Guest J. Hauser Posted February 22, 2018 at 06:41 AM Report Share Posted February 22, 2018 at 06:41 AM In a previous question to this forum, I asked how the winner is determined when there are three candidates running for an office. The answer I received is that the winner is the one receiving more than half of the votes. If that result is not achieved, additional rounds of voting must be conducted until one receives the necessary number of votes. My question is, what if the vote is pretty evenly split among the three candidates. How many times do you re-vote? If there is no clear winner after the first vote, would it be appropriate to reveal the number of votes received to each of the three candidates, in private, to give one candidate an opportunity to withdraw. Also, our bylaws permit voting by absentee ballot. If there are multiple rounds of voting, are the number of absentee ballots only considered in the first round of voting? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Transpower Posted February 22, 2018 at 08:58 AM Report Share Posted February 22, 2018 at 08:58 AM RONR frowns on absentee voting; see RONR (11th ed.), p. 423. Absentee voting would continue after the first round, with no change. Also, unless you have a special rule of order to the contrary, "When repeated balloting for an office is necessary, individuals are never removed candidacy on the next ballot unless they voluntarily withdwaw--which they are not obligated to do." (RONR (11th ed.), p. 441, ll. 5-8; footnote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted February 22, 2018 at 09:53 AM Report Share Posted February 22, 2018 at 09:53 AM 3 hours ago, Guest J. Hauser said: My question is, what if the vote is pretty evenly split among the three candidates. How many times do you re-vote? If there is no clear winner after the first vote, would it be appropriate to reveal the number of votes received to each of the three candidates, in private, to give one candidate an opportunity to withdraw. Also, our bylaws permit voting by absentee ballot. If there are multiple rounds of voting, are the number of absentee ballots only considered in the first round of voting? In the order you asked... Re-vote: as long as needed to get to the majority. Reveal number: The vote counts should be read to all members as part of the tellers report at the meeting. No secrets. See page 417. Absentees: They have to be offered a chance to re-vote in every round of voting right along with the members at the meeting. This link might interest you; click here : https://www.dropbox.com/s/5lffcpb6w7wr26w/Elections and Choices.docx?dl=0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted February 22, 2018 at 02:57 PM Report Share Posted February 22, 2018 at 02:57 PM I have nothing to add on anything else, but regarding how many times to revote: it is a general rule of thumb that people want to go home eventually. Sometimes, if multiple ballots are not producing the desired changes, a brief recess where people have informal conversations can be helpful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted February 22, 2018 at 03:10 PM Report Share Posted February 22, 2018 at 03:10 PM And open the floor for nominations. Folks might settle for "everybody's second choice" as a dark horse or compromise candidate. (The Borda count does that semi-automatically.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Who's Coming to Dinner Posted February 22, 2018 at 03:10 PM Report Share Posted February 22, 2018 at 03:10 PM 8 hours ago, Guest J. Hauser said: IIf there is no clear winner after the first vote, would it be appropriate to reveal the number of votes received to each of the three candidates, in private, to give one candidate an opportunity to withdraw. The ballots may be secret, but the vote tallies are not. The counts should be read aloud and entered into the minutes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted February 22, 2018 at 04:16 PM Report Share Posted February 22, 2018 at 04:16 PM 7 hours ago, Transpower said: RONR frowns on absentee voting; see RONR (11th ed.), p. 423. Absentee voting would continue after the first round, with no change. Also, unless you have a special rule of order to the contrary, "When repeated balloting for an office is necessary, individuals are never removed candidacy on the next ballot unless they voluntarily withdwaw--which they are not obligated to do." (RONR (11th ed.), p. 441, ll. 5-8; footnote. However, per the footnote on page 441, the assembly may vote to suspend the rules to remove the candidate with the fewest number of votes from the ballot after each round of voting. However, unless the bylaws provide otherwise, such candidates who have been removed from the ballot are still eligible to be elected as write-in candidates. As a practical matter, though, usually the members who have been voting for such a remove candidate wind up voting for someone else who is still on the ballot because they realize that some members simply change their votes in order to conclude the election and go home. Here is the exact language from the footnote: "An organization could suspend the rules, or adopt a special rule of order, so that the nominee with the fewest votes is dropped from the list of nominees for succeeding ballots in the expectation that voters will then confine their choice to the remaining nominees. Only a bylaws provision, however, could make the dropped nominee ineligible for election so as to render illegal any subsequent votes cast for that nominee". (Footnote on page 441). Candidates may, of course, voluntarily withdraw. If they are tied, or if the assembly refuses to suspend the rules to remove the candidate with the fewest votes, the candidates may also agree among themselves to determine by lot, such as drawing straws or flipping a coin, that one of them will voluntarily withdraw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Transpower Posted February 22, 2018 at 04:26 PM Report Share Posted February 22, 2018 at 04:26 PM And, if you get tired of all this: "If an assembly wishes to adjourn when an election is incomplete, an adjourned meeting should be provided for." RONR (11th ed.), p. 444, ll. 10-12. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted February 22, 2018 at 04:48 PM Report Share Posted February 22, 2018 at 04:48 PM 10 hours ago, Guest J. Hauser said: In a previous question to this forum, I asked how the winner is determined when there are three candidates running for an office. . . . (Remainder of post omitted) Guest J. Hauser, where is your previous question? I think I remember it, but can't find it. Was it posted using the same name, "J. Hauser"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest J Hauser Posted February 22, 2018 at 04:50 PM Report Share Posted February 22, 2018 at 04:50 PM 1 hour ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said: The ballots may be secret, but the vote tallies are not. The counts should be read aloud and entered into the minutes. "Absentee voting would continue after the first round, with no change." What does this mean? Absentee ballots are being collected prior to the date of the election because these voters are unable to attend the general meeting to vote. If we have to have multiple rounds of voting on that day, it would not be possible to get absentee ballots for each round. Would it be acceptable to include the absentee ballots for each round? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted February 22, 2018 at 04:57 PM Report Share Posted February 22, 2018 at 04:57 PM 10 hours ago, Guest J. Hauser said: . . .Also, our bylaws permit voting by absentee ballot. If there are multiple rounds of voting, are the number of absentee ballots only considered in the first round of voting? 6 hours ago, jstackpo said: Absentees: They have to be offered a chance to re-vote in every round of voting right along with the members at the meeting. John, Are you sure? Based on some previous posts I have seen in this forum and also on two responses in the thread I link to below, there seems to be some uncertainty as to whether the absentee ballots should be counted again in the repeat balloting. This could be especially problematic if a candidate withdraws, causing subsequent balloting to be on a different question. Here's the thread I referred to: http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/31545-voting/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted February 22, 2018 at 07:10 PM Report Share Posted February 22, 2018 at 07:10 PM What I guess I wasn't clear on was that if additional rounds of voting are needed (to get to a majority, say) then the absentees have to be given the opportunity to vote again in those additional rounds. The first round of absentee votes are NOT counted, or re-counted, in any subsequent rounds. This, of course, is all but impossible when in-meeting and out-of-meeting (absentee) votes are combined in an election. So don't do it. You can't disenfranchise the absentees just because no majority was reached. I suppose you could put such a rule in the bylaws, of course. The right to vote is the rightest right of all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted February 22, 2018 at 08:55 PM Report Share Posted February 22, 2018 at 08:55 PM 5 hours ago, jstackpo said: And open the floor for nominations. Folks might settle for "everybody's second choice" as a dark horse or compromise candidate. (The Borda count does that semi-automatically.) But implementing a Borda count would require a bylaws amendment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted February 22, 2018 at 09:14 PM Report Share Posted February 22, 2018 at 09:14 PM 14 hours ago, Guest J. Hauser said: If there is no clear winner after the first vote, would it be appropriate to reveal the number of votes received to each of the three candidates, in private, to give one candidate an opportunity to withdraw. I'd like to reëmphasize that it would not be appropriate to reveal the vote counts in private, or to suggest that a candidate withdraw. It is, instead, mandatory to reveal the vote counts to the entire assembly, whether close or not, so that the voters can factor that information into their choice on the next ballot, and see emerging trends for themselves. Candidates can also spot trends, and may decide to withdraw, but it is not unheard of for a last-place candidate to emerge as a dark-horse winner when it becomes obvious that the top choices are hopelessly deadlocked. Here's what a proper teller's report looks like: TELLERS’ REPORT Number of votes cast 97 Necessary for election (majority) 49 Mr. Miller received 51 Mr. Wilson received 24 Mr. Strong received 14 Illegal Votes: Mr. Friend (ineligible) 7 Two ballots for Mr. Wilson folded together, rejected 1 Note that the tellers' report does not declare a winner (in this case Mr. Miller wins). As always, declaring a result is the job of the presiding officer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted February 22, 2018 at 09:30 PM Report Share Posted February 22, 2018 at 09:30 PM Agreeing with Mr. Novosielski, this is what RONR says about the tellers report and the vote count on page 418: "The tellers' report is entered in full in the minutes, becoming a part of the official records of the organization. Under no circumstances should this be omitted in an election or in a vote on a critical motion out of a mistaken deference to the feelings of unsuccessful candidates or members of the losing side." (Emphasis added by me). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted February 22, 2018 at 10:00 PM Report Share Posted February 22, 2018 at 10:00 PM 28 minutes ago, Richard Brown said: Agreeing with Mr. Novosielski, this is what RONR says . . . Well, I should think that it's Mr. Novosielski saying something in agreement with RONR, not the other way around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Who's Coming to Dinner Posted February 22, 2018 at 10:38 PM Report Share Posted February 22, 2018 at 10:38 PM 5 hours ago, Richard Brown said: This could be especially problematic if a candidate withdraws, causing subsequent balloting to be on a different question. How is it a different question? In every vote, the question remains "Who shall be elected?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted February 22, 2018 at 11:15 PM Report Share Posted February 22, 2018 at 11:15 PM 32 minutes ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said: How is it a different question? In every vote, the question remains "Who shall be elected?" It is absolutely a different question. Candidate C is no longer on the ballot. Yes, he can be written in, but he is not one of the options being offered on the subsequent ballot. It is therefore a different question. You can't assume that those who voted for candidate C when he was listed on the ballot as a candidate would want to write his name in as a write-in candidate if he has announced that he is withdrawing and is not listed as a candidate on subsequent ballots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted February 23, 2018 at 01:17 AM Report Share Posted February 23, 2018 at 01:17 AM 6 hours ago, jstackpo said: This, of course, is all but impossible when in-meeting and out-of-meeting (absentee) votes are combined in an election. So don't do it. Excellent advice, but the society apparently has provided for exactly that in their bylaws, so how should they proceed now? 3 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said: or to suggest that a candidate withdraw. Oh, I don’t see anything wrong with suggesting that a candidate withdraw. It’s up to the candidate whether to listen to that suggestion, of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts