Kevin Posted January 4, 2018 at 06:36 PM Report Share Posted January 4, 2018 at 06:36 PM Greetings - First time poster here. I am secretary of a relief association affiliated with a fire department in the Twin Cities area. We have an election coming up in February '18 to fill 3 openings on our board of trustees. The openings are being created due to terms expiring, as well as a retirement. There are 6 candidates running for the 3 spots. Our election ballots will ask the members to "vote for up to 3 members". This is how prior elections have been handled. However, this year's situation is unique for us with so many members vying for 3 positions. A typical year for us is when 2 members have their 3-year terms expire and they get re-elected via white-ballots because typically no one runs against incumbents. Our bylaws state that we follow the Robert's Rules of Order. I am seeking some guidance and my questions are as follows... 1) We will be electing candidates with paper ballots. Six candidates vying for 3 spots. The intent is to state "vote for up to 3" rather than "vote for 3". I am not sure what is the more appropriate verbiage within the scope of Robert's Rules. 2) I believe that Roberts states that a majority vote is required to elect a candidate. However, we have about 50 members voting for 3 candidates. Our intention is to elect the top 3 vote-receivers. They may not end up with a true majority vote. If we had a tie for the 3rd spot, the plan would be to have a run-off ballot election for the 3rd spot. Our bylaws state that we need a majority of members to conduct business; however, they do not state that a majority is needed to elect a candidate. 3) Also - What is the standard for listing the 6 names on the ballot form? Alphabetical? Other? The overall goal is to abide by the Roberts Rules (per our bylaws), while at the same time making it work in the most common sense way possible. I will make it clear to the membership exactly how the voting and election process will work prior to the meeting. Thank you! Kevin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted January 4, 2018 at 06:46 PM Report Share Posted January 4, 2018 at 06:46 PM (edited) 10 minutes ago, Kevin said: We have an election coming up in February '18 to fill 3 openings on our board of trustees. The openings are being created due to terms expiring, as well as a retirement. This is important - are all of the terms the same length? Or is there time left on the position vacant due to retirement? In the latter case, you actually should vote for up to two for the two full terms, and the partial term should be elected separately. I guess I’ll assume for now that all three are the same length. 10 minutes ago, Kevin said: 1) We will be electing candidates with paper ballots. Six candidates vying for 3 spots. The intent is to state "vote for up to 3" rather than "vote for 3". I am not sure what is the more appropriate verbiage within the scope of Robert's Rules. “Vote for up to 3” is correct. 10 minutes ago, Kevin said: 2) I believe that Roberts states that a majority vote is required to elect a candidate. However, we have about 50 members voting for 3 candidates. Our intention is to elect the top 3 vote-receivers. They may not end up with a true majority vote. If we had a tie for the 3rd spot, the plan would be to have a run-off ballot election for the 3rd spot. Our bylaws state that we need a majority of members to conduct business; however, they do not state that a majority is needed to elect a candidate. When electing multiple candidates, a majority is based on the number of ballots cast. If 50 non-blank ballots are cast, 26 votes are required for a majority. Since members may vote for up to three candidates, multiple candidates might achieve a majority. If less than three candidates receive a majority, it will be necessary to hold additional rounds of voting for the remaining seats. Your bylaws might not require a majority vote for elections, but RONR does. You do not have a “run-off” election, in the sense of eliminating all but the top/tied candidates. If additional rounds of voting are needed, all candidates remain on the ballot (save those who have already been elected). 10 minutes ago, Kevin said: 3) Also - What is the standard for listing the 6 names on the ballot form? Alphabetical? Other? RONR does not specify. It’s up to the organization. Edited January 4, 2018 at 06:48 PM by Josh Martin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted January 4, 2018 at 06:46 PM Report Share Posted January 4, 2018 at 06:46 PM 1 minute ago, Kevin said: Our election ballots will ask the members to "vote for up to 3 members". Do your bylaws specify this procedure? It is not the procedure in RONR. 2 minutes ago, Kevin said: 1) We will be electing candidates with paper ballots. Six candidates vying for 3 spots. The intent is to state "vote for up to 3" rather than "vote for 3". I am not sure what is the more appropriate verbiage within the scope of Robert's Rules. Unless your bylaws say otherwise, or you adopt another permissible method by motion, neither is correct. The RONR procedure for electing multiple identical positions is to allow voters to vote for as many as they choose, even more than the seats to be filled. The winners will be those with the most votes whose votes are a majority of the ballots cast. If there are not enough winners meeting that description, you declare those elected who do fit the description, and vote again on all the remaining candidates. See p. 441, ll. 11-21. 5 minutes ago, Kevin said: I believe that Roberts states that a majority vote is required to elect a candidate. However, we have about 50 members voting for 3 candidates. Our intention is to elect the top 3 vote-receivers. They may not end up with a true majority vote. If we had a tie for the 3rd spot, the plan would be to have a run-off ballot election for the 3rd spot. Our bylaws state that we need a majority of members to conduct business; however, they do not state that a majority is needed to elect a candidate. If RONR is your parliamentary authority, then by reference they say you need a majority to elect a candidate. A run-off is improper, see page 437, ll. 18-30, especially ll. 23-25. There are permissible ways, although, as the book says, the practice is "unfortunate and should be discouraged." Once people see the results, it is quite possible that they will unite around someone who had less support at the beginning as a compromise candidate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted January 4, 2018 at 06:48 PM Report Share Posted January 4, 2018 at 06:48 PM Just now, Josh Martin said: “Vote for up to 3” is correct. 9 minutes ago, Kevin said: You raise a good point as to whether the positions are actually identical, i.e. term length. Assuming the terms are the same, though, I disagree with this. "[E]very ballot with a vote for one or more candidates is counted as one vote cast, and a candidate must receive a majority of the total of such votes to be elected." A ballot with a vote for four candidates is a ballot with a vote for one or more candidates, and is counted as one vote cast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted January 4, 2018 at 06:49 PM Report Share Posted January 4, 2018 at 06:49 PM In the order you asked... 1). "Vote for up to 3", or if you like it better: "Vote for no more than 3" is the proper phrase. 2). Oops, no, a "plurality" vote -- the "top 3" is not proper unless your association/company bylaws authorize it. The necessary to win majority calculation is a majority (more than half) of the BALLOTS cast that have any number (from one to three) of votes on them. Completely blank ones, abstentions, are not counted. if only one or two (or none) reach that threshold, then you reballot for the unfilled (because no majority) positions. If two tie for third place and, say, the other two did get a majority, hold a run off with all the remaining candidates. 3) Alpha, unless your bylaws have a better idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted January 4, 2018 at 06:54 PM Report Share Posted January 4, 2018 at 06:54 PM 5 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said: You raise a good point as to whether the positions are actually identical, i.e. term length. Assuming the terms are the same, though, I disagree with this. "[E]very ballot with a vote for one or more candidates is counted as one vote cast, and a candidate must receive a majority of the total of such votes to be elected." A ballot with a vote for four candidates is a ballot with a vote for one or more candidates, and is counted as one vote cast. Yes, but it is counted as an illegal vote (RONR, pg. 416), so I think it is misleading to inform members that they may vote for any number of candidates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted January 4, 2018 at 06:59 PM Report Share Posted January 4, 2018 at 06:59 PM Just now, Josh Martin said: Yes, but it is counted as an illegal vote (RONR, pg. 416), so I think it is misleading to inform members that they may vote for any number of candidates. I think applying the language on p. 416 in this case is question-begging. It says "a ballot that contains votes for too many candidates for a given office is counted as one illegal vote cast for that office, because it is not possible for the tellers to determine which candidate(s) the voter prefers." The reason here implies that such a ballot is illegal where all the votes cast cannot count, and that that is what it means by "too many." But here, the question just is how many is too many, in that sense. For one position, the answer is clear. But where there are multiple offices, I don't think it's clear, and I would apply the more specific rule on p. 441 to conclude that all 4 votes are counted - i.e., when multiple identical positions are elected, the default is approval voting except that a majority is required. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Posted January 4, 2018 at 08:12 PM Author Report Share Posted January 4, 2018 at 08:12 PM 1 hour ago, Josh Martin said: 1 hour ago, Kevin said: We have an election coming up in February '18 to fill 3 openings on our board of trustees. The openings are being created due to terms expiring, as well as a retirement. This is important - are all of the terms the same length? Or is there time left on the position vacant due to retirement? In the latter case, you actually should vote for up to two for the two full terms, and the partial term should be elected separately. I guess I’ll assume for now that all three are the same length. There is time left on the position that was left vacant. The original term on this position expires in February 2019. The other two "openings" are due to their 3-year terms expiring. We have staggered terms for the 6 trustee positions that are elected by the membership. We also have three other positions (ex-officio), of which two are appointed by the City and one is always the fire chief. So, every year we have two trustees (from the six non-municipal trustees) whose terms are expiring. For example, my 3-year term expires in Feb. '19 along with the person who gets elected to fill the time left on the position that was created due to the retirement. So, it looks like two separate elections are in order? Thank you very much Josh, and thank you to everybody, for your prompt responses! I am finding this to be extremely helpful and I am communicating the feedback to the other trustees. Kevin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted January 4, 2018 at 08:24 PM Report Share Posted January 4, 2018 at 08:24 PM Indeed, two elections. Probably best to do them in tandem, so the non-winners in the first election (whichever it may be) can still run as candidates in the second. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted January 4, 2018 at 08:27 PM Report Share Posted January 4, 2018 at 08:27 PM 'Course those non-winners may just get beat twice, but that is their self-esteem problem, not yours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Posted January 4, 2018 at 09:22 PM Author Report Share Posted January 4, 2018 at 09:22 PM 54 minutes ago, jstackpo said: 'Course those non-winners may just get beat twice, but that is their self-esteem problem, not yours. Hah, true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted January 4, 2018 at 11:30 PM Report Share Posted January 4, 2018 at 11:30 PM (edited) 5 hours ago, Joshua Katz said: I think applying the language on p. 416 in this case is question-begging. It says "a ballot that contains votes for too many candidates for a given office is counted as one illegal vote cast for that office, because it is not possible for the tellers to determine which candidate(s) the voter prefers." The reason here implies that such a ballot is illegal where all the votes cast cannot count, and that that is what it means by "too many." But here, the question just is how many is too many, in that sense. For one position, the answer is clear. But where there are multiple offices, I don't think it's clear, and I would apply the more specific rule on p. 441 to conclude that all 4 votes are counted - i.e., when multiple identical positions are elected, the default is approval voting except that a majority is required. I do not think the rule on pg. 441 is at all intended to suggest that members may vote for as many candidates as they please. Rather, it seems to me that the rule’s purpose is simply to clarify that if a member votes for one or more candidates for a position, that ballot is counted for that position. This rule makes perfect sense for any election where there are multiple positions, and it has nothing at all to do with the maximum number of votes which may be cast. To me, it seems plainly obvious that a member cannot vote for more candidates than there are available positions, but I am unable to find a rule in RONR which explicitly states this. Edited January 5, 2018 at 12:29 AM by Josh Martin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted January 5, 2018 at 12:07 AM Report Share Posted January 5, 2018 at 12:07 AM I agree with the post immediately above by Josh Martin. I don't think anything in RONR contemplates "approval voting" in which members may vote for as many candidates as they want to regardless of the number of positions to be filled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted January 5, 2018 at 12:25 AM Report Share Posted January 5, 2018 at 12:25 AM It's one person, one vote. If there are three positions, there could be three votes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted January 5, 2018 at 04:03 AM Report Share Posted January 5, 2018 at 04:03 AM 4 hours ago, Josh Martin said: To me, it seems plainly obvious that a member cannot vote for more candidates than there are available positions, but I am unable to find a rule in RONR which explicitly states this. Well, at least we agree on that last point. 4 hours ago, Josh Martin said: I do not think the rule on pg. 441 is at all intended to suggest that members may vote for as many candidates as they please. Rather, it seems to me that the rule’s purpose is simply to clarify that if a member votes for one or more candidates for a position, that ballot is counted for that position. This rule makes perfect sense for any election where there are multiple positions, and it has nothing at all to do with the maximum number of votes which may be cast. It follows from your argument, then, that if a person votes for more candidates than there are positions, the ballot is counted towards a majority, but none of the preferences are counted. Is that right? 3 hours ago, Hieu H. Huynh said: It's one person, one vote. If there are three positions, there could be three votes. Which is why, as I see it, p. 441 provides that what person can cast is one ballot. It's clarifying how "one person, one vote" applies in the case of electing multiple positions. It seems your position would entail that an assembly would not be permitted to adopt the form of approval voting I described unless it did so in its bylaws, since you seem to think it would violate the "one person, one vote" principle. Is that right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted January 5, 2018 at 03:10 PM Report Share Posted January 5, 2018 at 03:10 PM 11 hours ago, Joshua Katz said: It follows from your argument, then, that if a person votes for more candidates than there are positions, the ballot is counted towards a majority, but none of the preferences are counted. Is that right? Yes. 11 hours ago, Joshua Katz said: Which is why, as I see it, p. 441 provides that what person can cast is one ballot. It's clarifying how "one person, one vote" applies in the case of electing multiple positions. It seems your position would entail that an assembly would not be permitted to adopt the form of approval voting I described unless it did so in its bylaws, since you seem to think it would violate the "one person, one vote" principle. Is that right? Yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted January 5, 2018 at 03:24 PM Report Share Posted January 5, 2018 at 03:24 PM Well, at least we've clarified exactly where we disagree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted January 5, 2018 at 04:52 PM Report Share Posted January 5, 2018 at 04:52 PM I think that Mr. Martin and H.H.H. have this right. The rule on page 407, lines 1-6, reads as follows: "It is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that each person who is a member of a deliberative assembly is entitled to one—and only one—vote on a question." (Emphasis added) If there are 3 identical positions on a board to be filled, there are three questions to be decided. Casting four or more votes on a ballot for these three positions violates this rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Posted January 8, 2018 at 08:41 PM Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2018 at 08:41 PM On 1/4/2018 at 2:24 PM, jstackpo said: Indeed, two elections. Probably best to do them in tandem, so the non-winners in the first election (whichever it may be) can still run as candidates in the second. We will have two elections - one to fill the 3-year term positions, and a subsequent ballot election to fill the vacant (1-year) term. The first election will have six names on the ballot and we will ask members to vote for "up to two" candidates. One more question that I have is how to prepare the paper ballots for the 2nd election? I can't find anything in my copy of RONR. I am wondering if it is proper to "black out" the names of the two candidates who were elected for the 3-year terms, and have everybody mark one of the four remaining names, or if we should hand out blank ballots and have them write in their choice to fill the 1-year term. Thanks! Kevin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Who's Coming to Dinner Posted January 8, 2018 at 09:29 PM Report Share Posted January 8, 2018 at 09:29 PM I suppose you can use the same ballot form if you make clear to voters that a vote for one of the previously elected candidates would be illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted January 8, 2018 at 09:50 PM Report Share Posted January 8, 2018 at 09:50 PM But probably better, and less subject to confusion, is just to pass out blank pieces of paper -- and writing instruments if your members are the sort who don't carry their own around (doesn't everybody?). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted January 8, 2018 at 09:54 PM Report Share Posted January 8, 2018 at 09:54 PM 3 minutes ago, jstackpo said: But probably better, and less subject to confusion, is just to pass out blank pieces of paper -- and writing instruments if your members are the sort who don't carry their own around (doesn't everybody?). Or lug a printer to the meeting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted January 8, 2018 at 11:01 PM Report Share Posted January 8, 2018 at 11:01 PM 2 hours ago, Kevin said: One more question that I have is how to prepare the paper ballots for the 2nd election? I can't find anything in my copy of RONR. I am wondering if it is proper to "black out" the names of the two candidates who were elected for the 3-year terms, and have everybody mark one of the four remaining names, or if we should hand out blank ballots and have them write in their choice to fill the 1-year term. Either method is acceptable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Student Posted January 9, 2018 at 01:42 AM Report Share Posted January 9, 2018 at 01:42 AM Unless there is something in your bylaws, members are not restricted to just voting for the six nominees. They can write in a name (for either election). So blank ballots are just as good as pre-printed ones, as long as your members write legibly and you have methods to ensure each voter only casts one ballot. What you are describing for the second election seems to be exactly the situation described on page 440, ll. 18-30: "Under the usual form of the second election procedure, balloting for each office immediately follows nominations from the floor for that office. The ballots are counted for one office and the result of that election is announced— after repeated balloting, if necessary—before the next office to be voted on is opened to nominations from the floor. The members are thus able to take into account the results for the offices voted on first, in deciding upon both nominations and votes for the later offices. Under this method the ballots normally consist of small slips of blank paper handed out by the tellers as each ballot is taken—on which voters write the name of the candidate of their choice (who need not have been nominated)." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts