Is 10 of 21 a majority vote?

[Guest Fighter for Rights]

If 10 out of 21 is not a majority (as bylaws required) but it was the highest vote count for the position and certified by the President, can a member call for a recall a month after the election?

[Atul Kapur]

Unless your bylaws say otherwise, no one is elected except by a majority. So your election is not complete, despite the "certification" and a point of order can be raised that the election needs to be completed. This is not really a recall, as the person wasn't actually elected.

By the way, I assume that the leading candidate received 10 votes out of a total of 21 votes cast, rather than just 21 voters present.

[Fighter for Rights]

There were 21 voters present, 20 votes were cast for this office. The leading candidate got 10

[Atul Kapur]

This is still not a majority vote, but the relevant number is a majority of the votes cast (20) rather than of the voters present (21), assuming your bylaws don't say otherwise.

Yes, in this case it's academic because a majority is 11 in both cases, but if you have fewer votes cast, it becomes important.

[Atul Kapur]

As your President is apparently unaware that a majority is required to elect someone to an office, they may also be unaware that this point of order can be raised at any time because it is a continuing breach of the bylaws. I would, however, suggest that you raise it as soon as possible so as to resolve the issue. So the answer is: Yes, you can raise it at a meeting a month after the incomplete election.

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

10 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

As your President is apparently unaware that a majority is required to elect someone to an office, they may also be unaware that this point of order can be raised at any time because it is a continuing breach of the bylaws.

Under which of the Page 251 exceptions to the timeliness requirement does this situation fall?

[Richard Brown]

9 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

As your President is apparently unaware that a majority is required to elect someone to an office, they may also be unaware that this point of order can be raised at any time because it is a continuing breach of the bylaws. I would, however, suggest that you raise it as soon as possible so as to resolve the issue. So the answer is: Yes, you can raise it at a meeting a month after the incomplete election.

 

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

Under which of the Page 251 exceptions to the timeliness requirement does this situation fall?

I share the concern of GWCTD.  It is my understanding that a point of order about an incorrect announcement of a vote result must be raised timely... immediately after the announcement and before the next item of business is taken up.  

The OP does seem to state that the bylaws require a majority vote to elect to office, but a bylaw provision regarding a vote requirement is in the nature of a rule of order.  I don't  believe the breach of such a rule constitutes a continuing breach.

I  would say that it is too late to raise a point of order about the result of the election unless it is within the time period allowed for ordering a recount.  Even then, the issue is probably not with the vote count itself, but the chair's erroneous announcement that Candidate  A had been elected.

I'm fairly certain that a search of the forum will  locate other threads where this issue has been discussed.   If I recall correctly, there have been extensive discussions regarding the difference between a math error in calculating the result of a vote and a mistake by the chair as to the vote required for the adoption of a measure.  I think  the bottom line, though, is that a point of error order as to the chair's incorrect announcement of the result must be raised at the time of the breach.

Edited to  add:  Official Interpretation 2006-18 seems to be applicable here:  http://www.robertsrules.com/interp_list.html#2006_18

Edited October 19, 2018 at 11:45 AM by Richard Brown
Added last paragraph & typographical correction

[Guest Zev]

2 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

I'm fairly certain that a search of the forum will  locate other threads where this issue has been discussed.

This is correct.

2 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

I think  the bottom line, though, is that a point of error as to the chair's incorrect announcement of the result must be raised at the time of the breach.

So far as the current rule concerning this subject this is also correct.

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

Under which of the Page 251 exceptions to the timeliness requirement does this situation fall?

Unfortunately this situation is not one of them.

I have stated my opinion that the election of an individual by way of an incorrect announcement by the presiding officer should be considered one of these exceptions because it has such negative and potentially harmful consequences. The internal politics of an organization is set on its head and the majority is deprived of what would have been rightfully theirs. My hope is that the authors will eventually agree to this line of reasoning. However, until that day arrives we must live with what I consider, this less than appealing result.

[jstackpo]

6 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

However, until that day arrives we must live with what I consider, this [a point of order raised too late] less than appealing result.

But consider the alternative:  If a chair misstated the outcome of a presidential election (whether out of bad arithmetic, lack of parliamentary knowledge, invidious intent, or whatever), and a continuing breach was thus established, and a point of order was raised (and sustained) months or years later, this could call into question all the "official" acts of that president, like signing contracts, authorizing payments, &c.    Lawsuit city, here we come!!!

[Gary Novosielski]

16 hours ago, Fighter for Rights said:

There were 21 voters present, 20 votes were cast for this office. The leading candidate got 10

A "majority vote" means more Yes than No votes.  The number present is irrelevant, as long as a quorum is achieved.

So assuming 10 Yes and 10 No, a majority is not reached, because 10 is not greater than 10.

Edited to add:
And I agree with those who believe that this situation, while unfortunate, does not constitute a breach of a continuing nature, and that a Point of Order would no longer be timely.

Edited October 19, 2018 at 05:24 PM by Gary Novosielski
ADD

[Bruce Lages]

One month is clearly within the quarterly time interval period. If this were a ballot election and if the ballots were securely preserved, would a call for a recount change the view that the result declared by the president could not be corrected?

[George Mervosh]

11 minutes ago, Bruce Lages said:

One month is clearly within the quarterly time interval period. If this were a ballot election and if the ballots were securely preserved, would a call for a recount change the view that the result declared by the president could not be corrected?

If you want your head to spin further on this, Mr. Lages, read this thread and the two or three others that were linked to inside of this.

https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/30033-does-ordering-a-recount-have-other-effects/?tab=comments#comment-173768

 

[Atul Kapur]

42 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

A "majority vote" means more Yes than No votes.

Well, since this is an election, it would be more proper to say that a majority vote is more than half of the votes cast.

There was nothing in the OP to suggest they use approval voting.

[Guest Zev]

15 hours ago, jstackpo said:

Lawsuit city, here we come!!!

Even the Queen Of Hearts would say that this is preposterous.

[Gary Novosielski]

21 hours ago, Bruce Lages said:

One month is clearly within the quarterly time interval period. If this were a ballot election and if the ballots were securely preserved, would a call for a recount change the view that the result declared by the president could not be corrected?

From the facts presented, I see no hint of a suggestion that there was anything wrong with the count.

[Gary Novosielski]

21 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

Well, since this is an election, it would be more proper to say that a majority vote is more than half of the votes cast.

There was nothing in the OP to suggest they use approval voting.

I wasn't suggesting approval voting.  If we consider votes for a given candidate as Yes votes, and votes for anyone else as No votes (for that same candidate) the rules are logically equivalent.

To win an election, then, a candidate must receive more votes than the votes for all others combined.  Ballots for nobody (abstentions) are ignored.

[Bruce Lages]

16 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

From the facts presented, I see no hint of a suggestion that there was anything wrong with the count.

I wasn't implying that there was anything wrong with the count. RONR does not appear to place any restrictions on the reasons for a recount, only a time restriction, and leaves the choice of whether to order a recount or not entirely up to the assembly. My thought was that a recount would allow a second look at the results, make the erroneous call by the chair more obvious, and possibly provide for a correction..

However, in order to spare Mr. Mervosh and the rest of us any further head-spinning from the extensive previous threads referenced - which as I see it didn't really provide a definitive answer to the question - I'll be glad to let my question rest.

[Gary Novosielski]

18 minutes ago, Bruce Lages said:

I wasn't implying that there was anything wrong with the count. RONR does not appear to place any restrictions on the reasons for a recount, only a time restriction, and leaves the choice of whether to order a recount or not entirely up to the assembly. My thought was that a recount would allow a second look at the results, make the erroneous call by the chair more obvious, and possibly provide for a correction..

However, in order to spare Mr. Mervosh and the rest of us any further head-spinning from the extensive previous threads referenced - which as I see it didn't really provide a definitive answer to the question - I'll be glad to let my question rest.

I don't doubt that if the count proved to be wrong, it would present an opportunity to change the result, but what if a recount confirmed that the vote count was stated correctly the first time?

 

[Richard Brown]

5 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

I don't doubt that if the count proved to be wrong, it would present an opportunity to change the result, but what if a recount confirmed that the vote count was stated correctly the first time?

 

That's the question that Mr. Lages said he will not pursue at this time. Did you read the previous linked threads? They are not definitive, but my take away from them is that the recount can be used as a means for correcting the announcement even if the actual count doesn't change. 

That is something that I hope will be clarified in the 12th edition.

[J. J.]

On 10/20/2018 at 11:32 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

From the facts presented, I see no hint of a suggestion that there was anything wrong with the count.

Ah, is not that the purpose of having a recount, to determine if there is something wrong?

I have to come to the conclusion that if has been counted, under the rules, it can, in fact, be recounted, under the rules for recounting votes including those rules on p. 419.   The quarterly time interval would apply.

That said, I would question if this was a counted vote under the rules. Did the chair say, "A has 10 votes, B has 6 votes, and C has 3 votes.  A is elected?"  Did the chair say, "A has the most votes.  He is elected?"