hoa Cumulative voting

[par]

According to RR cumulative voting is bad. What is a better option for an HOA board of directors election?

Edited May 24, 2021 at 11:20 PM by par

[Richard Brown]

11 minutes ago, par said:

According to RR cumulative voting is bad. What is a better option for an HOA board of directors election?

Well, I don't know that RONR says that cumulative voting is bad, but it must be authorized in the bylaws if it is to be used.  The same goes for any form of preferential voting.

It seems to me that the type voting you use for electing an HOA board of directors will depend more on whether the voting is in person or via mail (or electronically).  If the voting is via mail, some form of preferential voting (or electing by plurality rather than a majority) might be more workable because it can eliminate the need for expensive and time-consuming repeat balloting. With preferential voting, the tabulating might take longer, but it usually eliminates the need for repeat balloting to elect the winners.

If the voting is in person, then the type voting recommended by RONR is by far the most common, where you keep voting  until the winners receive a majority vote and are elected.

Stay tuned for some other viewpoints and opinions.

[Weldon Merritt]

2 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

Stay tuned for some other viewpoints and opinions.

The only other opinion I will express is that you should check the state statutes regarding HOAs to see if they have anything to say about voting. Anything they say on the subject will take precedence over RONR and your bylaws (unless they say something like, "unless otherwise provided in the bylaws ...").

[Guest Puzzling]

9 hours ago, par said:

According to RR cumulative voting is bad. What is a better option for an HOA board of directors election?

When there are more than 2 alternative choices there is no method of voting that can be called perfect.

See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_impossibility_theorem

Roberts rules has as principle that each elected candidate need to be supported by a majority of the members. This leads to repeated balloting until all positions are filled by a majority approved candidate .

The practicalities of mail in voting makes  this impossible , cumulative voting does not guarantee the principle. Other methods kind of simulate repeated balloting (each  with their own drawbacks) 

While in an academic sense you could even argue against this principle (in any big election all candidates are minority alternatives, this is dictatorship of a small majority),  it is the principle of RONR and we live by it (at this forum at least)

(In stead of  voting twice for the same candidate you could try to find another voter with the same wish for another candidate and both agree to vote for both candidates.

Is that strategic voting? Yes it surely is.

Is it undemocratic? That really depends, given that perfect voting methods do not exist when there are more than two candidates.)

[RSW]

If you're balloting by mail, or in some other way where repeated votes are difficult, you could consider "ranked choice voting" - https://ballotpedia.org/Ranked-choice_voting_(RCV)

Or if you're voting in person but people just won't budge on their votes, you could consider bylaws provisions to do something like drop the candidate with the lowest number of votes before re-balloting. That eventually whittles the field down to two.

[Richard Brown]

30 minutes ago, RSW said:

If you're balloting by mail, or in some other way where repeated votes are difficult, you could consider "ranked choice voting" - https://ballotpedia.org/Ranked-choice_voting_(RCV)

Yes, that is one form of preferential voting particularly mentioned (but not by that name) in sections 44:11 and 45:62 - 45:69 of RONR.

33 minutes ago, RSW said:

Or if you're voting in person but people just won't budge on their votes, you could consider bylaws provisions to do something like drop the candidate with the lowest number of votes before re-balloting. That eventually whittles the field down to two.

A bylaws amendment is necessary if it is desired to make those persons removed from the ballot ineligible for election.  However, the candidates receiving the fewest number of votes can also be removed from the ballot by virtue of a special rule of order or by the adoption of a motion suspending the rules and doing so while the election is pending.  Any candidates removed from the ballot using that method, however, remain eligible for election and their names can be written in on ballots.   When that method is used, it is hoped that members will limit their votes to those candidates who are actually on the ballot.  The  only way to make them ineligible for election is by means of a bylaw provision.  (Footnote 1 to §40:32).

[RSW]

13 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

However, the candidates receiving the fewest number of votes can also be removed from the ballot by virtue of a special rule of order or by the adoption of a motion suspending the rules and doing so while the election is pending.  Any candidates removed from the ballot using that method, however, remain eligible for election and their names can be written in on ballots.   When that method is used, it is hoped that members will limit their votes to those candidates who are actually on the ballot.  The  only way to make them ineligible for election is by means of a bylaw provision. 

If we're moving to suspend the rules, purely technically, is it possible to suspend the rules in such a way as to take a vote where the final count completely ignores write-in candidates? 

I'm guessing it's likely improper (or at the very least, a bad idea) - but wondering the grounds upon which that's the case. Barring bylaws or state laws to the contrary, of course, reading through section 25, I'm not seeing anything that just jumps out to me as to a reason.

[Richard Brown]

26 minutes ago, RSW said:

If we're moving to suspend the rules, purely technically, is it possible to suspend the rules in such a way as to take a vote where the final count completely ignores write-in candidates? 

You cannot disallow write-in votes without such a provision in the bylaws. 

[RSW]

22 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

You cannot disallow write-in votes without such a provision in the bylaws. 

I believe you 100%. I'm just wondering the *basis* for that statement. Can you share the RONR reference(s) and/or logic?

[Weldon Merritt]

4 minutes ago, RSW said:

I believe you 100%. I'm just wondering the *basis* for that statement. Can you share the RONR reference(s) and/or logic?

RONR 46:32n1.

[RSW]

18 minutes ago, Weldon Merritt said:

RONR 46:32n1.

Thanks for the reference. That clears everything up.

[Richard Brown]

17 minutes ago, RSW said:

Thanks for the reference. That clears everything up.

FYI, I gave you the citation and the footnote reference for that five six posts above. 😊

Edited May 25, 2021 at 07:28 PM by Richard Brown
Changed five posts above to six posts above. 😊

[RSW]

Apologies to Mr. Brown - I read 40:32, but somehow missed the "footnote 1" text!

[Weldon Merritt]

3 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

FYI, I gave you the citation and the footnote reference for that five six posts above. 😊

Indeed you did. I failed to look back at that post, or I would have mentioned that you already had given the citation.