One Man, One Vote

[Rob Elsman]

Is the fundamental principle of parliamentary law that we colloquially call "one man, one vote" commutative? In other words, does "one man, one vote" necessarily—as a matter of the common parliamentary law—also imply "one vote, one man" in the sense that each vote cast must derive from an act of the will of one, and only one, member of the deliberative assembly?

[Weldon Merritt]

I'm not sure I understand you question. If you mean does the fact that a member gets only one vote mean that the member cannot hold multiple position, the answer is no. RONR clearly allows a board member to hold multiple positions. But the member's vote is his or her individual act (with the possible exception of an instructed delegate to a convention, who must vote as instructed). Even if the member holds more than one position, and the interests of the separate positions may differ, the member must decide how to resolve the differing interest and cast his or her vote accordingly. Or possibly abstain. That may be a good reason for a member not to hold two (or more) positions, but it certainly does not preclude it. Only a bylaws rule ( or higher authority) may do that.

 

[Rob Elsman]

No, that isn't what I mean, but I'm at a loss for words to describe what I mean any better than I already have.  Maybe that's all for the better.  😊

[Guest pair vote]

maybe you mean something like:

an assembly gives one vote to each houshold.

at the meeting the to members of one houshold disagree (vehemently) over a candidate for some position.

how has the household to vote (or abstain)?

in my (limited) opinion the assembly can only try to persuade the couple to sort it out someway or another

[Joshua Katz]

Are we talking about something like unit voting rules?

[Dan Honemann]

10 hours ago, Rob Elsman said:

Is the fundamental principle of parliamentary law that we colloquially call "one man, one vote" commutative? In other words, does "one man, one vote" necessarily—as a matter of the common parliamentary law—also imply "one vote, one man" in the sense that each vote cast must derive from an act of the will of one, and only one, member of the deliberative assembly?

Well, I can't imagine any situation in which a single vote can be cast by two or more members of a deliberative assembly absent some provision in the bylaws (or superior document) which enables it to happen. But then again, I don't have much of an imagination.

Can you provide us with an example of any such situation?

[J. J.]

1 hour ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Well, I can't imagine any situation in which a single vote can be cast by two or more members of a deliberative assembly absent some provision in the bylaws (or superior document) which enables it to happen. But then again, I don't have much of an imagination.

Can you provide us with an example of any such situation?

Isn't this one member, one vote at least effectively established as a fundamental principle of parliamentary law on p. 407, ll. 1-4?

[Rob Elsman]

In the ancient Roman Comitia, or popular legislative assembly, the (toga-wearing-qualified male) citizens of the city of Rome gathered for meetings on the Campus Martius, the military training field located outside the "sacred boundary" of the city.  The citizens lined up in military formations by gens, or clan (whether clan membership was inherited or assigned by the censors did not matter).  When voting on a proposition, each citizen had one judgment to offer, but each clan voted only once (based on the majority opinion within the clan), regardless of the number of members in each clan.  The majority of votes by clan was necessary for the the proposition to be adopted.

If this arrangement existed today, would it be considered to violate the fundamental principle of parliamentary law we commonly call "one man, one vote" as we understand it today?

 

[Byron Baxter]

This topic is of great interest to a society I am in.  A category of membership is "Household" and the debate is does that mean the household gets one vote or do the spouse or partner also get to vote?  Spouses and partners are very active in the society and they consider their right to vote a right of membership.  The board of directors is divided. Can you clear this up?

[Dan Honemann]

50 minutes ago, Rob Elsman said:

In the ancient Roman Comitia, or popular legislative assembly, the (toga-wearing-qualified male) citizens of the city of Rome gathered for meetings on the Campus Martius, the military training field located outside the "sacred boundary" of the city.  The citizens lined up in military formations by gens, or clan (whether clan membership was inherited or assigned by the censors did not matter).  When voting on a proposition, each citizen had one judgment to offer, but each clan voted only once (based on the majority opinion within the clan), regardless of the number of members in each clan.  The majority of votes by clan was necessary for the the proposition to be adopted.

If this arrangement existed today, would it be considered to violate the fundamental principle of parliamentary law we commonly call "one man, one vote" as we understand it today?

 

I don't think that any such arrangement can exist today absent some provision in the bylaws (or superior document) which enables it to happen. It certainly seems to violate some fundamental principle of parliamentary law, and I suppose the one-man one-vote principle is as good as any.  🙂

[J. J.]

2 hours ago, Rob Elsman said:

In the ancient Roman Comitia, or popular legislative assembly, the (toga-wearing-qualified male) citizens of the city of Rome gathered for meetings on the Campus Martius, the military training field located outside the "sacred boundary" of the city.  The citizens lined up in military formations by gens, or clan (whether clan membership was inherited or assigned by the censors did not matter).  When voting on a proposition, each citizen had one judgment to offer, but each clan voted only once (based on the majority opinion within the clan), regardless of the number of members in each clan.  The majority of votes by clan was necessary for the the proposition to be adopted.

If this arrangement existed today, would it be considered to violate the fundamental principle of parliamentary law we commonly call "one man, one vote" as we understand it today?

 

No, because it is one member, one vote.  Each clan is a member. 

[Dan Honemann]

1 hour ago, J. J. said:

No, because it is one member, one vote.  Each clan is a member. 

Well, actually it's one person, one vote. On page 407 (to which you have referred) we are told that it is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that "each person who is a member of a deliberative assembly is entitled to one—and only one—vote on a question." (The emphasis is mine.)

As far as general parliamentary law is concerned, a member of a deliberative assembly is a person entitled to full participation in its proceedings (RONR, 11th ed., p. 3), and I have no doubt but that, as used here, the word "person" is to be taken as referring to a human being, which I think is its primary definition. Bylaws can confer membership upon entities other than individual human beings, but nothing short of a bylaw will do it.

 

[Gary Novosielski]

21 hours ago, Rob Elsman said:

Is the fundamental principle of parliamentary law that we colloquially call "one man, one vote" commutative? In other words, does "one man, one vote" necessarily—as a matter of the common parliamentary law—also imply "one vote, one man" in the sense that each vote cast must derive from an act of the will of one, and only one, member of the deliberative assembly?

I believe the commutativity is implied.  In order for one vote to be cast by more than one person, each would have to cast less than one vote.  The principle would then be "one man, one vote, or less."

[J. J.]

8 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

 

As far as general parliamentary law is concerned, a member of a deliberative assembly is a person entitled to full participation in its proceedings (RONR, 11th ed., p. 3), and I have no doubt but that, as used here, the word "person" is to be taken as referring to a human being, which I think is its primary definition. Bylaws can confer membership upon entities other than individual human beings, but nothing short of a bylaw will do it.

 

Won't the bylaws always provide the definition of a member?

[Dan Honemann]

6 hours ago, J. J. said:

Won't the bylaws always provide the definition of a member?

Yep, they certainly should unless defined elsewhere in some superior governing document.

[Nathan Zook]

On 6/7/2020 at 8:42 AM, Byron Baxter said:

This topic is of great interest to a society I am in.  A category of membership is "Household" and the debate is does that mean the household gets one vote or do the spouse or partner also get to vote?  Spouses and partners are very active in the society and they consider their right to vote a right of membership.  The board of directors is divided. Can you clear this up?

First, as stated, the definition of member is in the bylaws.  The Roman mention mentioned above functioned as if the clans were the members, and the vote of the clan was determined by the members of the clan. 

I have seen this type of rule in religious communities.  These bylaws have been typically drawn up based upon practical matters of wanting to avoid pocket voting by children living at home and the like.  The question of how the vote of the household is determined is then often implied by the doctrine of the community.

As usual, this works find until there is a serious dispute.  And, absent a serious dispute, it is typically impossible to convince the community to make a formal declaration in the bylaws about what is to be done.

To me there are three options:  1) Define voting members as individuals subject to some restriction.  Note that I am specifying "voting" members.  There are doctrinal implications to being a member of some religious societies, and there is no requirement that all members be permitted to vote.  (In particular "members" might be younger than eighteen, and there might be legal implications if they voted on certain business matters.)  2) Define voting members as households, and specify in the bylaws what member of a household speaks and votes for the household.  (Or perhaps allow all members to speak, but one to vote.)  3) Define voting as by household, and specify that the vote is shared by the members of the household.  Again, you might want to think carefully about allowing, for instance, minor children to claim a share of the vote of the household.  This creates fractional votes, and the tellers will need to be prepared with spreadsheet software to handle it.

Note that I exclude the Roman model.  The immediate problem is that a two-member household might well split--and then what?  Is that an abstention?  This creates weird dynamics in the case where a two-thirds vote is required to pass a motion.

As for what your current bylaws mean, we would need to see the exact wording to offer our views, but in the end, the society will have to interpret them (or amend them) itself.

 

[Byron Baxter]

 

7 hours ago, Nathan Zook said:

As usual, this works find until there is a serious dispute.  And, absent a serious dispute, it is typically impossible to convince the community to make a formal declaration in the bylaws about what is to be done.

In the overall importance of the society's business, this does not rise to a pressing and serious issue.  However, several board members disagree with that opinion. This  does serve as a reminder to the current board and members that ambiguous language must be avoided at all costs to prevent future unnecessary debate.