Guest Rob Posted October 12, 2017 at 06:48 PM Report Share Posted October 12, 2017 at 06:48 PM What is the next step in the voting procedure when you have 3 candidates nominated for a role and you can get to a majority on the first vote (i.e. 20 voting members vote as follows: Candidate 1 = 8 votes, Candidate 2 = 7 votes, Candidate 3 = 5 votes)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted October 12, 2017 at 07:02 PM Report Share Posted October 12, 2017 at 07:02 PM 13 minutes ago, Guest Rob said: What is the next step in the voting procedure when you have 3 candidates nominated for a role and you can get to a majority on the first vote (i.e. 20 voting members vote as follows: Candidate 1 = 8 votes, Candidate 2 = 7 votes, Candidate 3 = 5 votes)? Keep voting until one candidate receives a majority of the votes cast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjhmjh Posted October 14, 2017 at 01:32 AM Report Share Posted October 14, 2017 at 01:32 AM On 10/12/2017 at 3:02 PM, Daniel H. Honemann said: Keep voting until one candidate receives a majority of the votes cast. Why did the authors of RONR choose this method? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted October 14, 2017 at 01:47 AM Report Share Posted October 14, 2017 at 01:47 AM 10 minutes ago, mjhmjh said: Why did the authors of RONR choose this method? Perhaps someone from the authorship team will elaborate, but it is my understanding that the rule that a majority vote is required to elect someone to office comes from the common parliamentary law and predates even General Robert's first book on rules of order in 1876. Other commonly used parliamentary authorities, such as the AIP Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure (previously known as "Sturgis") and Demeter's Manual of Parliamentary Law and Procedure require it. It's not just an RONR rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjhmjh Posted October 14, 2017 at 01:49 AM Report Share Posted October 14, 2017 at 01:49 AM Just now, Richard Brown said: Perhaps someone from the authorship team will elaborate, but it is my understanding that the rule that a majority vote is required to elect someone to office comes from the common parliamentary law and predates even General Robert's first book on rules of order in 1876. Other commonly used parliamentary authorities, such as the AIP Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure (previously known as "Sturgis") and Demeter's Manual of Parliamentary Law and Procedure require it. It's not just an RONR rule. I meant why does RONR simply require another round of voting, rather than removing the candidate receiving the fewest votes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted October 14, 2017 at 02:08 AM Report Share Posted October 14, 2017 at 02:08 AM See RONR 11th ed, p. 441. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted October 14, 2017 at 02:13 AM Report Share Posted October 14, 2017 at 02:13 AM One reason could be that the "fewest votes" person is actually most voters' second choice -- after the voters realize, after a few rounds of voting, that their favored candidates (#1) can't beat the other favored candidate (#2), they say "Lets compromise" and vote for "Number 3", So don't eliminate him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted October 14, 2017 at 02:29 AM Report Share Posted October 14, 2017 at 02:29 AM 20 minutes ago, Hieu H. Huynh said: See RONR 11th ed, p. 441. And pay particular attention to the footnote on that page. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Who's Coming to Dinner Posted October 14, 2017 at 02:35 AM Report Share Posted October 14, 2017 at 02:35 AM 43 minutes ago, mjhmjh said: I meant why does RONR simply require another round of voting, rather than removing the candidate receiving the fewest votes? Because RONR is about civilized deliberation. Elections are not gladiatorial contests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g40 Posted October 14, 2017 at 08:46 PM Report Share Posted October 14, 2017 at 08:46 PM 1. While there are certainly disadvantages, a Bylaw specifying plurality voting could simplify the election process. I am a Board member of such an organization 2. Other Bylaw options might be explored, such as "instant runoff" voting and eliminating some candidates for subsequent votes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted October 15, 2017 at 12:33 AM Report Share Posted October 15, 2017 at 12:33 AM Or using the Borda count. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted October 15, 2017 at 12:37 AM Report Share Posted October 15, 2017 at 12:37 AM ...or actually trying the method in RONR which, when multiple ballots are not prohibitively inconvenient, provides the best opportunity for the best outcome, in my view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted October 18, 2017 at 04:09 PM Report Share Posted October 18, 2017 at 04:09 PM (edited) On 10/13/2017 at 10:35 PM, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said: Because RONR is about civilized deliberation. Elections are not gladiatorial contests. Hey. Nice. (I appreciate when someone speaks up for civil, civilized civilization. We don't see it often.) Edited October 18, 2017 at 04:12 PM by Gary c Tesser add opining Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts