopted to permit several motions to be considered at one time, and I think the answer is no. This assumes that "considered" means what I think it means, and maybe also that the rule relates to consideration of main motions*. Got that ?  :)

-----------------------------

* I have a vague recollection of coming to this conclusion about the rule relating only to main motions sometime in the past for some reason or other, but I have long since forgotten what that was all about.

Actually, that could work.  Thank you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×