president voteing elections of officers

[Guest matt]

Hi all 

And thanks for your input. 

My company is up for annual election of officers and the president wants to vote in the election.  The election is by majority of members present in the room that cast electronic ballot. 

I understand that the president is a full member and has voting rights. Normally he holds his vote for a "tie breaker"   So here is my question.   If the president votes in the election and there are a even number of votes Y/N  and a majority is needed- there is no tie breaking vote(the president can not vote twice) how then is the vote decided. ?

[Richard Brown]

You said the vote is an electronic vote.  If that electronic vote is a secret vote, like a secret ballot, then the president votes along with everyone else unless your bylaws provide otherwise.  The reason for that is that if the vote is by secret ballot, the president's choice is unknown to the assembly, thus preserving the appearance of impartiality.  He does not vote twice.

When the vote is not by secret ballot, RONR provides that the presiding officer does not vote except when his vote will affect the outcome, such as to break a tie, create a tie (which causes a motion to fail), to make a two thirds vote or to defeat a two thirds vote.  If your bylaws provide otherwise, they control.

If there is a tie vote on a motion,the motion fails.  If there is a tie in an election, the result is an incomplete election (nobody is elected) and you vote again until someone wins a majority (or whatever percentage is required).

[Guest matt]

thank you for clarifying that a tie in a election results in  a incomplete election.  I think thats what i was looking to verify   thanks again  

 

[jstackpo]

And... it isn't proper to have a "Yes/No" in an election.  If you don't like the (single) candidate, nominate (or write in) someone else.  If you can convince enough folks to do the same, the "other guy/gal" will be the winner.

(Don't ask me how to do a "write-in" vote with the usual electronic voting gear, unless you want a long essay to come at you.)

[Gary Novosielski]

Well, it does raise a possible issue.  In order to comply with the rules on RONR, an "electronic" system would have to allow for write-in votes, unless there's something to the contrary in the bylaws.

[George Mervosh]

On 12/1/2016 at 0:03 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

Well, it does raise a possible issue.  In order to comply with the rules on RONR, an "electronic" system would have to allow for write-in votes, unless there's something to the contrary in the bylaws.

If the bylaws stated that the voting shall be by electronic means is it possible that, in and of itself, would be sufficient to disallow write-in votes?  Not a rhetorical question, by the way.  

[jstackpo]

I'd say it is more of an argument to disallow any electronic voting system that could not adapt to write-in voting.

Electronic in-meeting voting with current technology (little hand-held radio transmitters that can send "yes", "no" or a number for a multiple choice question) is feasible with only a small potential loss of secrecy.  Any interest in a little essay?  Let me know.

[Josh Martin]

2 hours ago, George Mervosh said:

If the bylaws stated that the voting shall be by electronic means is it possible that, in and of itself, would be sufficient to disallow write-in votes?  Not a rhetorical question, by the way.  

No.

[Shmuel Gerber]

7 hours ago, jstackpo said:

I'd say it is more of an argument to disallow any electronic voting system that could not adapt to write-in voting.

Electronic in-meeting voting with current technology (little hand-held radio transmitters that can send "yes", "no" or a number for a multiple choice question) is feasible with only a small potential loss of secrecy.  Any interest in a little essay?  Let me know.

How about just telling us how there is any loss of secrecy as compared to paper ballots -- unless, of course, records are kept of which gadget each member has and how each gadget's vote was cast.

[jstackpo]

Say two folks are identified candidates on the electronic ballot; you can (or should be able to) vote for either #1 or #2, OR vote a third button marked "Write-in" - no name attached (yet).    If Mr. Write-in garners enough votes to prevent either #1 or #2 from reaching a majority, then you reopen the floor for nominations.  Some secrecy is lost when one of the proponents of the write-in candidate actually nominates a named person  --  you can be pretty sure who he will vote for.  And there could be more than just one write-in candidate.

So then you re-run the election with all three (or more) identified choices on the electronic ballot and hope for the best  --  the "best" being that someone of the three (or more) named candidates gets a majority.  Or you stay there all night casting ballots.

[Clurichan]

9 minutes ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

How about just telling us how there is any loss of secrecy as compared to paper ballots -- unless, of course, records are kept of which gadget each member has and how each gadget's vote was cast.

At the paranoid edge--the potential loss of secrecy--it's not necessarily both requirements--records of which and how--that have to be 'officially' kept: once the first is accomplished (a mapping of member to gadget--done e.g., because gadgets are expensive, rented by the organization, and members are personally responsible for returning them), the next (votes cast by the gadget) "are keepable" because "eavesdropable". 

The last time I priced wireless microphone systems, part of the pitch for the high-end stuff was "digitally encrypted end-to-end" so that competitors couldn't eavesdrop on your business meeting from the utility van in the parking lot...

I've in truth heard the motion to "burn the ballots" jokingly made after an election, I guess in theory to prevent handwriting and fingerprint analysis...

[Shmuel Gerber]

7 minutes ago, Clurichan said:

At the paranoid edge--the potential loss of secrecy--it's not necessarily both requirements--records of which and how--that have to be 'officially' kept: once the first is accomplished (a mapping of member to gadget--done e.g., because gadgets are expensive, rented by the organization, and members are personally responsible for returning them), the next (votes cast by the gadget) "are keepable" because "eavesdropable". 

I'm sure you understand what you're saying, but I sure don't.