Chair's Ruling.

[KimSeeTeo]

In a separate thread, I had received quite an exhaustive discussion series on the topic of a Majority Vote with or without considering the so called "Illegal votes" in the context of a large annual convention of 2000 delegates with registered 777 proxy holders, employing a pc voting system, with the use of keypads, which was allowed by the Bylaws. I am grateful of what has been discussed and debated there in the past few days. 

Here, I'm seeking the viewpoints of how a parliamentarian should help with the Chair's ruling in that specific context, and in line of what had convened, what do parliamentarians here perceive what had gone awry. Firstly, I shared with my take on the said scenario, based on what I had been given the factuals and told, since I was not at the said Convention, and did not watch the Business Meetings online, as well. Feel free to point out your different viewpoints, as fellow Parliamentarians.

.....

At the Region 8 elections for the position of International Director, there were only 2 candidates,  H and S. When the results were announced, S had a favorable margin of 29 votes over H, and was declared as Winner. Nobody raised a Point of Order. There was applause for the winner S, who was congratulated by many supporters on her side.

Then the meeting went on to conduct the elections of Regions 10, 12 and 14, without a hitch. Then there was a recess of about 10 mins. 

When the assembly reconvened, the Chair announced that there was a mistake made in the declaration of the R8 winner, saying that the winner did not earn her majority vote, and apologized, and there was no Point of Order raised. Then the Chair ordered a re-balloting for R8 for the same two candidates, H and S. There was also no Point of Order raised.

The results of the re-balloting showed H had won, with a majority vote, and the Chair declared H as the Winner. There was again no Point of Order raised.

The meeting went on to elect other senior officers' positions, without a hitch, and adjourned sine die.

Based on the scenario described, was the Chair's rulings correct, in the first instance and the second instance, for R8?

I feel that the Chair's ruling was correct in the first instance and he should have stayed with that decision. His decision was accepted by the winner who was present and did not object. Neither did the loser H object. Then the Chair's decision to re-ballot was incorrect, and could have been objected by a Point of Order. In any case, the convention had adjourned and the R8 Director had been installed in position. The ruling had been carried, going forward, until the next Convention.

Cheers.

 

 

[Josh Martin]

39 minutes ago, KimSeeTeo said:

Based on the scenario described, was the Chair's rulings correct, in the first instance and the second instance, for R8?

Well, the chair didn’t actually make a ruling in the first instance. The announcement of the result of a vote is not a ruling. I believe, however, that the chair’s announcement was in error. RONR provides that illegal votes are counted for the purposes of determining a majority.

“All ballots that indicate a preference—provided they have been cast by persons entitled to vote—are taken into account in determining the number of votes cast for purposes of computing the majority. Each such ballot is credited to the voter's preferred candidate or choice if the meaning of the ballot is clear and the choice is valid. Unintelligible ballots or ballots cast for an unidentifiable or ineligible candidate are treated instead as illegal votes —that is, they are counted as votes cast but are not credited to any candidate or choice. Similarly, 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.” (RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 416-417)

“The chair's judgment as to the more numerous side in a vote, or whether there are two thirds in the affirmative, also is not a ruling and is not subject to appeal.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 259)

In this case, a Point of Order would have been appropriate, since the issue was not merely a matter of count, but whether the illegal votes should have been included. An Appeal could then have been made from that ruling.

The second part is trickier. In the second case, the chair appears to be (although the chair should have been clearer) ruling the election null and void on the basis that, in fact, no majority was obtained and therefore, the election is incomplete. The problem is that in order to do so, there must be a continuing breach. The fact that the chair was in error about whether a candidate had a majority (which is the only reason the chair gave) is not a continuing breach. It could be argued that disenfranchising the members who cast the illegal votes constitutes a continuing breach because their votes could have affected the result. I might find this argument more persuasive if the chair had, in fact, ruled that the illegal votes would not be counted, but this does not appear to be the case. The chair merely declared a candidate elected. We do not know exactly what led to that erroneous conclusion, and therefore it is not known whether the chair excluded the illegal votes or merely made an error in the math, or in the understanding of a majority.

Therefore, I am inclined to suggest that the chair’s ruling was in error, as I do not think there was a continuing breach in this instance.

I would note that at least some members of the society appear to believe that illegal votes should not be counted. The society is free to adopt a rule to that effect if it wishes.

I would also note that whether the candidates objected has no parliamentary significance. So far as RONR is concerned, candidates have no more rights with respect to an election than any other member.

Edited September 8, 2018 at 12:34 PM by Josh Martin

[KimSeeTeo]

Your response is convincing enough, based on what we knew. There were of course, something else not disclosed. Who had actually informed the Chair, during the recess or otherwise, for him to revoke his first decision, and declared it null and void. It was impossible for him to suddenly become wiser - about what constitutes a majority, or what was a counting error or whether the illegal votes are to be considered. If it were an information by another, even from his Parliamentarian, he should have made it known,  in his "ruling" at least to justify what he first announced was incorrect. This alert must be made known, too, to be seen in public. Otherwise, justice was not seen to be done. 

Even though the candidate could not object, but as a voting candidate himself , H should be able to raise his Point of Order, or Request for Inquiry provided he knew of his rights, there and then, when S was first declared winner. So also, S should have raised her Point of Order, when H was later, declared winner.

If the Chair could feel or realize about the issue of disenfranchising those who had voted, that piece of advice should in fact come from his Parliamentarian, in my view. I do not feel the Chair was so wise as to have known that point, you inferred to. Else, he wouldn't have made that first mistake, and subsequent mistakes.

This means, good knowledge, adequate preparation, quick-wittedness, spontaneity on the part of the Parliamentarian, and the Chair in particular, and at least among some voting delegates,  are crucial factors to evoke at the right moment, to help all major elections.

That resultant scenario was disappointing to many. Perhaps for a long time to come.

 

 

[Richard Brown]

I have been wanting to make some comments and ask some questions about this situation for the past few days but have not been able to do so because of time constraints.  I do hope to return later today or tomorrow.

For now, I will say that it has been my opinion from the beginning, and continues to be my opinion, that the original declaration of the chair that candidate S was the winner stands and that S was indeed elected to the position.  I see no evidence that whatever mistakes the chair might have made in that initial declaration constitute a continuing breach.  Those mistakes were therefore waived when no-one raised a timely point of order.  The chair had no authority to order a re-vote some 40 minutes later after conducting intervening business.  I believe the re-vote  was improper and that the chair's subsequent declaration that H had won the election was null  and void and constitutes a continuing breach.   S had already been elected to the position.  The question is, "What can be done about it, short of going to court, since the convention is over?". 

[KimSeeTeo]

15 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

I have been wanting to make some comments and ask some questions about this situation for the past few days but have not been able to do so because of time constraints.  I do hope to return later today or tomorrow.

For now, I will say that it has been my opinion from the beginning, and continues to be my opinion, that the original declaration of the chair that candidate S was the winner stands and that S was indeed elected to the position.  I see no evidence that whatever mistakes the chair might have made in that initial declaration constitute a continuing breach.  Those mistakes were therefore waived when no-one raised a timely point of order.  The chair had no authority to order a re-vote some 40 minutes later after conducting intervening business.  I believe the re-vote  was improper and that the chair's subsequent declaration that H had won the election was null  and void and constitutes a continuing breach.   S had already been elected to the position.  The question is, "What can be done about it, short of going to court, since the convention is over?". 

15 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

I have been wanting to make some comments and ask some questions about this situation for the past few days but have not been able to do so because of time constraints.  I do hope to return later today or tomorrow.

For now, I will say that it has been my opinion from the beginning, and continues to be my opinion, that the original declaration of the chair that candidate S was the winner stands and that S was indeed elected to the position.  I see no evidence that whatever mistakes the chair might have made in that initial declaration constitute a continuing breach.  Those mistakes were therefore waived when no-one raised a timely point of order.  The chair had no authority to order a re-vote some 40 minutes later after conducting intervening business.  I believe the re-vote  was improper and that the chair's subsequent declaration that H had won the election was null  and void and constitutes a continuing breach.   S had already been elected to the position.  The question is, "What can be done about it, short of going to court, since the convention is over?". 

Please take your time, to respond to my Question here, or even on my previous thread, as you may be pretty occupied with the recent activities at the NTC in Baffalo, I feel.

I tend to agree with your take on the outcome which was as described, and which was not proper, in my view. Since it is an international organization, which is privately owned and members from over 135 countries, are granted privileges only and likewise officers too, are granted privileges only, don't feel they could take any action in any court of law, against the Decision made at the recent Convention. It may be possible if someone were to petition to the Board, to allow a review of the decision so made, but that's a different matter, and also most unlikely, as it had never happened, before.

Actually, as I alluded to, this was a repeat of a similar situation which happened in KL, Malaysia, in 2014. At that time, I was a voting delegate at the same kind of annual convention, which had the highest presence of delegates about 2,600, since it was held outside of N America, for the first and only time, in about 80 years of annual conventions. I raised the only Point of Order then, at that convention, and it was well taken, by the Chair, after the assembly stood at ease for some minutes, for the Chair to consult with the (acting) Parliamentarian. It settled all issues, amicably. No uproar, only overwhelming applause from all sectors at the huge convention hall. That explains why some delegates had contacted me again this time to ask why it was not decided in the same way.

In 2014, the results of one Region 4 elections then where in 2 phases,

Phase 1, there were 3 candidates, as follows,

Candidate A  5202 votes

Candidate B  6812 votes

Candidate C  6136 votes

Rejected votes 238 votes (we call Illegal votes)

The Assembly moved to go on to the Second Phase, by dropping off A,

Phase 2 results, as follows

Candidate B 9044 votes

Candidate C 9222 votes

Rejected votes 412 votes (higher than that in Phase 1)

Candidate C was first declared as winner, and then very quickly (after some minutes or so later) the Chair revoked his decision to re-ballot, saying there was no majority vote.

Majority vote would be 9339 (assuming, including the rejected votes)

When the Chair was about to ask for a re-ballot,  I "yelled" 3X for a Point of Order, from the end of the huge Hall. I was then asked to go to the front to explain my Point, by the Chair. I asked why the rejects in the  Second Phase, could be higher that that of First Phase Election. If no reasons were forthcoming, I asked that the Chair's decision on Candidate C should stay. As he could not explain why, to all present I believed, (never explained), the Chair accepted my Point as well taken! It made my day. 

There were zero complaints thereafter, for 3 intervening years. No repeats of similar incidents, until recently in Chicago.

N.B. All other details as regards the proxy voting, bylaws and e-voting process using the keypads for each of the registered delegates have remained the same, as I'm aware. 

Thank you, Richard, et al.,

 

 

 

 

15 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

I have been wanting to make some comments and ask some questions about this situation for the past few days but have not been able to do so because of time constraints.  I do hope to return later today or tomorrow.

For now, I will say that it has been my opinion from the beginning, and continues to be my opinion, that the original declaration of the chair that candidate S was the winner stands and that S was indeed elected to the position.  I see no evidence that whatever mistakes the chair might have made in that initial declaration constitute a continuing breach.  Those mistakes were therefore waived when no-one raised a timely point of order.  The chair had no authority to order a re-vote some 40 minutes later after conducting intervening business.  I believe the re-vote  was improper and that the chair's subsequent declaration that H had won the election was null  and void and constitutes a continuing breach.   S had already been elected to the position.  The question is, "What can be done about it, short of going to court, since the convention is over?". 

 

Thank you, Richard for your tinuin

 

15 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

I have been wanting to make some comments and ask some questions about this situation for the past few days but have not been able to do so because of time constraints.  I do hope to return later today or tomorrow.

For now, I will say that it has been my opinion from the beginning, and continues to be my opinion, that the original declaration of the chair that candidate S was the winner stands and that S was indeed elected to the position.  I see no evidence that whatever mistakes the chair might have made in that initial declaration constitute a continuing breach.  Those mistakes were therefore waived when no-one raised a timely point of order.  The chair had no authority to order a re-vote some 40 minutes later after conducting intervening business.  I believe the re-vote  was improper and that the chair's subsequent declaration that H had won the election was null  and void and constitutes a continuing breach.   S had already been elected to the position.  The question is, "What can be done about it, short of going to court, since the convention is over?". 

Your response is convincing enough, based on what we knew. There were of course, something else not disclosed. Who had actually informed the Chair, during the recess or otherwise, for him to revoke his first decision, and declared it null and void. It was impossible for him to suddenly become wiser - about what constitutes a majority, or what was a counting error or whether the illegal votes are to be considered. If it were an information by another, even from his Parliamentarian, he should have made it known,  in his "ruling" at least to justify what he first announced was incorrect. This alert must be made known, too, to be seen in public. Otherwise, justice was not seen to be done. 

Even though the candidate could not object, but as a voting candidate himself , H should be able to raise his Point of Order, or Request for Inquiry provided he knew of his rights, there and then, when S was first declared winner. So also, S should have raised her Point of Order, when H was later, declared winner.

If the Chair could feel or realize about the issue of disenfranchising those who had voted, that piece of advice should in fact come from his Parliamentarian, in my view. I do not feel the Chair was so wise as to have known that point, you inferred to. Else, he wouldn't have made that first mistake, and subsequent mistakes.

This means, good knowledge, adequate preparation, quick-wittedness, spontaneity on the part of the Parliamentarian, and the Chair in particular, and at least among some voting delegates,  are crucial factors to evoke at the right moment, to help all major elections.

That resultant scenario was disappointing to many. Perhaps for a long time to come.