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

[Guest Puzzling]

Oops missed Mr Hoffmann s reply just before my post, 

But having to write abstain next to a candidate to abstain is making abstentions more difficult than approval or disapproval and that is bit against the grain (abstaining should be the default option and more easy than yes or no) 

[Guest Zev]

Quote

Division of a question: 1640. If a Question upon a Debate contains more Parts than one, and Members seem to be for one Part, and not for the other; it may be moved, that the same may be divided into two, or more Questions: as Dec. 2, 1640, the Debate about the Election of two Knights was divided into two Questions. (ibid., p. 169.)

RONR 12th ed. p. xxxiv.

Am I to understand that "if a Question upon a Debate contains more Parts than one" that such a motion would be disallowed or perhaps ruled out of order? If a motion contains nineteen parts it seems that the question could be divided into nineteen parts if the assembly so desired. I get the impression that some are arguing that a single motion to admit all nineteen is somehow not proper. Perhaps I am reading too much into this thread.

[Josh Martin]

14 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

Am I to understand that "if a Question upon a Debate contains more Parts than one" that such a motion would be disallowed or perhaps ruled out of order? If a motion contains nineteen parts it seems that the question could be divided into nineteen parts if the assembly so desired. I get the impression that some are arguing that a single motion to admit all nineteen is somehow not proper. Perhaps I am reading too much into this thread.

I would first note that the organization has its own rules pertaining to the admission of members, and those rules may have bearing on this question.

If your question is whether, in the absence of any other relevant rules, a motion may be made to "Admit Members A, B, C, D, E... etc." as members of the society, yes, I think so, although in my view it is divisible upon the demand of a single member. If such a motion is made and no member demands that the question be divided, members would then need to vote "yes," "no," or "abstain" upon the full slate, in its entirety.

A member who wished to divide the question could request that a particular member (or members) be voted upon separately, or could request that it be divided into all 19 parts. There is no particular reason why a motion cannot be divided into more than two parts.

Edited March 29, 2021 at 08:21 PM by Josh Martin

[Dan Honemann]

1 hour ago, Guest Puzzling said:

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

 Is this done? 

Apparently so. It's similar to ballots that ask you to circle or put a check mark next to the names of candidates you are voting for.

 

1 hour ago, Guest Puzzling said:

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.

Take another look at the post right above yours.

[Kimmie G]

Thank you all for thoughtfully continuing this dialogue in the time since my last post. 
 

it appears the consensus here is that each candidate is treated like a motion “Do you approve of candidate X for membership? Mark “Yes” or “No.”  The challenge members are having is reconciling the option not to take a position on a particular candidate. Some have suggested including 3 voting options: Yes, No and Abstain but some members believe that violates 45:3. 
 

As the Chair, at this point,  I want to guide the club on this issue in a way that presents a ballot that is the least likely to elicit challenges to the process. We are voting on new members tomorrow but we will have officer elections next month. 
 

I truly appreciate your thoughtful analysis. 

Edited March 30, 2021 at 02:21 AM by Kimmie G
Clarity.

[Kimmie G]

13 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

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.

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.

I am getting caught up. So using a ballot in Election Runner, it seems you’re suggesting that vote on each candidate is a separate question for each—19 questions with “yes” and “no” options  rather than 1 question with 19 options?

Our meeting is tomorrow evening and ballot needs to be prepared. 
 

[Richard Brown]

14 minutes ago, Kimmie G said:

I am getting caught up. So using a ballot in Election Runner, it seems you’re suggesting that vote on each candidate is a separate question for each—19 questions with “yes” and “no” options  rather than 1 question with 19 options?

I don't understand.  Why not one ballot with 19 "candidates" and a "yes" and "no" option for each?  If you prefer 19 separate ballots, fine, but I see no reason to do it that way.  btw, this assumes that your bylaws or some state law or Governor's emergency proclamation permit electronic absentee voting via email or other electronic means.  Do they?

[Kimmie G]

1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

I don't understand.  Why not one ballot with 19 "candidates" and a "yes" and "no" option for each?  If you prefer 19 separate ballots, fine, but I see no reason to do it that way.  btw, this assumes that your bylaws or some state law or Governor's emergency proclamation permit electronic absentee voting via email or other electronic means.  Do they?

Thank you. I may not have been clear. That is exactly what I was saying—19 questions on 1 ballot each with the option of “yes” and “no”. 
 

That said, how to explain the inability to abstain on a particular candidate if each question requires the voter to select “yes” or “no” for each candidate?

[Richard Brown]

1 hour ago, Kimmie G said:

That said, how to explain the inability to abstain on a particular candidate if each question requires the voter to select “yes” or “no” for each candidate?

If a member chooses not to vote either yes or no on one or more candidates, the member has abstained  from voting on those candidates. There does not have to be an option to affirmatively “abstain“. If you don’t vote on an issue, you have abstained. If you don’t vote on a particular candidate or several candidates, you have abstained on those candidates. To abstain  is simply to not vote on something.  Leaving a choice blank, or not marking yes or no is an abstention. Turning in a blank ballot is an abtension just as is not turning in a ballot at all. Not marking yes or no on some names on a ballot is abstaining on those names.

[Kimmie G]

4 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

If a member chooses not to vote either yes or no on one or more candidates, the member has abstained  from voting on those candidates. There does not have to be an option to affirmatively “abstain“. If you don’t vote on an issue, you have abstained. If you don’t vote on a particular candidate or several candidates, you have abstained on those candidates. To abstain  is simply to not vote on something.  Leaving a choice blank, or not marking yes or no is an abstention. Turning in a blank ballot is an abtension just as is not turning in a ballot at all. Not marking yes or no on some names on a ballot is abstaining on those names.

Thank you. I understand all of that. The suggestion was providing and option that required the voter to choose yes or no which means the electronic ballot cannot require a response or yes or no to allow a voter to abstain by not choosing yes or not for any candidate. Similarly, the voter could simply not cast a ballot. 

[Richard Brown]

2 minutes ago, Kimmie G said:

The suggestion was providing and option that required the voter to choose yes or no

You cannot require a yes or no response because that deprives a Member of the right to abstain.

[Atul Kapur]

If you are doing it electronically, that either adds a level of complexity or simplifies things, depending on the service used.

You could have a list of 19 names with Yes and No beside each name. If a person leaves both options blank for a particular person, then that is an abstention and is not counted either way for that particular person.

Say 100 voters. One of the 100 leaves a blank for the 19th candidate for membership. Everyone else casts a vote for all 19.

For the first 18 candidates, there are 100 ballots cast and a candidate must receive 67 votes (66 is less than 2/3 of 100) to be elected to membership.

For the 19th candidate, there are 99 ballots cast and the candidate must receive 66 votes (2/3 of 99) to become a member.

Some election software can handle this easily, but not all.

[Kimmie G]

14 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

If you are doing it electronically, that either adds a level of complexity or simplifies things, depending on the service used.

You could have a list of 19 names with Yes and No beside each name. If a person leaves both options blank for a particular person, then that is an abstention and is not counted either way for that particular person.

Say 100 voters. One of the 100 leaves a blank for the 19th candidate for membership. Everyone else casts a vote for all 19.

For the first 18 candidates, there are 100 ballots cast and a candidate must receive 67 votes (66 is less than 2/3 of 100) to be elected to membership.

For the 19th candidate, there are 99 ballots cast and the candidate must receive 66 votes (2/3 of 99) to become a member.

Some election software can handle this easily, but not all.

Thank you.  The software is Election Runner.  But again to be clear, there is 1 ballot with 19 questions each with an option to select yes or no or nothing at all on each question/candidate.  Again, I go back to 46:33 which provides that 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 (or here 2/3) of the total of such votes to be elected.  

[Richard Brown]

23 minutes ago, Kimmie G said:

I go back to 46:33 which provides that 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 (or here 2/3) of the total of such votes to be elected.  

If this was an election to office, such as to a board, that would be true. However, this is not an election to office. I agree with Dr. Kapur’s analysis in regard to this particular situation. The two thirds vote threshold for each proposed new member should be calculated independently based on each prospective member’s vote totals rather than on the grand total of ballots submitted.  Each candidate who receives twice as many yes votes as no votes will be approved for membership.

[Kimmie G]

6 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

If this was an election to office, such as to a board, that would be true. However, this is not an election to office. I agree with Dr. Kapur’s analysis in regard to this particular situation. The two thirds vote threshold for each proposed new member should be calculated independently based on each prospective member’s vote totals rather than on the grand total of ballots submitted.  Each candidate who receives twice as many yes votes as no votes will be approved for membership.

Thank you.  I am preparing a ballot with 19 questions corresponding to each candidate's name with a yes, no and abstain button.  Thank you all for your input.

[Dan Honemann]

5 hours ago, Kimmie G said:

Thank you.  I am preparing a ballot with 19 questions corresponding to each candidate's name with a yes, no and abstain button.  Thank you all for your input.

This is fine, and you may rest assured that it does not violate anything that is said in 45:3, 45:25, or 46:33.

[Kimmie G]

7 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

This is fine, and you may rest assured that it does not violate anything that is said in 45:3, 45:25, or 46:33.

Just one more bit of food for thought on the potential pitfalls of including the "Abstain" voting option or allowing voters the option to choose, yes, no or skip the candidate and not vote on 1 candidate:

Although I have decided to include  "Yes" "No" and "Abstain" next to each candidate such that voters much choose 1 of those options, in the unlikely event that a candidate receives 8 "Yes" votes, 2 "No" votes and 100 "Abstain" "votes" we would only count 8+ 2 = 10 as the total votes cast FOR THAT CANDIDATE. 

In this example the member will be elected with only 8 affirmative votes because she will have received 80% of the 10 votes cast for that candidate.  Another member with 65 yes votes and 35 no votes will not have received the requisite two-thirds, even though she received way more votes than the member in the 1^st example.  [65 Yes votes is only 65% of the 100 votes cast.] 

These may be remote possibilities but possibilities nonetheless. 

Having obtained some rest and more clarity based on the feedback here, if these are really treated as motions, in my humble opinion, they should be separate questions all on one ballot with a requirement to answer yes or no. 

[Atul Kapur]

1 minute ago, Kimmie G said:

Just one more bit of food for thought on the potential pitfalls of including the "Abstain" voting option or allowing voters the option to choose, yes, no or skip the candidate and not vote on 1 candidate:

Although I have decided to include  "Yes" "No" and "Abstain" next to each candidate such that voters much choose 1 of those options, in the unlikely event that a candidate receives 8 "Yes" votes, 2 "No" votes and 100 "Abstain" "votes" we would only count 8+ 2 = 10 as the total votes cast FOR THAT CANDIDATE. 

In this example the member will be elected with only 8 affirmative votes because she will have received 80% of the 10 votes cast for that candidate.  Another member with 65 yes votes and 35 no votes will not have received the requisite two-thirds, even though she received way more votes than the member in the 1^st example.  [65 Yes votes is only 65% of the 100 votes cast.] 

These may be remote possibilities but possibilities nonetheless. 

That sounds correct. And the situation is the same whether you have a formal "abstain" option or allow the member-voter to skip voting on any particular candidate(s).

4 minutes ago, Kimmie G said:

Having obtained some rest and more clarity based on the feedback here, if these are really treated as motions, in my humble opinion, they should be separate questions all on one ballot with a requirement to answer yes or no. 

RONR is clear that a member has the right to abstain on any vote. If you wish to change that, your organization will need to adopt a rule to change that.

[Richard Brown]

@Kimmie Gthere is no need to do complicated math to determine whether any of these prospects receive the required two thirds vote threshold.  If a prospect receives at least twice as many "yes" votes as there "no" votes, that person has the required two thirds vote.  That simple formula works every time the vote threshold is a regular two thirds vote, that is, two thirds of the votes cast, ignoring blanks and abstentions.   That formula may not work if the threshold is something else, such as the vote of two thirds of the members present or two thirds of the entire membership.  In such a case, where not everyone votes, you may have to do the math.

So, if you have 100 members present, and prospective member John Smith receives 10 yes votes and 5 no votes and 85 members abstain, he has nonetheless received a two thirds vote because there are twice as many yes votes as no votes which means he received exactly two thirds of the votes cast in his "election".   Do the math to  check it if you want to, but all parliamentarians know that formula and know it works whenever the vote requirement is a regular two thirds vote. There is no need for complicated math.

[Dan Honemann]

18 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

Do the math to  check it if you want to, but all parliamentarians know that formula and know it works whenever the vote requirement is a regular two thirds vote. There is no need for complicated math.

And heaven forbid that any parliamentarian should have to do some math!  🙂

[Kimmie G]

7 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

And heaven forbid that any parliamentarian should have to do some math!  🙂

Agreed!