Motion to limit consideration to the top X choices/alternates

[Guest Bill Woodruff]

We elect somewhat large boards at our biennial members meeting. These boards consist of 11 members (3 alternates) and 7 members (2 alternates).

On the nominating ballot more than half of our membership received at least 1 vote and all receiving votes are read. The next ballot is considered our "first ballot" and only names receiving 5 or more votes are read by the teller. A first ballot tellers report reads something like...

Votes cast 1100

Votes needed to elect 101

Joe Blow 98

John Doe 96

etc.

While not allowed on the "nominating ballot" after the "first ballot" a member inevitably rises to ask that we consider only the top 23 choices. We have always been instructed that we must consider at least "double plus one" the amount we need to elect (if we have already elected 5 in the first 4 ballots, the 5th ballot must consider the top 13 names, since we need 6 more.)

Our bylaws state that the next three vote-getters on the final ballot automatically become alternates; we do not need to elect alternates.

At our last meeting, we had elected 8 in the first 5 ballots, but when trying to elect the last 3 we were told we needed to consider not 7, but 13 (3positions + 3 alternates = 6, double 6plus one).

Please help me sort this out. do we need double plus one positions or positions plus alternates. Finally what if there were only one position left? We would have to consider at least 4, right? (one position, three alternates. )

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

Where did this "double-plus-one" idea come from? It's not from Robert's Rules. If it was adopted at some time as a special rule of order, it may be Rescinded or Suspended. Otherwise, it's a custom and may be suspended by majority vote.

[Josh Martin]

6 hours ago, Guest Bill Woodruff said:

On the nominating ballot more than half of our membership received at least 1 vote and all receiving votes are read. The next ballot is considered our "first ballot" and only names receiving 5 or more votes are read by the teller. A first ballot tellers report reads something like...

Votes cast 1100

 Votes needed to elect 101

I am a bit unclear on how these numbers were determined. What is “votes cast” in the example provided? Is it the number of ballots cast, or something else? If it is something else, how many ballots were cast? Additionally, do your bylaws have their own rules on the number of votes needed for election?

I would also note that, so far as RONR is concerned, the teller’s report is read in its entirety. I suppose this could be waived by unanimous consent, or the society could adopt a special rule of order that only those  names with with five or more votes are read.

6 hours ago, Guest Bill Woodruff said:

Please help me sort this out. do we need double plus one positions or positions plus alternates. Finally what if there were only one position left? We would have to consider at least 4, right?

Possibly neither. So far as RONR is concerned, no one may be dropped from consideration. If your bylaws have their own rules regarding this subject, follow those rules.

(Technically, an assembly may suspend the rules to drop candidates from the ballot, but this doesn’t really do much of anything. Members are still free to vote for any eligible candidate, unless the bylaws provide otherwise.)

4 hours ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said:

Where did this "double-plus-one" idea come from? It's not from Robert's Rules. If it was adopted at some time as a special rule of order, it may be Rescinded or Suspended. Otherwise, it's a custom and may be suspended by majority vote.

If this is merely a custom, it would fall to the ground upon a member raising a Point of Order, since it conflicts with RONR.

Edited October 4, 2018 at 06:25 PM by Josh Martin

[Guest Bill]

Votes cast means number of votes. Each person is voting for up to 11 names (votes) per ballot. Once one (or more) person has received enough to be elected that reduces until we elect all 11 positions.

 

My numbers were wrong above. 100 members would cast 1100 votes and 51 would be required for election. 

[Atul Kapur]

I think it would be better to say that 100 votes were cast, rather than 1100. 100 is, after all, the basis on which you are determining that a majority of votes is 51.

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, Guest Bill said:

Votes cast means number of votes. Each person is voting for up to 11 names (votes) per ballot. Once one (or more) person has received enough to be elected that reduces until we elect all 11 positions.

 

My numbers were wrong above. 100 members would cast 1100 votes and 51 would be required for election. 

Thank you for this clarification. In RONR’s terminology, this would be described as 100 votes cast, not 1,100 votes cast.

”In an election of members of a board or committee in which votes are cast in one section of the ballot for multiple positions on the board or committee, every ballot with a vote for one or more candidates is counted as one vote cast, and a candidate must receive a majority of the total of such votes to be elected.” (RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 441)

[Guest Bill]

Right, but some people only choose to vote for 9 or 10 on that opening "nominating" ballot, reducing the number of votes needed to elect. If 100 people cast only 999 votes (as opposed to the maximum possible of 1100) it would only take 50 to elect.

 

But back to the original question...the limitation to consider x number of candidates is the only thing that allows us to complete the election. If there are 100 members (or in our organizational meetings, literally tens of thousands) to choose from and we're trying to get the LAST position for a board, if you never limit to the top x choices you can guarantee you'll never elect that one last person.

It must be in our bylaws to facilitate elections.

So would that apply to alternates? I suppose it depends on wording in the bylaws.

[Joshua Katz]

2 minutes ago, Guest Bill said:

Right, but some people only choose to vote for 9 or 10 on that opening "nominating" ballot, reducing the number of votes needed to elect. If 100 people cast only 999 votes (as opposed to the maximum possible of 1100) it would only take 50 to elect.

 

Not so far as RONR is concerned. If your rules specify this, then it's a question of bylaw interpretation, but if the rules in RONR apply, election requires that a majority of voting ballots include the candidate, and is not based on how many votes are recorded on each ballot.

3 minutes ago, Guest Bill said:

But back to the original question...the limitation to consider x number of candidates is the only thing that allows us to complete the election. If there are 100 members (or in our organizational meetings, literally tens of thousands) to choose from and we're trying to get the LAST position for a board, if you never limit to the top x choices you can guarantee you'll never elect that one last person.

 

Well, either your rules permit the limitation and prohibit write-ins (without which the limitation doesn't do much) or they do not. If they do not, this would be a good reason for changing them so that they do. Or it might not be, reasonable minds can differ (I think, personally, that if you stay long enough, people coalesce or leave, and that this is a lesser risk than denying people the right to vote, but that judgment call is for your organization, not for me.) 

In any case, as far as to how many candidates you should be limited, we have no idea. It depends on the motion made and your background rules. There's no answer we can give you to your "double plus one" question because nothing about the rule appears in RONR or is derived from any source we know. It may be derived from your rules, or may be something someone made up one time and people have repeated ever since. 

[Atul Kapur]

2 minutes ago, Guest Bill said:

Right, but some people only choose to vote for 9 or 10 on that opening "nominating" ballot, reducing the number of votes needed to elect. If 100 people cast only 999 votes (as opposed to the maximum possible of 1100) it would only take 50 to elect.

No. The determining factor is how many people cast at least one vote (See the RONR quote from Josh Martin above). So it doesn't matter if the 100 voters each only vote for one person ( = 100 votes) then it still takes 51 votes to elect. If one of them casts a completely blank ballot, then you only have 99 voters and in that case it takes 50 votes to elect.

 

32 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

”In an election of members of a board or committee in which votes are cast in one section of the ballot for multiple positions on the board or committee, every ballot with a vote for one or more candidates is counted as one vote cast, and a candidate must receive a majority of the total of such votes to be elected.” (RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 441)

 

[Gary Novosielski]

8 hours ago, Guest Bill said:

Right, but some people only choose to vote for 9 or 10 on that opening "nominating" ballot, reducing the number of votes needed to elect. If 100 people cast only 999 votes (as opposed to the maximum possible of 1100) it would only take 50 to elect.

If the rules in RONR apply, the nomination process, whether by individual nominations or by ballot, is completed before the first round of election voting takes place.  So the first round is not a "nomination".

In any case, on the first ballot, whether I vote for 11 names or only one name, that counts as one vote cast.  If I cast a blank ballot, or no ballot, or one indicating no preferences at all, I have abstained, and that is not counted as a vote cast.  So the number required to elect on that, or any subsequent ballot, is a majority of the votes cast--in other words a majority  of all the ballots that show a preference for at least one name.

So in your example, if everyone voted for 11 names, that is still 100 votes cast, and the number required to elect is 51, so those with 98 or 96 votes would be elected.

The rules do not change in subsequent rounds of balloting where some candidates have been elected, and the max number to vote for has been reduced.   Each ballot with at least one name is one vote cast, and a majority is needed to elect.  If the same number of voters cast votes on the second round, the number needed to elect will not change.  If fewer or more people vote, fewer or more votes may be needed to elect, but the number of candidates does not have any effect on this number.

[Josh Martin]

20 hours ago, Guest Bill said:

Right, but some people only choose to vote for 9 or 10 on that opening "nominating" ballot, reducing the number of votes needed to elect. If 100 people cast only 999 votes (as opposed to the maximum possible of 1100) it would only take 50 to elect.

Do your bylaws actually say this? This is not correct so far as RONR is concerned.

20 hours ago, Guest Bill said:

But back to the original question...the limitation to consider x number of candidates is the only thing that allows us to complete the election. If there are 100 members (or in our organizational meetings, literally tens of thousands) to choose from and we're trying to get the LAST position for a board, if you never limit to the top x choices you can guarantee you'll never elect that one last person.

It must be in our bylaws to facilitate elections.

 So would that apply to alternates? I suppose it depends on wording in the bylaws.

You will need to look to your bylaws to answer this question. As noted previously, candidates cannot be dropped except by virtue of a rule in the bylaws.

Edited October 7, 2018 at 02:54 PM by Josh Martin

[Richard Brown]

50 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

You will need to look to your bylaws to answer this question. As noted previously, candidates cannot be dropped except by virtue of a rule in the bylaws.

 This statement is correct in that a candidate cannot actually be dropped as a candidate and therefore become ineligible for election without a provision in the bylaws permitting it. However, I think it is important to point out that a motion or Special Rule of Order may be adopted that removes certain candidates, such as those with the fewest number of votes, from subsequent BALLOTS. In such a case, those persons, although no longer listed on the ballot, are still eligible to be elected by virtue of write-in votes.

[Guest Bill]

Thank you all for all your help on this. Limiting the numbers read in the teller report is in our bylaws, but I cannot find limiting consideration to top candidates anywhere. 

I can only assume it is custom, and a necessary one. In our larger biennial conference there are somewhere in the neighbourhood of 14000 potential candidates and 6000 voters present (not a quorum, I know!)

Groups of 300-400 would get behind "their guy" for hours. 

I assume this means we need to add this to our bylaws.

Have any of you seen such similar customs or bylaws?

[Joshua Katz]

33 minutes ago, Guest Bill said:

Have any of you seen such similar customs or bylaws?

Yes, I'm a member of an organization that drops the lowest vote-getter on each round of voting (and uses approval voting, but that's another story). It sometimes causes trouble - one challenge is making sure it's clear that the dropped lowest vote-getter is not a write-in with one vote, but rather the lowest vote-getter actually on the ballot. I dislike it, personally, because of the potential, without it, for support to coalesce around a compromise - no one's first choice, but someone everyone can live with. That's why I find it more palatable, by the way, when combined with approval voting.

[Guest Bill]

From our Parliamentarian:

Hi, Bill:

There is no provision in RONR for eliminating candidates or limiting the slate to the top 15 or so.  However, it is an established practice by the CoG to do so.  The rule has never been officially codified, but it is our “law.”  I thought I had read somewhere about the two candidates per open position, but I couldn’t find it.  That too, could be one of our established (unwritten) rules.

 

[Joshua Katz]

If your custom violates any rules, it falls to the ground on a point of order. But, again, you can drop people off the ballot; as Mr. Martin described above. But you can't stop people from voting for them, anyway.

[Josh Martin]

3 hours ago, Guest Bill said:

I can only assume it is custom, and a necessary one. In our larger biennial conference there are somewhere in the neighbourhood of 14000 potential candidates and 6000 voters present (not a quorum, I know!)

If a quorum is not present, elections may not be held.

3 hours ago, Guest Bill said:

I assume this means we need to add this to our bylaws.

If it is desired to continue this practice, yes.

3 hours ago, Guest Bill said:

Have any of you seen such similar customs or bylaws?

Yes.

1 hour ago, Guest Bill said:

From our Parliamentarian:

Hi, Bill:

There is no provision in RONR for eliminating candidates or limiting the slate to the top 15 or so.  However, it is an established practice by the CoG to do so.  The rule has never been officially codified, but it is our “law.”  I thought I had read somewhere about the two candidates per open position, but I couldn’t find it.  That too, could be one of our established (unwritten) rules.

A custom is not sufficient.

“When repeated balloting for an office is necessary, individuals are never removed from candidacy on the next ballot unless they voluntarily withdraw—which they are not obligated to do.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 441)

“An organization could suspend the rules, or adopt a special rule of order, so that the nominee with the fewest votes is dropped from the list of nominees for succeeding ballots in the expectation that voters will then confine their choice to the remaining nominees. Only a bylaws provision, however, could make the dropped nominee ineligible for election so as to render illegal any subsequent votes cast for that nominee. (See pp. 430–31.)” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 441, footnote)

“However, if a customary practice is or becomes in conflict with the parliamentary authority or any written rule, and a Point of Order (23) citing the conflict is raised at any time, the custom falls to the ground, and the conflicting provision in the parliamentary authority or written rule must thereafter be complied with. If it is then desired to follow the former practice, a special rule of order (or, in appropriate circumstances, a standing rule or a bylaw provision) can be added or amended to incorporate it.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 19)

[Gary Novosielski]

On 10/8/2018 at 4:13 PM, Guest Bill said:

From our Parliamentarian:

Hi, Bill:

There is no provision in RONR for eliminating candidates or limiting the slate to the top 15 or so.  However, it is an established practice by the CoG to do so.  The rule has never been officially codified, but it is our “law.”  I thought I had read somewhere about the two candidates per open position, but I couldn’t find it.  That too, could be one of our established (unwritten) rules.

 

There certainly is a provision for eliminating candidates in RONR, as a person calling themselves a Parliamentarian would be expected to know.  This does not make them ineligible for election, but it could be expected to have an effect on the outcome.  There is no rule about two candidates per open position. 

Also, a parliamentarian should know that an unwritten rule or law is not a rule or law at all, but rather a "custom", which would immediately fall to the ground upon the raising of a point of order.  Customs do not prevail against actual rules, including rules in the parliamentary authority (presumably RONR).