Election Question

[Stanley Simpson]

We had a vacancy due to "Personnel Issues" and need to have an election. Our bylaws call for a 2/3 of eligible voters present. Total of members present is 28. Candidate #1 gets 18 votes. Candidate #2 gets 9 votes and there is 1 abstention. Does the abstention go to the majority or to nobody. Im getting conflicting answers

[George Mervosh]

See FAQ#6 https://robertsrules.com/frequently-asked-questions/#faqs 

[Stanley Simpson]

So Candidate #1 would not have reached 2/3's? I believe that is the way i am reading this

[George Mervosh]

5 minutes ago, Stanley Simpson said:

So Candidate #1 would not have reached 2/3's? I believe that is the way i am reading this

That's the way I see it as well.

[Richard Brown]

6 minutes ago, Stanley Simpson said:

So Candidate #1 would not have reached 2/3's? I believe that is the way i am reading this

That is most likely correct, but we need to know the exact wording of that provision in your bylaws in order to be sure. Please quote the relevant bylaw section verbatim, exactly as it appears in your bylaws. Please do not paraphrase.

[Stanley Simpson]

" Any vacancy among elected Fire Fighting Officers and among Administrative Officers shall be filled by election, not later than the first regular meeting following the creation of the vacancy. Election shall be by an affirmative vote of not less than two-thirds of the eligible voters present"

[Josh Martin]

Just now, Stanley Simpson said:

" Any vacancy among elected Fire Fighting Officers and among Administrative Officers shall be filled by election, not later than the first regular meeting following the creation of the vacancy. Election shall be by an affirmative vote of not less than two-thirds of the eligible voters present"

Based on these additional facts, I concur with my colleagues that with the election results provided, the result would be that no candidate is elected and another round of voting would need to be held. The organization may wish to consider changing this rule in the future, but this appears to be the result as the rule is currently written.

If this is not a hypothetical situation, however, then the chair presumably made an announcement regarding the result of the election, and it may be too late at this time to challenge that announcement, even if it was in error.

[Guest Puzzling]

18 minutes ago, Stanley Simpson said:

" Any vacancy among elected Fire Fighting Officers and among Administrative Officers shall be filled by election, not later than the first regular meeting following the creation of the vacancy. Election shall be by an affirmative vote of not less than two-thirds of the eligible voters present"

I miss an notification of a coming election (something that according to RONR should happen), how do the members know that there will be an election the next regular meeting? Or are they done in the meeting invitation? But even that is not even always possible. (It surely is not possible at the previous meeting)

Also 2/3 vote of the present voters members is quite an high requirement. 

 

 

[Richard Brown]

I concur as well, based on the quote from the bylaws, that no one was elected. There was a regular “2/3 vote“ (twice as many votes for one candidate as for the other one and also two thirds of the votes cast), but not “a vote of 2/3 of the eligible members present“

Edited January 21, 2021 at 02:57 PM by Richard Brown
Typographical correction

[Guest Puzzling]

Reading it again I am also wondering how the vote was organized.

It looks like a ballot vote where you can vote for one person 

But especially for a 2/3 or other supermajority  vote, I think a repeated  vote for or against a candidate should be taken till somebody gets enough votes, but am puzzling on how to combine that with a secret vote

A bit like filling blanks but then the blank needs a supermajority vote.

[Josh Martin]

9 minutes ago, Guest Puzzling said:

Reading it again I am also wondering how the vote was organized.

It looks like a ballot vote where you can vote for one person 

But especially for a 2/3 or other supermajority  vote, I think a repeated  vote for or against a candidate should be taken till somebody gets enough votes, but am puzzling on how to combine that with a secret vote

A bit like filling blanks but then the blank needs a supermajority vote.

In an election, when a ballot vote is taken, members may vote for any eligible candidate, rather than voting "yes" or "no" on individual candidates. This is the proper course of action even if the bylaws require an unusually high threshold for election.

[Guest Puzzling]

57 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

In an election, when a ballot vote is taken, members may vote for any eligible candidate, rather than voting "yes" or "no" on individual candidates. This is the proper course of action even if the bylaws require an unusually high threshold for election.

What is needed (because of the high threshold) is that voters can vote for more than one candidate (or even for all candidates) not sure if the ballot was organized this way (it doesn't look like this)

Even if it is only for a single post. 

If more than one candidate reaches the threshold the candidate that got most votes gets elected 

[Josh Martin]

17 minutes ago, Guest Puzzling said:

What is needed (because of the high threshold) is that voters can vote for more than one candidate (or even for all candidates) not sure if the ballot was organized this way (it doesn't look like this)

Even if it is only for a single post. 

If more than one candidate reaches the threshold the candidate that got most votes gets elected 

Nonsense. If there is only one position to be filled, then members can only vote for one candidate. The fact that the organization's rules provide for a higher voting threshold does not change how the rules on this matter in RONR operate.

If an organization wishes to adopt rules such as those you have suggested, I suppose it is free to do so, but how the rules in RONR work for an election by ballot is that if there is only one position up for election, members vote for one candidate. If no candidate is elected, then another round of voting is held, and so on and so forth until a candidate reaches the required threshold.

I don't understand this insistence that it is "needed" to completely revamp this procedure. The facts presented show that Candidate #1 just barely fell short of the required threshold, so it may well be that Candidate #1 will be elected after a second round of voting.

Edited January 21, 2021 at 04:39 PM by Josh Martin

[Richard Brown]

I agree with Mr. Martin.  Although this organization's voting threshold for election (or for filling a vacancy) is rather high, it is not unreasonable and I see no reason for its members to change anything.  I also note that there were apparently two candidates in this election.  I see  nothing improper nor anything that needs changing.

[Gary Novosielski]

10 hours ago, Guest Puzzling said:

What is needed (because of the high threshold) is that voters can vote for more than one candidate (or even for all candidates) not sure if the ballot was organized this way (it doesn't look like this)

Even if it is only for a single post. 

If more than one candidate reaches the threshold the candidate that got most votes gets elected 

Well, that would be impossible without an amendment to the bylaws, and if that's the case, it would be easier to just remove all the problematic language, from "Election shall be..." through the end of the sentence.