Majority

[Guest KimSeeTeo]

In a deliberative assembly, the term majority is defined to compute "more than half" of all  "present and voting", which then includes all illegal votes, but not blanks. For a mixed mode election process of natural persons voting for themselves and proxies, how would the term majority defined? Would it be supposed to include also the illegal votes, if any? In an electronic voting process using the keypads only, would any illegal votes, if cropped up at all, for whatever reasons, be added to define the majority? Thank you. KimSee. 

[Richard Brown]

Hi, Kim-See!  I see you are posting as a guest.  I thought you were a member of the forum.  You should join... it has advantages! And, as someone on here says, "No salesman will call".

First, I will quibble slightly with your definition of "majority".  It does indeed mean "more than half", but it is not necessarily more than half of those present and voting.  That would be the basic definition of a "majority vote".  I think you mean it in the sense of a majority vote, but want to be sure you are aware of the distinction.  A majority of the membership is simply "more than half" of the membership.   But, the term "majority vote" does indeed mean, as stated on page 4 of RONR,  "more than half of the votes cast by persons entitled to vote, excluding blanks or abstentions, at a regular or properly called meeting".  I think that is the sense in which you are using the term here.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't think the fact that members might  be holding and voting proxies for absent members changes anything when it comes to calculating a "majority vote".  It might, however, make a difference in calculating whether a quorum is present.  If so, it must be determined whether members who have submitted proxies are considered "present" for quorum (and voting) purposes.  That is something that should be defined in your bylaws.  Here in the U.S.,  it is customary for bylaws or organizations that allow  proxy voting  to refer to members who are "present in person or by proxy" for quorum purposes and for voting when the vote requirement is based on members present.

In your case, with electronic keypad voting, it might be difficult to define or classify exactly what are "illegal" votes as contemplated by RONR.  That would be especially true for equipment malfunctions, glitches, incorrectly recorded votes, etc.  I don't have a ready answer for that but will think about it.  It seems to me that if a vote (or attempted vote)  meets the RONR definition of an illegal ballot, it must be counted as a vote cast.... unless your bylaws or  custom rules treat it differently.  Hopefully, some of our colleagues will have an answer or suggestions.

A little more background on this situation might be helpful for those who want to weigh in.

Edited September 1, 2018 at 04:17 AM by Richard Brown
Added the underlined "(and voting)" to the 3rd paragraph

[KimSeeTeo]

Thank you for your response to my question.  I am now back as a member. 

For some reason, my earlier answer to your Q above did not get posted. 

About 2000 delegates were at the convention. But only 777 keypads were registered meaning only about 40% had the voting rights with proxies. The rest of delegates were observers without voting rights

Voting Results, as follows

Candidate S 10843

Candidate H 10814

Illegal Votes 1477

S was declared winner.

Then after about 40mins, the decision was made by the Chair to declare it null and void, since it didn't have a majority, and ordered a re-vote. 

New results as follows, 

Candidate S 10467

Candidate H 11505

Illegal Votes 282.

This time, H had more than the majority and declared new Winner. 

I do not know more details than the above data, in particular why were there illegal votes, which was substantially reduced in the second set of results.

Since the pc system must have a good protective software measure to avoid any illegal vote, the actual results could not be explained. That being the case, the way a majority vote was computed and decided on should exclude all so called illegal votes, in my view. Hence, the first set of results should have been deemed as proper, and winner S justified. There was no need to re vote. 

That was the crux of the problem which caused a lot of dissent and unhappiness.

KimSee.

 

 

[Joshua Katz]

29 minutes ago, KimSeeTeo said:

Since the pc system must have a good protective software measure to avoid any illegal vote, the actual results could not be explained.

I think you should avoid using any software that gives you inexplicable results.

[Richard Brown]

56 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

I think you should avoid using any software that gives you inexplicable results.

While I agree, that doesn't help answer KimSee's question about the validity of the first vote. We also don't know if the equipment malfunctioned or if the delegates intentionally or unintentionally did something wrong. We don't know why the so called illegal votes were were declared illegal. We just don't know why there were over 1,400 illegal votes. I think we still need more information as to what happened.

Edited to add: For example, I'm wondering how a delegate can vote several hundred proxies using a hand-held electronic voting device in a meeting. The ones I have seen will only let the holder cast one vote. Perhaps advanced versions will accommodate a few hundred votes per device.

Edited September 1, 2018 at 02:44 PM by Richard Brown
Added last paragraph

[Joshua Katz]

Oh, I'm with you, but it seems like KimSee said the organization doesn't know either, and can't know. So I don't see how we can help.

[Richard Brown]

I'm reasonably confident that at least some additional information is available regarding these 1,477 alleged illegal votes.

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

13 hours ago, Guest KimSeeTeo said:

For a mixed mode election process of natural persons voting for themselves and proxies, how would the term majority defined? Would it be supposed to include also the illegal votes, if any? In an electronic voting process using the keypads only, would any illegal votes, if cropped up at all, for whatever reasons, be added to define the majority?

1. More than half the votes cast by persons entitled to vote, excluding abstentions and blanks.
2. Yes, because illegal votes are neither abstentions nor blanks.
3. Yes, for the same reason as #2.

Whether you are using paper slips, black and white marbles, yarrow stalks, or the VoteTron Mark VII, the definition of "majority vote" remains the same. However, the definition of "illegal vote" may change according to the circumstances.

[Josh Martin]

17 hours ago, Guest KimSeeTeo said:

In a deliberative assembly, the term majority is defined to compute "more than half" of all  "present and voting", which then includes all illegal votes, but not blanks. For a mixed mode election process of natural persons voting for themselves and proxies, how would the term majority defined? Would it be supposed to include also the illegal votes, if any? In an electronic voting process using the keypads only, would any illegal votes, if cropped up at all, for whatever reasons, be added to define the majority? Thank you. KimSee. 

A majority in this case would be a majority of the votes cast, excluding blanks and abstentions (unless the bylaws provide otherwise). Illegal votes would be included in determining a majority unless the organization’s rules provide otherwise.

15 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

In your case, with electronic keypad voting, it might be difficult to define or classify exactly what are "illegal" votes as contemplated by RONR.  That would be especially true for equipment malfunctions, glitches, incorrectly recorded votes, etc.  I don't have a ready answer for that but will think about it.  It seems to me that if a vote (or attempted vote)  meets the RONR definition of an illegal ballot, it must be counted as a vote cast.... unless your bylaws or  custom rules treat it differently.  Hopefully, some of our colleagues will have an answer or suggestions.

Yes, I think this is correct. I can think of one example. With simple keypad voting, if numbers 1-4 corresponded to candidates, for instance, and a member voted (presumably in error) for 5, this should be treated as an illegal vote. I think this is similar to casting an unintelligible ballot or a vote for an unidentifiable candidate.

6 hours ago, KimSeeTeo said:

Since the pc system must have a good protective software measure to avoid any illegal vote, the actual results could not be explained. That being the case, the way a majority vote was computed and decided on should exclude all so called illegal votes, in my view. Hence, the first set of results should have been deemed as proper, and winner S justified. There was no need to re vote. 

I do not think that it is correct that illegal votes should be excluded, unless the organization’s rules so provide. Even if it is correct that the “pc system must have a good protective software measure to avoid any illegal vote” (and I am not sure I would make that assumption), this would merely decrease the likelihood of illegal votes. Any illegal votes which nevertheless occur must be credited. If an organization wishes to adopt its own rules providing that illegal votes are treated as abstentions, it is free to do so.

5 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

While I agree, that doesn't help answer KimSee's question about the validity of the first vote. We also don't know if the equipment malfunctioned or if the delegates intentionally or unintentionally did something wrong. We don't know why the so called illegal votes were were declared illegal. We just don't know why there were over 1,400 illegal votes. I think we still need more information as to what happened.

Well, it doesn’t seem that such information is forthcoming coming, since Kim-See has stated that he also does not know why the votes were declared illegal. Since such information is not available, I will assume that these were properly counted as illegal votes.

Edited September 1, 2018 at 08:04 PM by Josh Martin

[KimSeeTeo]

Thank you for your response to my question.  I am now back as a member. 

For some reason, my earlier answer to your Q above did not get posted. 

About 2000 delegates were at the convention. But only 777 keypads were registered meaning only about 40% had the voting rights with proxies. The rest of delegates were observers without voting rights

Voting Results, as follows

Candidate S 10843

Candidate H 10814

Illegal Votes 1477

S was declared winner.

Then after about 40mins, the decision was made by the Chair to declare it null and void, since it didn't have a majority, and ordered a re-vote. 

New results as follows, 

Candidate S 10467

Candidate H 11505

Illegal Votes 282.

This time, H had more than the majority and declared new Winner. 

I do not know more details than the above data, in particular why were there illegal votes, which was substantially reduced in the second set of results.

Since the pc system must have a good protective software measure to avoid any illegal vote, the actual results could not be explained. That being the case, the way a majority vote was computed and decided on should exclude all so called illegal votes, in my view. Hence, the first set of results should have been deemed as proper, and winner S justified. There was no need to re vote. 

That was the crux of the problem which caused a lot of dissent and unhappiness.

KimSee.

 

 

[Richard Brown]

1 hour ago, Josh Martin said:

Yes, I think this is correct. I can think of one example. With simple keypad voting, if numbers 1-4 corresponded to candidates, for instance, and a member voted (presumably in error) for 5, this should be treated as an illegal vote. I think this is similar to casting an unintelligible ballot or a vote for an unidentifiable candidate.

I agree... and that is the only example I could think of as to what might constitute an illegal vote using an electronic keypad.  Ideally, the system should not accept a vote for #5 if there is no candidate #5, but if it did accept those attempted "votes", I think they are classic illegal votes and must be treated as such.  They surely don't seem like abstentions.  You just don't vote for anyone if the intent is to abstain.

I also agree that if we don't know why those 1.477 votes were treated as illegal votes, we must accept, for now at least, that they were indeed illegal votes.

7 hours ago, KimSeeTeo said:

S was declared winner.

Then after about 40mins, the decision was made by the Chair to declare it null and void, since it didn't have a majority, and ordered a re-vote. 

This is what concerns me most about the entire process.  Kim-See has stated, perhaps somewhere else, that there was no point of order made when candidate S was declared elected.  I'm not sure what transpired during the 40 minutes between then and the time the chair reversed himself and declared "no winner" and ordered a re-vote, so I share Kim-See's concern that since candidate S was declared the winner and there was no point of order, and other business was perhaps  conducted, should the chair's announcement that Candidate S had been elected stand?   Did the chair have the authority to reverse himself 40 minutes later with no point of order and order a new vote on the basis that no candidate received a majority vote?   Even if we agree that Candidate S did  not receive a majority vote, could the chair reverse himself on that 40 minutes later with no point of order having been raised?   I think we need more information as to what transpired during that 40 minutes.

Note:  I know there are several threads in this forum regarding the chair's incorrect announcement of the result of an election.  Normally, the chair's declaration of the result of voting stands, but I know there are exceptions.  I'm thinking perhaps this is one of them.  Can anyone provide a citation or a link to an authoritative thread on this? 

Edited to add:  See pages 250-251 and 408-409 re the need for a point of order immediately after the announcement of a vote result.

Edited September 1, 2018 at 09:04 PM by Richard Brown
Added last paragraph with RONR citations

[KimSeeTeo]

Thank you very much, Richard, et al. indeed, that was my concern. As it turned out, the said election was for Region 8 for one International Director's post. When it was done, after declaring the first winner, there was a recess of some 10 mins, after which the election process proceeded to conduct similar elections for Regions 10, 12 and 14. ( One year for the even regions and another year for the odd). It was only at that point, "someone" probably realized that there was no majority vote attained at that Region 8 election, and the Chair did what was to me, a strange decision to reverse his first declaration of winner S, and announced it null and void, then ordered a re-vote. There was no call to vote to support  that Chair's decision.  I did not know what transpired and who had pointed out the apparent mistake or anyone else other than the Chair (and Parliamentarian) could influence such an unwise step. Unwise in the sense that anything at the meeting must be seen to be done, to make sense. No point of order raised, and it would appear that either the Chair or the Parliamentarian suddenly came to their senses, out of the blue in those 40 mins. Why? Why?

In fact, some delegates who supported the winner in the first round, felt happy and so assured that, they could have left the scene and did not bother at all about any subsequent regional elections. That was why the second vote count was fewer by 870 proxy votes and more importantly the rejected votes were reduced from 1477 to just 282. This phenomena should have been felt both by the Chair and the Parliamentarian, even before they adjourned the whole business session. In addition, why should there be so much difference in the rejected votes, given the same pc system used and the same level of intelligence in the delegates sustained?

Actually this scenario was a repeat of what had occurred in 2014, when the Convention was held in KL, Malaysia (my country) for the only and first time since 80 years ago. I was present as a voting delegate, (with 2 proxy votes) and spotted a technical error similar to this one, but there were then 3 candidates. The convention then decided to have a re-vote to reduce it to just 2. Then similar reject votes couldn't decide in one way or another. I raised the only Point of Order, by yelling it 4 times, immediately to call for the Chair's attention, among the 2600 delegates present from 56 countries, and then, the Presiding Officer and Chair, appropriately called the meeting to stand at ease. After a few minutes of private consultation, they came out to say, the Point was well taken. It made my day. I sealed the fate of one candidate and helped justify for the other. My point was to express the thought I had then. Why the same set of pc system could engender so much difference in the rejected votes? Perhaps, they couldn't explain why and had to accept my Point! I never knew.

Thanks, gentlemen. 

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

This is what concerns me most about the entire process.  Kim-See has stated, perhaps somewhere else, that there was no point of order made when candidate S was declared elected.  I'm not sure what transpired during the 40 minutes between then and the time the chair reversed himself and declared "no winner" and ordered a re-vote, so I share Kim-See's concern that since candidate S was declared the winner and there was no point of order, and other business was perhaps  conducted, should the chair's announcement that Candidate S had been elected stand?   Did the chair have the authority to reverse himself 40 minutes later with no point of order and order a new vote on the basis that no candidate received a majority vote?   Even if we agree that Candidate S did  not receive a majority vote, could the chair reverse himself on that 40 minutes later with no point of order having been raised?   I think we need more information as to what transpired during that 40 minutes.

Note:  I know there are several threads in this forum regarding the chair's incorrect announcement of the result of an election.  Normally, the chair's declaration of the result of voting stands, but I know there are exceptions.  I'm thinking perhaps this is one of them.  Can anyone provide a citation or a link to an authoritative thread on this? 

The chair’s reasoning may have been that, by refusing to count the illegal votes, this was disenfranchising those members, which was in this instance enough members to have affected the result. I don’t know that I necessarily agree with this reasoning, but it does not seem absurd.

I would note that, in my view, whether the President acts on his own initiative or in response to a Point of Order has nothing to do with it.

45 minutes ago, KimSeeTeo said:

In addition, why should there be so much difference in the rejected votes, given the same pc system used and the same level of intelligence in the delegates sustained?

Well, in the future the reason why the votes were, in fact, recorded as illegal votes should be announced to the assembly and recorded in the teller’s report, as required by RONR. That should help with some of these problems. Additionally, if there is a large number of illegal votes, then if another round of voting is necessary it would seem prudent to provide additional instructions to the assembly regarding the proper use of the electronic voting devices.

Edited September 1, 2018 at 10:31 PM by Josh Martin

[Joshua Katz]

The more I think about it, the more troubled I am by this business of having illegal ballots because the computer says so, and no one able to say why. It's incredibly open to abuse, and violates all sorts of parliamentary principles. It places a decision rightly in the assembly's hands far beyond it, and in my view, is unacceptable on first principles. If you are using a voting system which rejects votes without telling you which votes, or why, I say the organization is running unfair elections by definition. If it is able to say "it was ballot #4, and the reason was..." that's something different, even if the assembly doesn't investigate any further. 

[Josh Martin]

43 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

The more I think about it, the more troubled I am by this business of having illegal ballots because the computer says so, and no one able to say why. It's incredibly open to abuse, and violates all sorts of parliamentary principles. It places a decision rightly in the assembly's hands far beyond it, and in my view, is unacceptable on first principles. If you are using a voting system which rejects votes without telling you which votes, or why, I say the organization is running unfair elections by definition. If it is able to say "it was ballot #4, and the reason was..." that's something different, even if the assembly doesn't investigate any further. 

I guess my impression was not that no one but the computer knows why the votes are illegal. I was under the impression that someone knows, but did not provide this information to the assembly (which is probably even more concerning). As I have already noted, this should be corrected in the future.

[Richard Brown]

1 hour ago, Josh Martin said:

I would note that, in my view, whether the President acts on his own initiative or in response to a Point of Order has nothing to do with it.

I don't question the chair's ability to raise a point of order on his own, but that isn't the issue to me.  I'm still concerned with the 40 minute delay before the chair reversed himself, without a point of order, and declared that there was no winner and there would be another ballot.  According to Kim-See, other business was clearly conducted during that 40 minute interval.   My issue here is the 40 minute delay between the time the chair declared a winner and the time he reversed himself.   isn't the assembly bound  by the chair's declaration of a winner absent a timely point of order per pages 250-251 and 408-409?  Or does this fall into an exception, such as, perhaps the exceptions on page 251?  I cannot find a clear exception in RONR, but I know the issue has been discussed in this forum.

Edited September 2, 2018 at 12:20 AM by Richard Brown
Added last sentence

[Richard Brown]

Kim-See has also posted this question in another forum (the AIP public forum) and AIP President Kay Crews responded with an answer that has a bit of a different take on what happened regarding the 1,477 "illegal" votes.  She wonders, as do some of us, how illegal votes can be cast when using electronic hand held keypads.  She surmised, as did Josh Martin and myself, that perhaps delegates pressed a number which had no corresponding candidate, such as pressing #5 when there are only four candidates.  Josh and I took the position that such a vote amounts to a vote for "someone" not eligible, thus becoming an illegal vote.  Kay theorized, however that it  seems to her much like turning in a blank ballot.... which would not count as a vote at all.  It would amount to an abstention.  Under that scenario, with the 1.477 "illegal" votes being treated as blanks (abstentions) instead of illegal votes, candidate S would have received a majority of the votes cast and would have been properly declared the winner.

That's an interesting...and quite plausible... twist in my opinion. Ultimately, however, unless there is a rule on point, the question of how to treat a vote for a nonexistent candidate should have been for the assembly to decide.  I believe that the chair (since there are presumably no tellers) could make the initial  determination whether to consider such votes as blanks or as illegal votes, but such a question could and maybe should have been put to the assembly to decide.  The chair's decision on that issue was also subject to an appeal under RONR.

[Joshua Katz]

1 hour ago, Josh Martin said:

I guess my impression was not that no one but the computer knows why the votes are illegal. I was under the impression that someone knows, but did not provide this information to the assembly (which is probably even more concerning). As I have already noted, this should be corrected in the future.

 

12 hours ago, KimSeeTeo said:

Since the pc system must have a good protective software measure to avoid any illegal vote, the actual results could not be explained.

I suppose this is susceptible to the interpretation that some human is refusing to explain the actual results, but I don't think it's the most natural reading.

[KimSeeTeo]

Thanks Richard for pointing out a reply from Kay, in the  AIP Forum . As this is day time in Asia, and a Sunday weekend, I am pretty occupied with family, although my intellectual heart is with NAP, you guys and with Kay, in AIP. I shall get back to Kay and add some of my comments on her thoughts.

Yes, indeed, the pc system ought to have an answer of why there are rejected votes, we call illegal votes, of 1477 and 282. As far as the technician and the programmer(of an outside consulting party) were concerned, these numbers didn't seem to bother them that much. It might make sense to regard those "illegal" votes as blanks, as mooted by Kay, and ignored. After all, they probably were not caused by humans as the pc was supposed to override errors or correct mistakes of humans, if any. Some others suggested use of newer pc systems which could provide error free voting process, with zero rejected votes. It may make sense, as the proxy-holders in this instance could carry with them, a few votes to several tens of votes, and any inadvertent errors may result in a big shift toward one or the other. Just because of a wrong hit of button. The pc system could come to a rescue and perfect the flaws of humans. 

Per Joshua, "someone knows but did not provide the answers to the assembly"

10 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

The chair’s reasoning may have been that, by refusing to count the illegal votes, this was disenfranchising those members, which was in this instance enough members to have affected the result. I don’t know that I necessarily agree with this reasoning, but it does not seem absurd.

I would note that, in my view, whether the President acts on his own initiative or in response to a Point of Order has nothing to do with it.

Well, in the future the reason why the votes were, in fact, recorded as illegal votes should be announced to the assembly and recorded in the teller’s report, as required by RONR. That should help with some of these problems. Additionally, if there is a large number of illegal votes, then if another round of voting is necessary it would seem prudent to provide additional instructions to the assembly regarding the proper use of the electronic voting devices.

If there was any reasoning to exclude the illegal votes, nobody seemed to know that. There were apparently arguments on the floor, as told, why the illegal votes were not counted. So the Chair did not explain at all.

I thought if someone felt that the Chair had ruled wrongly, a Point of Order raised in a timely manner, could change the picture or at least cause the matter to become a debate.

Some who had experience in using the latest pc software were saying, it should not even have one illegal vote, as the powerful program could quickly capture it, and perhaps tickle off the voter who had keyed in wrongly.

I don't know what they would do in the future.

 

[KimSeeTeo]

18 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

I think you should avoid using any software that gives you inexplicable results.

Hopefully someday, the organizers would come to their senses, and use more advanced software programs to avoid a repeat of what occurred. 

[KimSeeTeo]

7 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

Kim-See has also posted this question in another forum (the AIP public forum) and AIP President Kay Crews responded with an answer that has a bit of a different take on what happened regarding the 1,477 "illegal" votes.  She wonders, as do some of us, how illegal votes can be cast when using electronic hand held keypads.  She surmised, as did Josh Martin and myself, that perhaps delegates pressed a number which had no corresponding candidate, such as pressing #5 when there are only four candidates.  Josh and I took the position that such a vote amounts to a vote for "someone" not eligible, thus becoming an illegal vote.  Kay theorized, however that it  seems to her much like turning in a blank ballot.... which would not count as a vote at all.  It would amount to an abstention.  Under that scenario, with the 1.477 "illegal" votes being treated as blanks (abstentions) instead of illegal votes, candidate S would have received a majority of the votes cast and would have been properly declared the winner.

That's an interesting...and quite plausible... twist in my opinion. Ultimately, however, unless there is a rule on point, the question of how to treat a vote for a nonexistent candidate should have been for the assembly to decide.  I believe that the chair (since there are presumably no tellers) could make the initial  determination whether to consider such votes as blanks or as illegal votes, but such a question could and maybe should have been put to the assembly to decide.  The chair's decision on that issue was also subject to an appeal under RONR.

Thanks Richard, certainly Kay has a different viewpoint, to refreshen our thinking, If this was what the Chair had in mind in declaring the winner S, then he must be the most brilliant presiding officer. Remember about 2000 pairs of intelligent eyes were watching the giant screen displaying the results. Why nobody protested against S being declared as winner, in the first instance? Where were the opponents and supporters of H?

[KimSeeTeo]

9 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

I guess my impression was not that no one but the computer knows why the votes are illegal. I was under the impression that someone knows, but did not provide this information to the assembly (which is probably even more concerning). As I have already noted, this should be corrected in the future.

Surely the technician who conducted the whole e-voting process and the software programmer should know why the rejected rates were so high. Don't think it's in their interest to provide info which was not asked. The organizers should have gathered some years of experience by now to avoid a repeat in the future. Already twice in 4 years.

[Josh Martin]

12 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

I don't question the chair's ability to raise a point of order on his own, but that isn't the issue to me.  I'm still concerned with the 40 minute delay before the chair reversed himself, without a point of order, and declared that there was no winner and there would be another ballot.  According to Kim-See, other business was clearly conducted during that 40 minute interval.   My issue here is the 40 minute delay between the time the chair declared a winner and the time he reversed himself.   isn't the assembly bound  by the chair's declaration of a winner absent a timely point of order per pages 250-251 and 408-409?  Or does this fall into an exception, such as, perhaps the exceptions on page 251?  I cannot find a clear exception in RONR, but I know the issue has been discussed in this forum.

The only exception I can think of is the argument that, by denying the illegal votes, this amounts to denying those members the right to vote. In this instance, those members’ votes would have affected the result.

4 hours ago, KimSeeTeo said:

Yes, indeed, the pc system ought to have an answer of why there are rejected votes, we call illegal votes, of 1477 and 282. As far as the technician and the programmer(of an outside consulting party) were concerned, these numbers didn't seem to bother them that much. It might make sense to regard those "illegal" votes as blanks, as mooted by Kay, and ignored. After all, they probably were not caused by humans as the pc was supposed to override errors or correct mistakes of humans, if any. Some others suggested use of newer pc systems which could provide error free voting process, with zero rejected votes. It may make sense, as the proxy-holders in this instance could carry with them, a few votes to several tens of votes, and any inadvertent errors may result in a big shift toward one or the other. Just because of a wrong hit of button. The pc system could come to a rescue and perfect the flaws of humans. 

I’m very concerned with this idea that the “illegal” votes should be treated as blanks based on the argument that they “probably were not caused by humans as the pc was supposed to override errors or correct mistakes of humans, if any.” If there is any doubt as to whether these are, in fact, illegal votes, I would strongly lean toward the presumption that they are illegal votes. If the election had been conducted again immediately (as would have been proper) as opposed to 40 minutes later, there would be very little harm in having members vote again, even if the “illegal votes” were actually computer errors. On the other hand, if the assembly chose not to count the illegal votes on the assumption that they were computer errors, then those voters have been disenfranchised.

Of course, better still would have been for those managing the software to explain what had happened, so there could be a proper determination of how to treat these votes. If there was still doubt as to how to count the votes, the facts should have been reported to the assembly, without disclosing how any particular candidate would be affected, and the assembly would have decided.

“If the meaning of one or more ballots is doubtful, they can be treated as illegal if it is impossible for them to affect the result; but if they may affect the result, the tellers report them to the chair, who immediately submits to the assembly the question of how these ballots should be recorded. When reporting doubtful ballots, the tellers must be careful whenever possible not to show how the decision would affect any of the candidates.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 416)

4 hours ago, KimSeeTeo said:

Surely the technician who conducted the whole e-voting process and the software programmer should know why the rejected rates were so high. Don't think it's in their interest to provide info which was not asked. The organizers should have gathered some years of experience by now to avoid a repeat in the future. Already twice in 4 years.

Then in the future it should be asked. If there are over 1,000 “illegal votes” (regardless of the reason), this should be of concern to everyone. Either there are a great number of members who cast votes incorrectly, or the software has a large number of errors. Either of these situations doesn’t seem great.

11 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

Kim-See has also posted this question in another forum (the AIP public forum) and AIP President Kay Crews responded with an answer that has a bit of a different take on what happened regarding the 1,477 "illegal" votes.  She wonders, as do some of us, how illegal votes can be cast when using electronic hand held keypads.  She surmised, as did Josh Martin and myself, that perhaps delegates pressed a number which had no corresponding candidate, such as pressing #5 when there are only four candidates.  Josh and I took the position that such a vote amounts to a vote for "someone" not eligible, thus becoming an illegal vote.  Kay theorized, however that it  seems to her much like turning in a blank ballot.... which would not count as a vote at all.  It would amount to an abstention.  Under that scenario, with the 1.477 "illegal" votes being treated as blanks (abstentions) instead of illegal votes, candidate S would have received a majority of the votes cast and would have been properly declared the winner.

That's an interesting...and quite plausible... twist in my opinion. Ultimately, however, unless there is a rule on point, the question of how to treat a vote for a nonexistent candidate should have been for the assembly to decide.  I believe that the chair (since there are presumably no tellers) could make the initial  determination whether to consider such votes as blanks or as illegal votes, but such a question could and maybe should have been put to the assembly to decide.  The chair's decision on that issue was also subject to an appeal under RONR.

It remains my view that incorrect number presses should be treated as illegal votes. Presumably, the members pressed the wrong button in error. If the members wished to abstain, they did not need to press a button at all. Therefore, this seems more comparable to an illegible ballot than a blank one.

Nonetheless, since RONR provides no clear answer on this point, I concur that the assembly should have made this determination - ideally, without informing the assembly which candidate would benefit.

It would also seem prudent for the assembly to adopt its own rules on this subject in the future.

Edited September 2, 2018 at 01:01 PM by Josh Martin

[Joshua Katz]

5 hours ago, KimSeeTeo said:

Surely the technician who conducted the whole e-voting process and the software programmer should know why the rejected rates were so high. Don't think it's in their interest to provide info which was not asked. The organizers should have gathered some years of experience by now to avoid a repeat in the future. Already twice in 4 years.

The technician, most likely, depending on the program. I'm less confident about the programmer, who can tell you all the reasons votes would be declared illegal, but not what happened in your instance without looking at your data. But neither are members of your assembly, and you shouldn't need to rely on them. You need software that says why votes are illegal. I continue to feel we can't provide much useful advice here other than that.

[KimSeeTeo]

Dear esteemed Parliamentarians,

It seems to me that the problems arising from that Major Event in Chicago were complex, even beyond ordinary Competent Parliamentarians. It involved the Rules of Procedure, Bylaws, the Proxies and finally most elusive PC voting systems, employed there.

We are all quite certain of all the classic rules of procedures. Maybe even quite certain of rules in the Proxies, and the Bylaws. But when the questions arose from the ambiguity and even ambivalent scenarios in respect of technology employed, we could be stuck there and then. Imagine the poor Presiding Officer, whom we respect as an International President of some 28 years of leadership experience in his country, had to tussle with this complex situation, and make a choice in that nick of time, especially to declare S as the first Winner. Then, after whatever had ensued, or upon the advise of the Parliamentarian, an RP, he had to reverse his decision and to cause a re-balloting, and ...the uproar.

See, we are now debating substantially on the Rejects, per se. Who's to know more about what could crop up by such a large number of rejects in 1477 and 282, as to determine a winner? It was mind-boggling to me, when I was asked such a humongous question, the details of which I had no idea, but just based on factual input and a little additional info, here and there. I am sorry, I can't add anything on what transpired. Even if I asked anyone, the answer may depend on the psychological mindset of a supporter of S or H. That won't be helpful.

I am so appreciated of all of you, Joshua, Josh Martin, and Richard to offer your highly regarded viewpoints, and thankful of Richard to ask me to come here. 

In Asia today, I am really alone, trying to make sense of all kinds of elections when I read them, anywhere, and ...having nobody to spar with intellectually with, always. This Region is not up to speed in this sense, yet. Maybe even for a very long time to come.

Come to think of it, as we move forward to say, Edition 12 of the RONR, the bulk of that esteemed authority has to include this aspect of the continuing change in line with the popularity of e-technology. There could be a lot of cases which come up, where even credentialed Parliamentarians may be stuck in case of marginal vote, as occurred in Chicago, among 2000 delegates. We may not blame anyone, even the untrained Presiding Officer or the inexperienced RP, but just no luck that the situation was not that clear, that is, the margin was not large enough to cause a Certainty in the first Declaration by the Chair. Well, well the next time, this luck or lacking thereof, may repeat. As we lead others in this line of very cold educational field, we must all be well prepared for this unkind and expected scenario, coming up in the future, anywhere in the world.

My deep appreciation to all of you, once again, fine gentlemen.

Cheers.

KimSee.

 

On 9/2/2018 at 8:56 PM, Josh Martin said:

The only exception I can think of is the argument that, by denying the illegal votes, this amounts to denying those members the right to vote. In this instance, those members’ votes would have affected the result.

I’m very concerned with this idea that the “illegal” votes should be treated as blanks based on the argument that they “probably were not caused by humans as the pc was supposed to override errors or correct mistakes of humans, if any.” If there is any doubt as to whether these are, in fact, illegal votes, I would strongly lean toward the presumption that they are illegal votes. If the election had been conducted again immediately (as would have been proper) as opposed to 40 minutes later, there would be very little harm in having members vote again, even if the “illegal votes” were actually computer errors. On the other hand, if the assembly chose not to count the illegal votes on the assumption that they were computer errors, then those voters have been disenfranchised.

Of course, better still would have been for those managing the software to explain what had happened, so there could be a proper determination of how to treat these votes. If there was still doubt as to how to count the votes, the facts should have been reported to the assembly, without disclosing how any particular candidate would be affected, and the assembly would have decided.

“If the meaning of one or more ballots is doubtful, they can be treated as illegal if it is impossible for them to affect the result; but if they may affect the result, the tellers report them to the chair, who immediately submits to the assembly the question of how these ballots should be recorded. When reporting doubtful ballots, the tellers must be careful whenever possible not to show how the decision would affect any of the candidates.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 416)

Then in the future it should be asked. If there are over 1,000 “illegal votes” (regardless of the reason), this should be of concern to everyone. Either there are a great number of members who cast votes incorrectly, or the software has a large number of errors. Either of these situations doesn’t seem great.

It remains my view that incorrect number presses should be treated as illegal votes. Presumably, the members pressed the wrong button in error. If the members wished to abstain, they did not need to press a button at all. Therefore, this seems more comparable to an illegible ballot than a blank one.

Nonetheless, since RONR provides no clear answer on this point, I concur that the assembly should have made this determination - ideally, without informing the assembly which candidate would benefit.

It would also seem prudent for the assembly to adopt its own rules on this subject in the future.

On 9/2/2018 at 7:34 AM, Josh Martin said:

I guess my impression was not that no one but the computer knows why the votes are illegal. I was under the impression that someone knows, but did not provide this information to the assembly (which is probably even more concerning). As I have already noted, this should be corrected in the future.

Surely the technician who conducted the whole e-voting process and the software programmer should know why the rejected rates were so high. Don't think it's in their interest to provide info which was not asked. The organizers should have gathered some years of experience by now to avoid a repeat in the future. Already twice in 4 years.