Resolution stating no fewer than a certain number of new members before election

[Kimmie G]

An organization votes annually to take in a certain number of members where each candidate must receive 2/3 vote. During an annual intake of new members there are a total of 19 candidates and the organization wants to take all 19 candidates. 

To ensure that all 19 candidates meet the 2/3 vote requirement, can the organization pass a resolution before the election that intake of new members that year shall be no fewer than 19 new members then use a ballot listing each of the 19 candidates which require members to select all 19 names or completely abstain?

We are well aware of the rule that a member cannot be compelled to vote.   

Edited March 29, 2021 at 09:21 AM by Kimmie G
I was not finished typing and accidentally hit the return button which submitted the post.

[Dan Honemann]

No. 

[Guest Puzzling]

No, the current members have a right to vote, also to vote against some (or all) of the candidates.

A motion to make it an "you can only select all or none of the candidates" is out of order. 

 

3 hours ago, Kimmie G said:

To ensure that all 19 candidates meet the 2/3 vote requirement

No you cannot ensure that, that is as undemocratic as it can get. Members should be able to vote as they find right, no compulsion to ensure some result.

[Josh Martin]

3 hours ago, Kimmie G said:

An organization votes annually to take in a certain number of members where each candidate must receive 2/3 vote. During an annual intake of new members there are a total of 19 candidates and the organization wants to take all 19 candidates. 

If the organization does, in fact, want to take all 19 candidates, then all 19 candidates will be elected.

If you're trying to design a ballot which forces people to vote a certain way, that seems to suggest some doubt as to whether the organization does, in fact, want to take all 19 candidates.

3 hours ago, Kimmie G said:

To ensure that all 19 candidates meet the 2/3 vote requirement, can the organization pass a resolution before the election that intake of new members that year shall be no fewer than 19 new members then use a ballot listing each of the 19 candidates which require members to select all 19 names or completely abstain?

No, of course not.

As I understand the facts, this is not an election to office, but rather an election of new members. The organization may admit all, some, or none of the new members under its rules. Please correct me if this is mistaken.

As a result, the ballot should be designed so that members vote "yes" or "no" on each candidate, and members are free to vote on each candidate as they see fit. Members are also free to abstain for some or all of the candidates if they wish. Each candidate will be treated as an independent question, and each candidate receiving at least 2/3 of the votes in the affirmative will be admitted to membership. Abstentions for a particular candidate are not counted in determining the result.

Edited March 29, 2021 at 01:04 PM by Josh Martin

[Kimmie G]

How could they all be elected with a 2/3 vote?

3 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

If the organization does, in fact, want to take all 19 candidates, then all 19 candidates will be elected.

[Josh Martin]

Just now, Kimmie G said:

How could they all be elected with a 2/3 vote?

Again, as I understand the facts, this isn't an election to office where these candidates are competing for a limited number of seats (for example, electing five people to five openings on a board out of 19 candidates).

Rather, my understanding of the facts is that the organization is free to elect as many (or as few) candidates as they wish. In such an election, the candidates are not competing against each other. Therefore, rather than simply voting "for" particular candidates, members would vote "yes" or "no" on each individual candidate, and those candidates who receive at least a 2/3 vote in the affirmative would be elected. On such a ballot, it is entirely possible all 19 candidates would receive a 2/3 vote.

[Kimmie G]

16 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

Again, as I understand the facts, this isn't an election to office where these candidates are competing for a limited number of seats (for example, electing five people to five openings on a board out of 19 candidates).

Rather, my understanding of the facts is that the organization is free to elect as many (or as few) candidates as they wish. In such an election, the candidates are not competing against each other. Therefore, rather than simply voting "for" particular candidates, members would vote "yes" or "no" on each individual candidate, and those candidates who receive at least a 2/3 vote in the affirmative would be elected. On such a ballot, it is entirely possible all 19 candidates would receive a 2/3 vote.

Additional clarity: the organization initially voted to take up to 15 new members this year. They received 19 very worthy candidates. Ordinarily, the candidates  would all be competing for the same positions. The organization intends to rescind its prior vote to take up to 15 to now take all 19 understanding that the vote  to rescind must for pass with 2/3 vote.  Assuming that it does, and the motion to take all 19 passes,  it sounds like the ballot will need to allow members to choose up to 19. 

“45:25      In elections, “for” and “against” spaces or boxes may not be used. They are applicable only with respect to votes on motions. In an election, a voter can vote against one candidate only by voting for another who has been nominated or by writing in the name of another candidate.”

Why add yes or no next to each candidate’s name?

Edited March 29, 2021 at 01:28 PM by Kimmie G
Typo

[Josh Martin]

30 minutes ago, Kimmie G said:

Additional clarity: the organization initially voted to take up to 15 new members this year. They received 19 very worthy candidates. Ordinarily, the candidates  would all be competing for the same positions. The organization intends to rescind its prior vote to take up to 15 to now take all 19 understanding that the vote  to rescind must for pass with 2/3 vote.  Assuming that it does, and the motion to take all 19 passes,  it sounds like the ballot will need to allow members to choose up to 19. 

“45:25      In elections, “for” and “against” spaces or boxes may not be used. They are applicable only with respect to votes on motions. In an election, a voter can vote against one candidate only by voting for another who has been nominated or by writing in the name of another candidate.”

Why add yes or no next to each candidate’s name?

The rules you are referring to involve an election to office. In an election to office, an organization is electing (for example) five persons to serve as members of a board of directors (or perhaps electing one person to serve as President). In such a case, the organization must ultimately elect five people (no more and no fewer), or one person, or whatever the case might be. In such a case, because the organization has to elect someone, it makes no sense to permit members to vote "no," since "no" can't serve in the office.

If the organization is instead electing new members to join the society, the organization is under no obligation to elect any of them. Under ordinary circumstances, it can elect as many (or as few) candidates as it wishes. If the resolution which limits the organization to 15 candidates is not rescinded, that would complicate things slightly, since in that event the organization could elect up to 15 candidates (but could still elect fewer, if it wished). It would likely be advisable to adopt additional rules to handle this, but I imagine the manner in which this would be handled is that if more than 15 candidates receive a 2/3 vote, those candidates receiving the greatest number of votes are elected, and a second vote may need to be held for candidates who are tied.

Under these circumstances, this is not an election of the sort described in 45:25. Rather, each candidate is effectively a separate main question of "Shall Candidate X be admitted as a member of the society?" Members can vote "yes" or "no" on each of those candidates as they see fit, and those persons who receive at least a 2/3 vote in the affirmative are admitted as members of the society.

So as I have said, if the organization actually wants to admit all of these people as members, then that will be the result of the election.

Just to be clear, however, even if the society was electing people to serve in multiple officer positions, you still can't force people to vote for a certain number of candidates. If you were electing five board members, a member could still choose to vote for only three candidates. The manner in which those votes are counted is quite different, and you would not vote "yes" or "no." It is still very possible to elect multiple candidates with a majority vote (or even a 2/3 vote) on a single ballot, although it may well be that additional rounds of voting are needed.

"Although it is the duty of every member who has an opinion on a question to express it by his vote, he can abstain, since he cannot be compelled to vote. By the same token, when an office or position is to be filled by a number of members, as in the case of a committee, or positions on a board, a member may partially abstain by voting for less than all of those for whom he is entitled to vote." RONR (12th ed.) 45:3

"In an election of members of a board or committee in which votes are cast in one section of the ballot for multiple positions on the board or committee, every ballot with a vote in that section for one or more candidates is counted as one vote cast, and a candidate must receive a majority of the total of such votes to be elected. If more candidates receive such a majority vote than there are positions to fill, then the chair declares the candidates elected in order of their vote totals, starting with the candidate who received the largest number of votes and continuing until every position is filled. If, during this process, a tie arises involving more candidates than there are positions remaining to be filled, then the candidates who are tied, as well as all other nominees not yet elected, remain as candidates for the repeated balloting necessary to fill the remaining position(s). Similarly, if the number of candidates receiving the necessary majority vote is less than the number of positions to be filled, those who have a majority are declared elected, and all other nominees remain as candidates on the next ballot." RONR (12th ed.) 46:33

Edited March 29, 2021 at 01:57 PM by Josh Martin

[Dan Honemann]

Kimmie G, your organization has certainly conducted elections to membership in the past. Hasn't some procedure been established for doing this, perhaps just as a matter of custom? In any event, I'm sure that "yes" or "no" voting was used, whether voting was by voice or by ballot.

 

[Kimmie G]

17 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

The rules you are referring to involve an election to office. In an election to office, an organization is electing (for example) five persons to serve as members of a board of directors (or perhaps electing one person to serve as President). In such a case, the organization must ultimately elect five people (no more and no fewer), or one person, or whatever the case might be. In such a case, because the organization has to elect someone, it makes no sense to permit members to vote "no," since "no" can't serve in the office.

Thank you very much for your thorough  explanation.  

The organization was treating this as an election which is incorrect based on your feedback. 

Assuming the rescission of the original vote to take “up to 15” passes, based on this feedback, the new motion should not be “to take all 19” but rather “to take up to 19” using a ballot allowing the option to vote on up to 19 names, each with a “yes” or “no.”

In either event, voting would end after the first ballot and the successful candidates would be those who received 2/3 vote.

[Kimmie G]

4 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Kimmie G, your organization has certainly conducted elections to membership in the past. Hasn't some procedure been established for doing this, perhaps just as a matter of custom? In any event, I'm sure that "yes" or "no" voting was used, whether voting was by voice or by ballot.

Yes, the organization has conducted new member elections in the past. This is a local club of a national organization. The national body changed the threshold for new members from majority to 2/3 in the last year. This is the first time our local club is voting using that much higher standard. 

The national body requires new member vote by secret written ballot on which the name of each candidate is to be listed in alphabetical order on the ballot along with the name of the person who nominated the candidate.  We have not added “yes” or “no” next to each name on the ballot in the past,  not because it was prohibited by the national body but because we were not aware that was the proper form. 
 

[Dan Honemann]

6 minutes ago, Kimmie G said:

Yes, the organization has conducted new member elections in the past. This is a local club of a national organization. The national body changed the threshold for new members from majority to 2/3 in the last year. This is the first time our local club is voting using that much higher standard. 

The fact that a two-thirds vote is now required for election to membership doesn't change anything with respect to the manner in which the election is to be conducted.

 

9 minutes ago, Kimmie G said:

The national body requires new member vote by secret written ballot on which the name of each candidate is to be listed in alphabetical order on the ballot along with the name of the person who nominated the candidate.  We have not added “yes” or “no” next to each name on the ballot in the past,  not because it was prohibited by the national body but because we were not aware that was the proper form. 

Well, you must have had some way for the voter to indicate the candidate(s) he or she was voting for.  Including "Yes" and "no" boxes next to each name on the ballot is just one way of doing it.

[Kimmie G]

3 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Well, you must have had some way for the voter to indicate the candidate(s) he or she was voting for.  Including "Yes" and "no" boxes next to each name on the ballot is just one way of doing it.

There were bubbles next to each name allowing for members to select that name or not. 

[Dan Honemann]

2 minutes ago, Kimmie G said:

There were bubbles next to each name allowing for members to select that name or not. 

Well, you can keep using this system if you wish. The point is you must conduct this election in a manner which allows each member to vote either for or against each candidate, or abstain from doing so, as he or she wishes.

[Kimmie G]

25 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Well, you can keep using this system if you wish. The point is you must conduct this election in a manner which allows each member to vote either for or against each candidate, or abstain from doing so, as he or she wishes.

Thank you for your guidance. 

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, Kimmie G said:

Assuming the rescission of the original vote to take “up to 15” passes, based on this feedback, the new motion should not be “to take all 19” but rather “to take up to 19” using a ballot allowing the option to vote on up to 19 names, each with a “yes” or “no.”

In either event, voting would end after the first ballot and the successful candidates would be those who received 2/3 vote.

Yes, this is correct.

[Gary Novosielski]

52 minutes ago, Kimmie G said:

There were bubbles next to each name allowing for members to select that name or not. 

Then how do you distinguish a No vote from an abstention?

[Josh Martin]

43 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

Then how do you distinguish a No vote from an abstention?

Well, it seems like they didn't, hence the confusion that led to this question.

[Gary Novosielski]

10 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

Well, it seems like they didn't, hence the confusion that led to this question.

It would seem that the lack of a No choice would assure that every candidate achieves unanimous approval, even without the improper all-or-nothing instruction that was originally proposed, so long as everyone got at least a single vote.

[Gary Novosielski]

3 hours ago, Kimmie G said:

How could they all be elected with a 2/3 vote?

To achieve a 2/3 vote, a candidate must have approval on 2/3 of the ballots cast.  Since voters may, in this case, vote for all the candidates, this is not difficult to achieve.

[Richard Brown]

10 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

It would seem that the lack of a No choice would assure that every candidate achieves unanimous approval, even without the improper all-or-nothing instruction that was originally proposed, so long as everyone got at least a single vote.

How do you figure that? If there is only a bubble for voting yes, and no bubble for voting no,  and there are 100 ballots with at least one selection submitted, it seems it would require 67 votes  for a candidate to be elected (or selected) to membership.

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, Gary Novosielski said:

It would seem that the lack of a No choice would assure that every candidate achieves unanimous approval, even without the improper all-or-nothing instruction that was originally proposed, so long as everyone got at least a single vote.

Yes, but based upon the facts presented, it appears that the organization only counted votes for a particular candidate toward election, in the same manner as an election for office. That is, a candidate was declared elected only if 2/3 of the ballots were marked for that candidate.

Edited March 29, 2021 at 06:24 PM by Josh Martin

[Richard Brown]

19 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

Yes, but based upon the facts presented, it appears that the organization only counted votes for a particular candidate toward election, in the same manner as an election for office. That is, a candidate was declared elected only if 2/3 of the ballots were marked for that candidate.

I agree and that is exactly the point that I was making in my comment immediately above.

[Dan Honemann]

I suppose that if a member wanted to abstain from voting for or against any particular candidate it would be necessary to write "abstain" next to the name, or some such thing.

[Guest Puzzling]

4 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Well, you can keep using this system if you wish. The point is you must conduct this election in a manner which allows each member to vote either for or against each candidate, or abstain from doing so, as he or she wishes.

With only an approval (yes) bubble for each candidate (and no disapproval (no) bubble)

 Is this done? 

Members can abstain for all the candidates (by not handing in a ballot or invalidating the whole ballot) but abstaining from some candidates is de facto the same as a no vote for that candidate.