Majority

[KimSeeTeo]

On 9/2/2018 at 6:48 AM, 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. 

Very good point, Joshua. No more details to add here, from me. How rejects or even one reject came about, could be a clue to a better management of the elections, in future. All these may become, as you rightly pointed out, unfair elections.

The question, if there were many who could realize these technicalities, surely a Point of Order would have cropped up, during those 40 minutes interim, or better still spontaneously, to say that something was "unfair."

Everyone seemed to agree with the first declaration of results to have S elected, and a done deal!

[KimSeeTeo]

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.

You know, Josh, we're discussing all such technicalities among us who know what's RONR, perhaps through and through, I doubt even a few among the 2000 delegates had much procedural knowledge at all, especially those dissenting ones who rebelled against the re-balloting and the new elected result for H, as winner. Had they known, they could raise a Parliamentary Inquiry or Request for Information to exercise their rights to know more details about the capability of the computer or even of the technician who ran the election process.

[KimSeeTeo]

7 hours ago, KimSeeTeo said:

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.

 

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.

I am in agreement with you, Joshua Martin, to say that the organization should "adopt its own rules" on this subject in future, but the question is how to do it. Even if they had to hire a top notch PRP, who could explain in such fine details as we discuss almost exhaustively here, he or she is not going to more the hearts of any one of the members of the Board of Directors, and henceforth with a plan to revise its Bylaws.In addition, if that organization begins to adopt many own rules, over time, their commonality with other kinds of international clubs, using the same kind of electronic process will be little if not completely gone. We'll be starting a new kind of voting procedure in general whenever, the pc system is adopted for e-voting process. Could the competency of pc literary competency outshine that of classical procedural competency, then? I wonder.

 

[Joshua Katz]

While it might be (although I'm not convinced) that RONR needs to set out more assistance on this, I think the lion's share falls on the organization - not in the adoption of its rules, but in its specifications to software vendors, or choice of software. That is, the parliamentary issues do not change much when we talk about electronic voting, particularly when we're talking about it at a meeting. The issue, as I see it, is that the organization is using software unsuitable for its needs as a deliberative assembly. Nothing in RONR can fix that, it's a matter of telling vendors what RONR and your rules require.

[Josh Martin]

16 hours ago, KimSeeTeo said:

I am in agreement with you, Joshua Martin, to say that the organization should "adopt its own rules" on this subject in future, but the question is how to do it. Even if they had to hire a top notch PRP, who could explain in such fine details as we discuss almost exhaustively here, he or she is not going to more the hearts of any one of the members of the Board of Directors, and henceforth with a plan to revise its Bylaws.In addition, if that organization begins to adopt many own rules, over time, their commonality with other kinds of international clubs, using the same kind of electronic process will be little if not completely gone. We'll be starting a new kind of voting procedure in general whenever, the pc system is adopted for e-voting process. Could the competency of pc literary competency outshine that of classical procedural competency, then? I wonder.

There is no need for the discussion of the fine details discussed here. All that it really comes down to is this: if someone casts a vote in error, should that vote be counted when determining whether one candidate has received a majority? Figure out what your organization thinks the answer to that question should be, and then adopt a rule codifying that position.

Edited September 5, 2018 at 12:38 AM by Josh Martin

[KimSeeTeo]

Let me add some details here about the proxy. If a voting delegate carries just one proxy, that does not represent the delegated voting right of another natural person, per se. But it represents the voting right of one position of elected club officer who was not present at the meeting, and who acted for the club of some 20 or 30 or more members in that club. The proxy is not deemed to be the natural voice of one person, but a collective voice of a group, 20 or 30 members in that club. Therefore, it seems to be a delegation of a delegation of a group decision, now rests as a proxy in the voting delegate. And that this voting delegate, could carry with him, as many as a few hundred proxies, thus representing thousands of ordinary members, who are natural persons. That is allowed in the Bylaws of the Organization. 

Therefore as Josh says, the Organization should decide if a vote cast in error - should that vote be counted toward the majority. But if one voting delegate who has, say, 200 proxies and he casts it incorrectly, it could mean, a major shift of vote count simply because of this one person's human mistake in hitting the keypad. Hence the meaning of a  vote majority has to be re-defined in that organization, without any consideration of the illegal votes, if any, at all. If this definition were accepted, the problems would not have cropped up in that Convention in Chicago, recently.

Yes, selection of a good vendor and a specific high performance or proven program, as Joshua says, is important, in the electronic process. The point is, if the delegates are not well educated with parliamentary procedure, they may not be convinced by our discussions here. I know there are many such good voting programs on the market, but wonder if they work in line with our thoughts.

 

 

 

[Guest Zev]

1 hour ago, KimSeeTeo said:

But if one voting delegate who has, say, 200 proxies and he casts it incorrectly, it could mean, a major shift of vote count simply because of this one person's human mistake in hitting the keypad.

The statement itself is correct. However, no one can help the voter that has committed a mistake and voted for the incorrect candidate.

1 hour ago, KimSeeTeo said:

Hence the meaning of a  vote majority has to be re-defined in that organization, without any consideration of the illegal votes, if any, at all.

Oh, I strongly disagree. The definition of "majority" must not change. What needs to be changed is this organization's Special Rules Of Order on how to use the voting equipment and how to interpret the results generated by the software.

1 hour ago, KimSeeTeo said:

If this definition were accepted, the problems would not have cropped up in that Convention in Chicago, recently.

This may be true. Nevertheless, perhaps in the future a "dry run" (a test) of a vote should be conducted to make sure all delegates are familiar with the equipment and are confident that the result reflects what actually took place. If this confidence is lost then, in my opinion, no amount of knowledge of the rules in this book is likely to provide any relief.

[Atul Kapur]

6 hours ago, KimSeeTeo said:

Hence the meaning of a  vote majority has to be re-defined in that organization, without any consideration of the illegal votes, if any, at all. If this definition were accepted, the problems would not have cropped up in that Convention in Chicago, recently.

I have to disagree with your diagnosis and agree with Mr. Martin.

If your organization had not proxies, the only difference would have been that the raw numbers would jave been 1/10 the numbers you quoted. You would still have had the same problem with your "illegal" votes becase there would have been enough of them to potentially affect the result.

13 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

All that it really comes down to is this: if someone casts a vote in error, should that vote be counted when determining whether one candidate has received a majority?

Quoting him here to emphasize my agreement.

[KimSeeTeo]

7 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

The statement itself is correct. However, no one can help the voter that has committed a mistake and voted for the incorrect candidate.

Oh, I strongly disagree. The definition of "majority" must not change. What needs to be changed is this organization's Special Rules Of Order on how to use the voting equipment and how to interpret the results generated by the software.

This may be true. Nevertheless, perhaps in the future a "dry run" (a test) of a vote should be conducted to make sure all delegates are familiar with the equipment and are confident that the result reflects what actually took place. If this confidence is lost then, in my opinion, no amount of knowledge of the rules in this book is likely to provide any relief.

 

On 9/4/2018 at 3:45 PM, KimSeeTeo said:

I am in agreement with you, Joshua Martin, to say that the organization should "adopt its own rules" on this subject in future, but the question is how to do it. Even if they had to hire a top notch PRP, who could explain in such fine details as we discuss almost exhaustively here, he or she is not going to more the hearts of any one of the members of the Board of Directors, and henceforth with a plan to revise its Bylaws.In addition, if that organization begins to adopt many own rules, over time, their commonality with other kinds of international clubs, using the same kind of electronic process will be little if not completely gone. We'll be starting a new kind of voting procedure in general whenever, the pc system is adopted for e-voting process. Could the competency of pc literary competency outshine that of classical procedural competency, then? I wonder.

 

 

2 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

I have to disagree with your diagnosis and agree with Mr. Martin.

If your organization had not proxies, the only difference would have been that the raw numbers would jave been 1/10 the numbers you quoted. You would still have had the same problem with your "illegal" votes becase there would have been enough of them to potentially affect the result.

Quoting him here to emphasize my agreement.

 

2 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

I have to disagree with your diagnosis and agree with Mr. Martin.

If your organization had not proxies, the only difference would have been that the raw numbers would jave been 1/10 the numbers you quoted. You would still have had the same problem with your "illegal" votes becase there would have been enough of them to potentially affect the result.

Quoting him here to emphasize my agreement.

I just realized my typo error which should have stated, "the meaning of majority vote (not vote majority) has to be re-defined..."Nobody wants to change the definition of the Majority, which is simply "more than half", but a Majority Vote, is More than Half of Those Present and Voting, per se. Since, all 777 delegates were proxyholders, except perhaps for a few Delegates-at-large (who vote for themselves), and they represent close to 30,000 proxies, the outcome of their vote count should exclude all illegal votes, or rejected votes by the pc systems. After all, most or the bulk of the voting voices were "carried" but "not present" at all, while resting in their home countries around the world, and away on the mainland USA. In addition, a good pc system, both the hardware and enabling software, should prevent any rejected or illegal votes, and have zero of them. If not, it's the fault or defect of the system, which should not impact the 'Majority Vote" count. My point here, is to ignore all the so called Illegal votes, even if there is just one such vote.

 

 

2 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

I have to disagree with your diagnosis and agree with Mr. Martin.

If your organization had not proxies, the only difference would have been that the raw numbers would jave been 1/10 the numbers you quoted. You would still have had the same problem with your "illegal" votes becase there would have been enough of them to potentially affect the result.

Quoting him here to emphasize my agreement.

 

2 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

I have to disagree with your diagnosis and agree with Mr. Martin.

If your organization had not proxies, the only difference would have been that the raw numbers would jave been 1/10 the numbers you quoted. You would still have had the same problem with your "illegal" votes becase there would have been enough of them to potentially affect the result.

Quoting him here to emphasize my agreement.

Let me add some details here about the proxy. If a voting delegate carries just one proxy, that does not represent the delegated voting right of another natural person, per se. But it represents the voting right of one position of elected club officer who was not present at the meeting, and who acted for the club of some 20 or 30 or more members in that club. The proxy is not deemed to be the natural voice of one person, but a collective voice of a group, 20 or 30 members in that club. Therefore, it seems to be a delegation of a delegation of a group decision, now rests as a proxy in the voting delegate. And that this voting delegate, could carry with him, as many as a few hundred proxies, thus representing thousands of ordinary members, who are natural persons. That is allowed in the Bylaws of the Organization. 

Therefore as Josh says, the Organization should decide if a vote cast in error - should that vote be counted toward the majority. But if one voting delegate who has, say, 200 proxies and he casts it incorrectly, it could mean, a major shift of vote count simply because of this one person's human mistake in hitting the keypad. Hence the meaning of a  vote majority has to be re-defined in that organization, without any consideration of the illegal votes, if any, at all. If this definition were accepted, the problems would not have cropped up in that Convention in Chicago, recently.

Yes, selection of a good vendor and a specific high performance or proven program, as Joshua says, is important, in the electronic process. The point is, if the delegates are not well educated with parliamentary procedure, they may not be convinced by our discussions here. I know there are many such good voting programs on the market, but wonder if they work in line with our thoughts.

 

 

 

[Gary Novosielski]

I've been following this thread, and it seems to me that it is not so much the definition of majority that is at issue, but firstly whether the voting software can handle the unusual (for RONR) condition where the principle of one-person-one-vote is not upheld, as is sometimes the case where delegates represent varying numbers of constituents. 

A better method, in my experience, is to apportion delegates so that each has an equal number of constituents, but that some member organizations have more delegates than others.  Thus the votes of delegates may be counted simply with each delegate casting one vote.  But I understand that may not be possible in your structure, and in any case, it should be possible to design software to handle virtually any logically consistent rules.

The second and probably larger problem is the high number of illegal votes.  Recall that the sample tellers' report in RONR looks like this:

TELLERS’ REPORT
   Number of votes cast  102
   Necessary for adoption (majority)  52
   Votes for motion  69
   Votes against  32
Illegal votes
  Two ballots against, folded together, rejected  1

In the example, the reason for the illegal vote is reported, and apparently this is not a feature of the software, so it appears to me that this software is incapable of producing a proper report, or at least supply sufficient information that one can be prepared.   

In any case where there is a doubt as to whether a particular ballot should be treated as a legal vote, an illegal vote, or an abstention, the matter is submitted to the assembly for final determination, and without any information about why the ballot is questionable, it will not be possible for them to make an informed decision.

[KimSeeTeo]

20 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

I've been following this thread, and it seems to me that it is not so much the definition of majority that is at issue, but firstly whether the voting software can handle the unusual (for RONR) condition where the principle of one-person-one-vote is not upheld, as is sometimes the case where delegates represent varying numbers of constituents. 

A better method, in my experience, is to apportion delegates so that each has an equal number of constituents, but that some member organizations have more delegates than others.  Thus the votes of delegates may be counted simply with each delegate casting one vote.  But I understand that may not be possible in your structure, and in any case, it should be possible to design software to handle virtually any logically consistent rules.

The second and probably larger problem is the high number of illegal votes.  Recall that the sample tellers' report in RONR looks like this:

TELLERS’ REPORT
   Number of votes cast  102
   Necessary for adoption (majority)  52
   Votes for motion  69
   Votes against  32
Illegal votes
  Two ballots against, folded together, rejected  1

In the example, the reason for the illegal vote is reported, and apparently this is not a feature of the software, so it appears to me that this software is incapable of producing a proper report, or at least supply sufficient information that one can be prepared.   

In any case where there is a doubt as to whether a particular ballot should be treated as a legal vote, an illegal vote, or an abstention, the matter is submitted to the assembly for final determination, and without any information about why the ballot is questionable, it will not be possible for them to make an informed decision.

Thank you, Gary for your input and participation. All ideas are possible for the Organisation, going forward.

In fact, as I was just given to know, by a very seasoned PRP,  that there are excellent e-voting packages now on the market, such as Sunvote, Padgett Comm., and iClicker which have been perfected to give zero rejects, or nil Illegal votes, no matter how silly the delegates had voted, in all silly ways. All mistakes will be "foreclosed". If so, this particular one at the said Organization their voting package in the pc system might not have been updated. 

That means, if there are only two Candidates, in an e-voting process, involving all delegates with proxy votes, the winner will be declared as one who has earned a majority vote, even by one vote, as there won't be any Illegal votes. None. There won't be any more complex discussions like here involving the hardware, software, and skills of technician in situ or program manager, and so on. All these non-parliamentary but technical matters have now been perfected in the electronic voting applications industry. As most of us are well versed and competent in the parliamentary procedure but may not be the up to date in technology knowledge, it is better of us, to presume that the Organization or any others, should use the latest and most up to date program for large scale meetings or conventions, as in this one in question.

That being the case, for the said case, which had occurred some weeks ago now, what had been decided was at least unfortunate. and could not be undone. It simply goes to show that going forward, the major voting process involving hundreds or thousands of proxy delegates, the basic or competent knowledge of parliamentary procedure may not be adequate. Good and proper assumptions must be made, and if anything else still could not be made certain, or at least more certain, then the entire Assembly of all accredited delegates should decide by a vote or otherwise to Suspend (some) Rules, upfront, as the Assembly has all "full and sole power to act". 

Cheers.

 

Edited September 7, 2018 at 01:37 PM by KimSeeTeo