Multiple Ballots/Multiple Candidates

[Byron Baxter]

RONR is the adopted authority.  The bylaws state the following regarding elections: "In the event that a majority is not achieved, the candidate receiving the lowest vote total will be dropped from the subsequent ballot."  Write in candidates are provided for on the first ballot.  Our bylaws are silent on write in candidates on subsequent ballots. If a candidate received the lowest vote total and was dropped from the subsequent ballot, but received write in votes, are those legal votes, illegal votes, or non votes?

[George Mervosh]

RONR addresses your question:

"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.), p. 441 footnote.

 

[jstackpo]

IMO, since there is no prohibition against write-in votes on any of the ballots taken during second (and third... ) tries, they are always valid, legal votes.   RONR sez that write-ins are always allowed unless there is an express prohibition in the bylaws.   A provision allowing them in one situation is NOT a prohibition in another.

[Gary Novosielski]

55 minutes ago, jstackpo said:

IMO, since there is no prohibition against write-in votes on any of the ballots taken during second (and third... ) tries, they are always valid, legal votes.   RONR sez that write-ins are always allowed unless there is an express prohibition in the bylaws.   A provision allowing them in one situation is NOT a prohibition in another.

I don't think that's clear.  The principles of interpretation tell us:

4)  If the bylaws authorize certain things specifically, other things of the same class are thereby prohibited.

So if the bylaws authorize write-ins specifically on certain ballots, i.e., the first, the chair might well rule that they are thereby prohibited on other ballots. 

Yes, RONR says that restricting the eligibility of dropped candidates can only be accomplished via a bylaws provision, but this is a bylaws provision.  The rule does not require an "express prohibition".  Prohibiting write-ins amounts to such a prohibition.

The verbatim wording of the bylaws might cast more light on this question.  I can imagine language that might go either way.

 

 

[Bruce Lages]

25 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

The verbatim wording of the bylaws might cast more light on this question.  I can imagine language that might go either way.

 

I agree, and would add that more specific language to clearly reflect the intent of the organization is also warranted. I can see a reasonable interpretation that "the candidate receiving the lowest vote total will be dropped from the subsequent ballot" is not equivalent to RONR's statement of "making the dropped nominee ineligible for election so as to render illegal any subsequent votes cast for that nominee." If the goal of the organization is the latter, they should say so explicitly.

I would also note that it is not clear from the original post that prohibiting write-in votes on subsequent ballots is in fact a bylaw provision of this organization. There is a presumably exact quote from the bylaws, but then only a non-quoted statement that write-in votes are provided for on the first ballot.

[Richard Brown]

2 hours ago, Byron Baxter said:

Write in candidates are provided for on the first ballot.  Our bylaws are silent on write in candidates on subsequent ballots. If a candidate received the lowest vote total and was dropped from the subsequent ballot, but received write in votes, are those legal votes, illegal votes, or non votes?

Byron, as other comments suggested, please quote the exact bylaws provisions regarding write-in candidates. Please quote exactly, don't paraphrase.

[Gary Novosielski]

1 hour ago, Bruce Lages said:

I agree, and would add that more specific language to clearly reflect the intent of the organization is also warranted. I can see a reasonable interpretation that "the candidate receiving the lowest vote total will be dropped from the subsequent ballot" is not equivalent to RONR's statement of "making the dropped nominee ineligible for election so as to render illegal any subsequent votes cast for that nominee." If the goal of the organization is the latter, they should say so explicitly.

1

I agree that dropping the lowest candidate is not equivalent to making him ineligible.  But I think prohibiting write-ins on the second and subsequent ballots (if that is indeed what the bylaws provide) would amount to the same thing.

Making a candidate ineligible, as distinguished from invalidating any votes for that candidate, is a distinction without a difference.  Again, the rule in RONR seems to require only a provision to that effect, not a specific or explicit one.

Edited February 18, 2019 at 05:47 PM by Gary Novosielski

[Atul Kapur]

As interesting as this discussion is, I am not sure that, in the bigger picture, it matters -- unless the write-in candidate wins.

Whether the votes for the write-in candidate are legal or illegal, they all count as votes cast. I do not have the book in front of me but, as I recall, to be declared elected, someone needs to receive a majority of all votes cast, both legal and illegal.

 

[Josh Martin]

2 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

As interesting as this discussion is, I am not sure that, in the bigger picture, it matters -- unless the write-in candidate wins.

Whether the votes for the write-in candidate are legal or illegal, they all count as votes cast. I do not have the book in front of me but, as I recall, to be declared elected, someone needs to receive a majority of all votes cast, both legal and illegal.

This is entirely correct, however, I think it matters in that, if the rule actually makes the dropped candidates ineligible, members are presumably more likely to change their vote to a candidate who has not been dropped.

[Byron Baxter]

20 hours ago, Bruce Lages said:

 "the candidate receiving the lowest vote total will be dropped from the subsequent ballot" is not equivalent to RONR's statement of "making the dropped nominee ineligible for election so as to render illegal any subsequent votes cast for that nominee." If the goal of the organization is the latter, they should say so explicitly.

 

This quote clarifies the problem. The bylaws do not state that the dropped candidate becomes ineligible. If the intent of the assembly is that the dropped candidates become ineligible, can this be accomplished by suspending the rules before voting and moving that they become ineligible when dropped from the subsequent ballot or must this be addressed as an amendment to the bylaws?

[Atul Kapur]

Making a candidate ineligible must be in the bylaws. You cannot do that by Suspending the Rules.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 2/18/2019 at 8:53 AM, Byron Baxter said:

The bylaws state the following regarding elections: "In the event that a majority is not achieved, the candidate receiving the lowest vote total will be dropped from the subsequent ballot."  Write in candidates are provided for on the first ballot.

 

1 hour ago, Byron Baxter said:

The bylaws do not state that the dropped candidate becomes ineligible.

Well, what do you think the bylaws mean when they say that the candidate will be dropped from subsequent ballots -- especially if write-ins are allowed only on the first ballot?

[Atul Kapur]

I think that's a matter of interpretation of the bylaws, which I was attempting to avoid doing as that is the reserved for the organization.

Two matters, actually:

1 - whether a person dropped from the ballot is ineligible to be a candidate, and

2 - whether write-ins are prohibited on subsequent ballots.

In both cases, the organization should interpret and then amend the bylaws to avoid confusion in the future.

Edited February 19, 2019 at 06:24 PM by Atul Kapur
Finishing my thought

[Gary Novosielski]

7 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

Well, what do you think the bylaws mean when they say that the candidate will be dropped from subsequent ballots -- especially if write-ins are allowed only on the first ballot?

 

Exactly my point.

3 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

I think that's a matter of interpretation of the bylaws, which I was attempting to avoid doing as that is the reserved for the organization.

Two matters, actually:

1 - whether a person dropped from the ballot is ineligible to be a candidate, and

2 - whether write-ins are prohibited on subsequent ballots.

In both cases, the organization should interpret and then amend the bylaws to avoid confusion in the future.

1

RONR is clear that merely dropping someone from the ballot does not make them ineligible for election.

But if write-ins are in fact prohibited on subsequent ballots (I say if because I don't know what "provided for" means)  then that makes anyone who is not on the ballot ineligible for election.

It makes no sense to insist that a person is eligible for election if there is no way that any legal votes can be cast for that person.  Eligible means not only that if elected they may serve but also that it is possible to elect them.

[Atul Kapur]

2 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

It makes no sense to insist that a person is eligible for election if there is no way that any legal votes can be cast for that person.

It makes no sense to make such a categorical statement when the facts are not known. 😉

Everything rides on the "IF"

2 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

But if write-ins are in fact prohibited on subsequent ballots

I'm not making that assumption. IF we find out that the bylaws clearly say that, then I agree with you.

[Richard Brown]

On 2/18/2019 at 7:53 AM, Byron Baxter said:

RONR is the adopted authority.  The bylaws state the following regarding elections: "In the event that a majority is not achieved, the candidate receiving the lowest vote total will be dropped from the subsequent ballot."  Write in candidates are provided for on the first ballot.  Our bylaws are silent on write in candidates on subsequent ballots. If a candidate received the lowest vote total and was dropped from the subsequent ballot, but received write in votes, are those legal votes, illegal votes, or non votes?

Mr. Baxter, I think that every one of us, in one way or another, has asked that you post the language from the bylaws regarding write in candidates.  I specifically asked you, several posts up, to post the exact language from the bylaws regarding write in candidates.  To  date, you have not done so.

In my opinion that is critical information which we need in order to properly respond to your question.  Without that information, we are really just speculating as to whether and to what extent write in candidates are permitted and whether they are permitted in subsequent ballots.

 

[Shmuel Gerber]

5 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

RONR is clear that merely dropping someone from the ballot does not make them ineligible for election.

Well, RONR is clear that a particular instance of merely dropping someone from the ballot, such as when the assembly votes to suspend the rules for that purpose, does not make that person ineligible for election, for the reason that that can only be done by provision in the bylaws.

However, RONR does not say that a rule in the bylaws that mandates that a candidate be dropped from the ballot does not make that person ineligible for election. I would tend to think that in most cases, that would be the intended purpose and effect of such a rule.

[Byron Baxter]

12 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

Mr. Baxter, I think that every one of us, in one way or another, has asked that you post the language from the bylaws regarding write in candidates.  I specifically asked you, several posts up, to post the exact language from the bylaws regarding write in candidates.  To  date, you have not done so

It has been customary for the assembly to suspend the rules to expedite elections with multiple (6+) candidates. These elections are by ballot vote.

             "A candidate for any office shall be elected upon receiving a majority vote of those present and voting-a quorum being present.  The number of ballots permitted shall be limited to one more than the number of candidates. With each round of voting, the candidate with the fewest number of votes will be dropped from subsequent ballots.  In the event of a tie for the least number of votes, all of the candidates in that tied last position will be dropped from subsequent ballots, as long as two candidates remain.  In the event of a tie for the least number of votes in which dropping all tied candidates would leave fewer than two candidates, that round of  balloting would be repeated and none of the candidates would be dropped. This repeated ballot would not reduce the number of permitted ballots. When only two candidates remain, if no majority has been reached,each candidate-or his representative-may speak to the committee for three minutes before the next vote occurs."

I am sure you can identify many flaws in this bylaw.  Though improbable, it is possible that two candidates tie on the last ballot. The good news is that there is a recently appointed bylaw review committee working on amending the bylaws.

Per the suggestion of Mr. Kapur, the opportunity to revise the bylaws and clarify the intent of organization is at hand.  All of the suggestions and specific language posted will be forwarded to the review committee. Thank you all for your input.

The bylaws are silent on write in candidates. The organization considers write in candidates a a right of membership under the parliamentary authority.

Edited February 20, 2019 at 02:50 PM by Byron Baxter
Write in:

[Joshua Katz]

34 minutes ago, Byron Baxter said:

 I am sure you can identify many flaws in this bylaw.  Though improbable, it is possible that two candidates tie on the last ballot. The good news is that there is a recently appointed bylaw review committee working on amending the bylaws.

 

It seems to me that your bylaws address this situation.

34 minutes ago, Byron Baxter said:

It has been customary for the assembly to suspend the rules to expedite elections with multiple (6+) candidates. These elections are by ballot vote.

 

If this means ignore the rules in the bylaws, your assembly has been violating its rules. 

[J. J.]

11 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

Well, RONR is clear that a particular instance of merely dropping someone from the ballot, such as when the assembly votes to suspend the rules for that purpose, does not make that person ineligible for election, for the reason that that can only be done by provision in the bylaws.

However, RONR does not say that a rule in the bylaws that mandates that a candidate be dropped from the ballot does not make that person ineligible for election. I would tend to think that in most cases, that would be the intended purpose and effect of such a rule.

Intent plays no part in interpreting a bylaw when the text is clear and unambiguous (pp. 588-89).  RONR is clear that the bylaws must specify eligibility for office (p. 447, ll. 8-13, p. 441 fn.) and that only the bylaws may prohibit write-in votes (pp. 441-2, p. 573, ll. 21-25).  I see neither a clause making persons ineligible nor one prohibiting write-in votes at any phase of this election.

There is also this line from the bylaws.

53 minutes ago, Byron Baxter said:

When only two candidates remain, if no majority has been reached,each candidate-or his representative-may speak to the committee for three minutes before the next vote occurs."

There can exist a situation where two candidates remain and do not get a majority because of write-ins for a third eligible person.    A and B are on the ballot; D was dropped after a previous round of voting.  A gets 19 votes, B 17 vote and D, being written in, gets 20 votes.  Note as well that, even if D was ineligible, his votes would be illegal votes, but still used in calculating a majority. 

It would be necessary for the bylaws to provide that write-in votes would not be credited if more than one round of voting is needed.

[Gary Novosielski]

13 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

Well, RONR is clear that a particular instance of merely dropping someone from the ballot, such as when the assembly votes to suspend the rules for that purpose, does not make that person ineligible for election, for the reason that that can only be done by provision in the bylaws.

However, RONR does not say that a rule in the bylaws that mandates that a candidate be dropped from the ballot does not make that person ineligible for election. I would tend to think that in most cases, that would be the intended purpose and effect of such a rule.

Ooh, well, I certainly agree that a suspension of the rules is not sufficient and that a bylaws provision is required.  I've even argued that the bylaws provision need not be explicit as regards ineligibility.  But I don't think that a rule that merely drops someone ought to be considered sufficient without some evidence of additional intent, such as restricting write-in votes.

It would not surprise me to  learn that some bylaws drafters would believe that dropping a candidate from the ballot would make him ineligible, but I think we have the right to assume that diligent drafters would be familiar with the rules in RONR, would know that dropping and ineligibility are not necessarily equivalent and would make clear their intent if, in fact, it was to make the person ineligible.

Or would this only be true in a perfect world?

Edited February 20, 2019 at 05:51 PM by Gary Novosielski

[Nathan Zook]

My immediate question is this:  Suppose candidates A, B, and C are declared as candidates.  On the first round of voting, the votes are distributed A-10, B-8, C-5, D-3, E-2, F-1.  How many rounds of voting are permitted?  Sounds to me like four.

Next question, for ballot 2, are D and E now "candidates" entitled to having their names on the ballot and not required to be written in?  If they are, has the number of permitted rounds been raised to six?  Or seven?

My point is that the statement limiting the number of ballots worse than useless, as a later rule has to clarify that in a 5-3-3 situation, that the ballot is to be repeated.  The clarification itself needs clarification (to me) as to the actual meaning of the words, although the intent seems clearly enough to be to modify the limit on the number of ballots.

So please drop that bit.

Please also review RONR, 11ed, pg 441 ll 5-10 and pg 437 ll 18-30.  I find that short prescription and its defenses to be most persuasive.  I have also found that assembles tend to get very impatient with recalcitrant behavior.  In practice, I don't expect many ballots to be necessary very often at all.  Of course, assemblies tend to be SO impatient that they adopt rules contrary to RONR by dropping the lowest vote-getter.  But do try to be exceptionally crisp regarding the permissibly of "unofficial" candidates on subsequent ballots.  This question has inspired me to open https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/33241-new-candidates-for-later-rounds-of-balloting/, which I am hoping will have an interesting (or at least informative) discussion.

 

 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 2/18/2019 at 8:53 AM, Byron Baxter said:

Write in candidates are provided for on the first ballot.  Our bylaws are silent on write in candidates on subsequent ballots. If a candidate received the lowest vote total and was dropped from the subsequent ballot, but received write in votes, are those legal votes, illegal votes, or non votes?

3

 

On 2/20/2019 at 9:47 AM, Byron Baxter said:

The bylaws are silent on write in candidates. The organization considers write in candidates a a right of membership under the parliamentary authority.

9

These two statements are in direct conflict.  And if the second is accurate, the question in the first is obviously answered, making much of this thread a waste of my and others' time.

OUT.

[Richard Brown]

3 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

These two statements are in direct conflict.  And if the second is accurate, the question in the first is obviously answered, making much of this thread a waste of my and others' time.

I suspect that the second statement is either custom or based on a ruling that write in votes are permitted in subsequent ballots as well as on the first ballot.  I don't know that that necessarily creates a conflict, it may just be this organization's interpretation of a rather strange and strangely worded rule.