Recount a Rising Counted vote?

[jstackpo]

Page 410, lines 31-35 endorse a recount of a "rising counted vote". 

How is that to be done when, as is most common, the tellers count their side of the room (say) and report their number to the chair?  They can't just do it again since that would amount to retaking the vote "by the same form of voting". 

Looks to me that the cited lines overstate the possibilities. 

(Granted, p. 411, lines 19-21 help a bit but in a rather rare situation;  p. 410 is still too sweeping in my view.)

[Josh Martin]

21 minutes ago, jstackpo said:

Page 410, lines 31-35 endorse a recount of a "rising counted vote". 

How is that to be done when, as is most common, the tellers count their side of the room (say) and report their number to the chair?  They can't just do it again since that would amount to retaking the vote "by the same form of voting". 

Looks to me that the cited lines overstate the possibilities. 

(Granted, p. 411, lines 19-21 help a bit but in a rather rare situation;  p. 410 is still too sweeping in my view.)

It seems to me that a recount of a rising vote may only be taken in the event that tally sheets are taken and kept, and it is the marks on the tally sheets which are recounted.

[jstackpo]

I suppose, but I have difficulty seeing how "tally sheets" would be used or constructed for a rising counted vote.   Unless, maybe, in a big meeting, the tellers would count sub-sections of the meeting area, write their numbers down, and a chief teller would do the sum for the report to the chair. Not much room for error there.

I'd think the largest (potential) error would be in the tellers doing the counting, and a "recount" doesn't redo that. Guess the "re-vote" would next be by ballot, if a majority agreed to take the time and do that.

Or rent reliable electronic clickers in the first place.

[Dan Honemann]

Mr. Martin has it right. A recount of the votes taken by a counted rising vote can be ordered only if written records such as tellers' tally sheets were prepared in counting the votes, and these records have been retained.

[Guest Zev]

Curiosity killed the cat: Why does the rule say that verifying a vote must be taken by a different form (page 410)? If a majority wish to simply take it again surely the majority cannot be accused of any dilatory tactic. Perhaps this is related to the concept that the assembly cannot adopt the same identical motion during the same session?

[Glen Hall]

Quote

It should be noted that a vote is never retaken by the same form of voting, although, in a counted rising vote, a ballot, or a roll call, a recount of the votes or of the tellers' tabulations can be ordered to ensure that the count is precisely correct as reported. (RONR p. 410, ll 31-35)

There is some ambiguity in my understanding of this quote from RONR.  There appears to be an exception to "retaken by the same form of voting" by the word "although."  The "although" references a "counted rising vote" and says that a "recount of the votes or of the tellers' tabulations can be ordered..."  Does a "recount" of the votes allow the presiding officer to retake the vote by the same method to be sure the count was correct if the assembly doubts the count was correct?  This would be especially true if the there were no tellers' tabulations to review, or if the tellers' counts were doubted.

An example might be that in a large assembly hall with a center aisle dividing the delegates approximately in half, with multiple rows on each side, one row near the center on one side may be accidentally skipped.  If the error is discovered prior to the announcement of the result, no problem.  But if the presiding officer announces a result and a point of order is raised and the point well taken that a row was overlooked, could not the vote be repeated in the same way?

The presiding officer might also appoint new tellers ...

[Rob Elsman]

I agree that the language used in the book can be a little confusing.

There is a distinction to be made between retabulating a vote that has been taken and retaking a vote. The former is permitted and appropriate if the assembly doubts the accuracy of the original scrutiny, recording, and tabulating; in this case, the vote is not retaken. The latter may be done to make more certain of the result of an uncounted vote or to afford voters the opportunity to vote in secret when the original vote was not secret; in this case, the same method cannot be used, since the same method would not accomplish the purpose for retaking the vote.

[Atul Kapur]

On 1/11/2020 at 12:45 PM, Glen Hall said:

An example might be that in a large assembly hall with a center aisle dividing the delegates approximately in half, with multiple rows on each side, one row near the center on one side may be accidentally skipped.  If the error is discovered prior to the announcement of the result, no problem.  But if the presiding officer announces a result and a point of order is raised and the point well taken that a row was overlooked, could not the vote be repeated in the same way?

Well, this would be a case of members being improperly prevented from voting. If a Point of Order is made in a timely manner ("immediately following the chair's announcement of the vote") or, if it is not timely, there are enough members so denied that it might affect the results of the vote, then the initial vote is invalid, so the assembly is not actually "retaking" the vote by the same method because there was no valid vote to retake. (RONR 11th ed., p. 252, lines 19-30)

Edited January 13, 2020 at 04:14 AM by Atul Kapur

[Glen Hall]

Insightful answer.  Thanks.