How to account for missing votes in an electronic voting system?

[Benjamin Geiger]

It's time now for further adventures of The State Level Chapter Of The Major National Political Party (Not That One, The Other One).

Keep in mind that I am not a voting member of this particular organization, though I am a member of one of the county-level subordinate entities, so take all of this with grain of salt (or whatever quantity of salt you feel necessary).

A couple of days ago, there was a vote to amend the bylaws of this organization to modify the voting system. Currently we use a "weighted vote" system, where each county chapter has two elected delegates to the state organization, and the number of votes those "state committeepersons" get are determined by the number of voters registered to our political party in that county. There has been a push over the last several years to move to a one-person-one-vote system, where instead of having the number of votes determined by the population, instead the number of committeepersons are determined by the population. [Full disclosure: I am firmly in favor of this motion, so refer to the statement regarding salt above.]

This amendment passed by the skin of its teeth, 695-322 (or 68.34% in favor, with 2/3 needed).

However, there are at least two committeepersons who claim to have voted (and have screenshots* of the vote software) but whose votes do not appear in the final tabulation published after the meeting. Given the weights of their votes, had their votes been included the motion would have failed.

The questions:

1. What can be done now? Given paragraph 45:55, I know it's unlikely that there's much that can be done by those who opposed the motion, but I'd like to keep my friends who are members informed.

2. What should have been done at the time? Is there any parliamentary method to require the Chair or Secretary to read the votes as received in time to raise an objection or confirm the vote? Or at least to confirm that abstentions are intentional?

* The screenshots in question may be ambiguous; they say "Vote Received: no", which may mean "we received your vote of 'no'" or "we did not receive your vote". I haven't received confirmation, though I'm fairly confident it's the former.

[Joshua Katz]

49 minutes ago, Benjamin Geiger said:

It's time now for further adventures of The State Level Chapter Of The Major National Political Party (Not That One, The Other One).

 

There is only one.

 

50 minutes ago, Benjamin Geiger said:

Keep in mind that I am not a voting member of this particular organization, though I am a member of one of the county-level subordinate entities, so take all of this with grain of salt (or whatever quantity of salt you feel necessary).

 

I put salt on lox.

 

51 minutes ago, Benjamin Geiger said:

2. What should have been done at the time? Is there any parliamentary method to require the Chair or Secretary to read the votes as received in time to raise an objection or confirm the vote? Or at least to confirm that abstentions are intentional?

 

Well, the issue here is, as usual, that RONR contains no rules for handling such a situation, and your rules seem not to account for it either. However, by way of analogy, RONR uses the mailbox rule for notice. So it strikes me as reasonable to apply the mailbox rule here - votes must be sent on time. If there is proof, then, that they were, one could at least argue that they should be counted. Since it would change the outcome, this is a continuing breach and a point of order can be raised. (Sadly, the chances of people voting honestly on appeal on an issue like this tend to be low, but there is a limit as to what can be done.) Is this the right answer? I don't know. But it's one the body could at least entertain and vote on, assuming an appeal. (I realize I quoted 2, but I think my answer deals with 1 and 2.)

53 minutes ago, Benjamin Geiger said:

* The screenshots in question may be ambiguous; they say "Vote Received: no", which may mean "we received your vote of 'no'" or "we did not receive your vote". I haven't received confirmation, though I'm fairly confident it's the former.

It seems to be easy enough to get the answer, and I'd expect people who care about the issue would do so. Whether they'd volunteer that answer, of course, depends on a couple things.

[Guest Puzzling]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Geiger said:

The screenshots in question may be ambiguous; they say "Vote Received: no", which may mean "we received your vote of 'no'" or "we did not receive your vote". I haven't received confirmation, though I'm fairly confident it's the former.

You could just compare it with a screenshot of a) a known no voter and b) a known not voter. 

But it all seems that there were no clear voting instructions to start with. 

[Josh Martin]

11 hours ago, Benjamin Geiger said:

1. What can be done now? Given paragraph 45:55, I know it's unlikely that there's much that can be done by those who opposed the motion, but I'd like to keep my friends who are members informed.

As you say, it seems that it will not be in order to challenge the results at this time. It does seem that the vote in question is in the nature of an "electronic roll call," since apparently it is known how individual members voted.

"When used, there is usually a presumption of technical, mechanical accuracy of the electronic system if properly used by the members. Changes of votes after the result has been announced by the chair on the allegation of machine error are not entertained. On the same grounds, a recapitulation (see 45:51) is not permitted." RONR (12th ed.) 45:55

So I don't think there is a solution at this time short of the assembly adopting its own rules on this matter.

11 hours ago, Benjamin Geiger said:

2. What should have been done at the time? Is there any parliamentary method to require the Chair or Secretary to read the votes as received in time to raise an objection or confirm the vote? Or at least to confirm that abstentions are intentional?

Short of the assembly adopting its own rules on this subject, I don't think there is any method to accomplish these objectives. The text specifically notes that a recapitulation is not permitted for an electronic roll call vote.

10 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

Well, the issue here is, as usual, that RONR contains no rules for handling such a situation, and your rules seem not to account for it either. However, by way of analogy, RONR uses the mailbox rule for notice. So it strikes me as reasonable to apply the mailbox rule here - votes must be sent on time. If there is proof, then, that they were, one could at least argue that they should be counted. Since it would change the outcome, this is a continuing breach and a point of order can be raised. (Sadly, the chances of people voting honestly on appeal on an issue like this tend to be low, but there is a limit as to what can be done.) Is this the right answer? I don't know. But it's one the body could at least entertain and vote on, assuming an appeal. (I realize I quoted 2, but I think my answer deals with 1 and 2.)

How do you account for the rule on 45:55 which states that "Changes of votes after the result has been announced by the chair on the allegation of machine error are not entertained."?

[Dan Honemann]

16 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

I put salt on lox.

Ah, so that's what's wrong with you.

[Joshua Katz]

7 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Ah, so that's what's wrong with you.

This implies that there is one such thing.

12 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

How do you account for the rule on 45:55 which states that "Changes of votes after the result has been announced by the chair on the allegation of machine error are not entertained."?

 

12 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

As you say, it seems that it will not be in order to challenge the results at this time. It does seem that the vote in question is in the nature of an "electronic roll call," since apparently it is known how individual members voted.

 

Until I read your response, I did not think of this as an electronic roll call. Now that I have, and have reviewed what you quoted, you appear to be correct, although I would like to hear the justification for such a rule. Consider:

"[T]here is usually a presumption of technical, mechanical accuracy of the electronic system if properly used by the members."

"Changes of votes after the result has been announced by the chair on the allegation of machine error are not entertained."

Why do we not entertain the possibility of something happening, when we are told there is usually a presumption that it didn't happen? Not always, usually. Not a certainty, but a presumption. 

 

[Benjamin Geiger]

13 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

It does seem that the vote in question is in the nature of an "electronic roll call," since apparently it is known how individual members voted.

It should be noted that, as far as I'm aware, members were unaware of other members' votes until after the meeting had ended, or otherwise they'd be able to rectify the issue immediately. I guess it'd be more akin to a signed ballot.