Voting for Multiple Positions - Partial Abstain

[jstackpo]

An association elects candidates to multiple (say 3) positions on a Board on one ballot. 

A special rule of order (NOT in the bylaws) has been adopted that requires the voters to indicate their choices for all the positions, including the possibility of a write-in; i.e. there has to be a vote (in my numerical example) for 3 candidates (no more, no less) on each ballot.

Question:  Is a special rule of order "strong" enough to take away the right to abstain in part (Page 407)?

I think not; such a rule would have to be in the bylaws as it takes away a clear individual right to abstain.

But I would like to hear other's opinions, because a "right to not vote" doesn't seem to carry the same fundamental nature as the right to vote.

Edited October 1, 2018 at 07:24 PM by jstackpo
Changed "standing" to "special" - my original intent.

[George Mervosh]

John, it's been a while (2013) but this was an illuminating discussion.  https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/18115-limiting-the-right-to-partially-abstain/

 

[J. J.]

My initial answer on that thread was based on Q & A 26, National Parliamentarian, 1st Quarter, 2003, pp. 6-7.  The thread refers to a second opinion that was published in 2013.

There is a fundamental difference between an individual right created by RONR, and an individual right that than only be overridden by a bylaw.  For example, a rule limiting the right to vote,  except through a disciplinary suspension, must be placed in the bylaws(p. 406, ll. 25-30).  The rule limiting (or prohibiting) the right of a member to demand a ballot in the case of disciplinary action, could be adopted as a special rule. 

RONR has no language mandating that only way to remove the secret ballot on request rule, as expressed on p. 668, ll.1-3, is to put that in the bylaws; at no point does RONR say that only a bylaw can remove this rule.  Likewise, while a member has a "right to abstain (p. 407,  ll. 12-19)"  nothing says that the right cannot be abridged "except as the bylaws may otherwise provide."

 

 

 

 

[Gary Novosielski]

It seems to me that the right to vote includes the right not to vote, and abridging the right to abstain should have the same requirements as abridging the right to vote.

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

7 hours ago, George Mervosh said:

John, it's been a while (2013) but this was an illuminating discussion.  https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/18115-limiting-the-right-to-partially-abstain/

 

That was a diverting rabbit hole. I am struck by the repetition of this assertion: the right not to vote is as fundamental as the right to vote. It has a certain complementary appeal, but what is the supporting argument? I see it advanced as an axiom and nothing more.

[Guest Zev]

What I understood was that the right to vote or not vote is a fundamental right that has nothing to do with a special rule of order that determines how to count certain ballots. The existence of the special rule did not obstruct in any way the member's right. But perhaps I misunderstood the gentleman's argument. 

[J. J.]

1 hour ago, Guest Zev said:

What I understood was that the right to vote or not vote is a fundamental right that has nothing to do with a special rule of order that determines how to count certain ballots. The existence of the special rule did not obstruct in any way the member's right. But perhaps I misunderstood the gentleman's argument. 

I think that was the argument, in part.

Broadly, the question is can a rule of order in RONR (except for those rules required by RONR to in the bylaws) be superseded by a special rule?  My position is yes, except for those rules required by RONR to in the bylaws.

Edited October 2, 2018 at 06:02 AM by J. J.

[jstackpo]

4 hours ago, J. J. said:

I think that was the argument, in part.

Broadly, the question is can a rule of order in RONR (except for those rules required by RONR to in the bylaws) be superseded by a special rule?  My position is yes, except for those rules required by RONR to in the bylaws.

I presume the "to in" preposition pairs should read "to be in".

[Dan Honemann]

It is certainly true that a special rule of order can effectively deny members the right to abstain since a rule requiring the vote of a majority of the members present (or a majority of the entire membership) can be created by a special rule of order (RONR, 11th ed., p. 404, ll. 20-24).

But that's beside the point. The rule in question here is a rule which effectively denies a member who, for example, supports only two of three candidates the right to vote for the two candidates he supports, since he cannot do so without also voting for someone he does not support. A rule of this sort is a rule which effectively denies a member his right to vote for the candidates of his choice, and such a rule cannot be created except by a bylaw provision.

[J. J.]

11 hours ago, jstackpo said:

I presume the "to in" preposition pairs should read "to be in".

You presume correctly. 

[Guest Zev]

Would it do any good to review the list of fundamental rights and state explicitly that the right to vote and not vote, attend meetings and not attend meetings, etc., are inseparable and one and the same? 

[J. J.]

9 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

It is certainly true that a special rule of order can effectively deny members the right to abstain since a rule requiring the vote of a majority of the members present (or a majority of the entire membership) can be created by a special rule of order (RONR, 11th ed., p. 404, ll. 20-24).

But that's beside the point. The rule in question here is a rule which effectively denies a member who, for example, supports only two of three candidates the right to vote for the two candidates he supports, since he cannot do so without also voting for someone he does not support. A rule of this sort is a rule which effectively denies a member his right to vote for the candidates of his choice, and such a rule cannot be created except by a bylaw provision.

I don't think it denies that right, in the general case.  A member could still write in someone.  They could write in "J. J."  Even if J. J. is not eligible, the member has still complied with that rule.

The member, even without a write in, would know that his ballot will not be credited unless he has voted for the number required in the rules.  This would be similar to the member knowing that if he votes for an ineligible candidate, his ballot will not be credited.   In both cases, the member has the right to vote and exercises it in a way that vote will not be credited.

[J. J.]

4 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

Would it do any good to review the list of fundamental rights and state explicitly that the right to vote and not vote, attend meetings and not attend meetings, etc., are inseparable and one and the same? 

No, at least in the latter case.   It would be possible to have a rule that someone can be punished for not attending meetings.

There are no "fundamental rights" in RONR, but there are "fundamental principles of parliamentary law," and "a basic right of an individual member." 

[Gary Novosielski]

17 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

It is certainly true that a special rule of order can effectively deny members the right to abstain since a rule requiring the vote of a majority of the members present (or a majority of the entire membership) can be created by a special rule of order (RONR, 11th ed., p. 404, ll. 20-24).

But that's beside the point. The rule in question here is a rule which effectively denies a member who, for example, supports only two of three candidates the right to vote for the two candidates he supports, since he cannot do so without also voting for someone he does not support. A rule of this sort is a rule which effectively denies a member his right to vote for the candidates of his choice, and such a rule cannot be created except by a bylaw provision.

I think that nails it.