Eliminations of Suggestions or Candidates

[Rob Elsman]

Over here, 

Mr. Brown suggested that the rules could be suspended to eliminate candidates.  I am not a historian of parliamentary law, and I certainly would not claim to be, but I cannot help but wonder if the elimination of candidates does not violate a principle that is so ancient that it should be considered a fundamental principle of parliamentary law, in which case, the common parliamentary law would preclude the assembly from suspending the rules that interfere with the elimination of candidates.

Could someone more knowledgeable look at this matter to see whether my suspicion is correct, and, if so, could the Right Book be made clearer on this point?

[George Mervosh]

I'm not more knowledgeable but I thought Mr. Brown was simply referring to RONR (12th ed.), 46:32 n1.

[Rob Elsman]

Oh, George, I feel certain that Mr. Brown was, Indeed, relying on the footnote for his response.  I do not doubt that.  But, is that footnote correct?  I am not so sure.  As I noted before, the retention of all candidates is very likely an ancient, even immemorial, practice.  All I would like is for someone with a higher pay-grade than mine to look twice at that footnote just one more time.

[Weldon Merritt]

I don't know about our relative "pay grades," but I have looked at the footnote multiple times, and I have no doubt that it is correct. Note that it says only that you can drop someone from the list of nominees. It explicitly states that even if dropped from that list, they remain eligible for election by write-in. Only a bylaws provision could make them ineligible. 

[Rob Elsman]

I have no doubt about what the footnote says.  What I am doubting is whether the general practice in the United States is to disqualify candidates that have been eliminated.  My suspicion—though this, too, is above my pay-grade—is that ordinary societies are generally disqualifying candidates that have been eliminated (often without a suspension of the rules!).  Again, I just have a hunch that this footnote needs some investigation and, possibly, a correction.  Just one more look at it.

[George Mervosh]

I don't understand why you say they are disqualified.  I thought the last sentence in the footnote made it clear they are not disqualified.

[Rob Elsman]

Yes, George, I understand what the footnote says.  What I am doubting is whether the footnote conforms to the general practice in ordinary societies.  I have a strong suspicion that it does not.

[Guest Zev]

The rule in 46:32n1 in my opinion is not vague. Dropping a candidate from a list appears to be an editorial action while making a candidate ineligible (you said "disqualifying") is a positive act that absolutely requires a bylaw provision in order to carry it out.

[Rob Elsman]

I wish to be clear.  I am not asserting that the footnote is "vague".

[Guest Zev]

If the footnote at 46:32n1 is not vague, then the question is whether societies should take the advice of the authors in this regard or not. I urge them to do so without hesitation.   

[Rob Elsman]

Henry M Robert III made a point of it that the authors of Robert's Rules (by whatever title) do not legislate parliamentary procedure; rather, they codify the current common parliamentary procedure that is in general use in ordinary societies in the United States.  Does the footnote codify the current common parliamentary procedure that is in general use in the United States?  I have strong suspicions that it does not.

[Dan Honemann]

1 hour ago, Rob Elsman said:

Henry M Robert III made a point of it that the authors of Robert's Rules (by whatever title) do not legislate parliamentary procedure; rather, they codify the current common parliamentary procedure that is in general use in ordinary societies in the United States.  Does the footnote codify the current common parliamentary procedure that is in general use in the United States?  I have strong suspicions that it does not.

What do you suggest should be said?

[Rob Elsman]

What is said in RONR (12th ed.) 45:32 with respect to the recording of votes when the method of voting is by ballot provides a starting point.  Here we read that any ballot cast by a legal voter that shows a preference (i.e., are not unintelligible, are not cast for unidentifiable persons, and are not cast for ineligible persons) are to be recorded as legal votes.  Good start.  In fact, much the same thing could be said about any method of voting.  For example, a green ball found in a ballot box full of black and white balls would be unintelligible. Similarly, a  person who stands half the way between the lobby of the affirmative votes and the lobby of the negative votes during a division of the assembly would be voting unintelligibly.

The first thing to be noticed from the wording is that, assuming a ballot is not unintelligible, all identifiable persons are eligible unless they are ineligible.  That may sound like a pretty dumb thing to say, but think very carefully about it.  The wording of the paragraph makes it clear that ineligible persons are the cut-away subset of identifiable persons.  Keep your thumb on that thought.

Now, as to "run-off" elections, as they are often called, I have a very strong suspicion that most ordinary societies consider otherwise eligible persons who do not garner the highest or next-to-highest number of votes in the first round of voting as disqualified in the second, or "run-off", round.  That contradicts what the footnote says, but I strongly suspect the footnote does not conform to the general understanding and practice of ordinary societies in the United States that use "run-off" elections

Now, just for the sake of argument, let's assume my strong suspicion in the previous paragraph is correct, as a matter of fact.  For now, just take it as a given.

I am of the opinion that a legal voter's right to vote (intelligibly) for any identifiable person who is not otherwise defined as ineligible is such an ancient and foundationally democratic thing that it must be considered either as a basic right of the individual member or a fundamental principle of parliamentary law.  You choose.

Given what I suspect is the current state of the common parliamentary law in the United States (notwithstanding what the footnote says), I am of the opinion that the rules interfering with the use of a "run-off" election cannot be suspended.  The use of a "run-off" election would have to be authorized in the bylaws or other governing documents.

All of this hinges on how "run-off" elections in ordinary societies are administered.  In actual fact, are votes by legal voters for identifiable, eligible persons other than the "top two" counted as valid votes?  If it can be determined in a rational way that they are, then my line of argumentation falls to the ground.

Truth be told (aha! it was bound to come out!), I wish ordinary societies would stop using the "run-off" election.  For those societies that find multiple rounds of voting impractical, it is much more desirable to use some form of preferential voting.

 

Edited June 25, 2021 at 02:37 AM by Rob Elsman

[Weldon Merritt]

1 hour ago, Rob Elsman said:

Now, as to "run-off" elections, as they are often called, I have a very strong suspicion that most ordinary societies consider otherwise eligible persons who do not garner the highest or next-to-highest number of votes in the first round of voting as disqualified in the second, or "run-off", round.  That contradicts what the footnote says, but I strong suspect the footnote does not conform to the general understanding and practice of ordinary societies in the United States that use "run-off" elections

There are a lot of other things that many (not so sure about "most") ordinary societies get wrong. The remedy is better education; not making RONR conform to these erroneous practices.

1 hour ago, Rob Elsman said:

I am of the opinion that a legal voter's right to vote (intelligibly) for any identifiable person who is not otherwise defined as ineligible is such an ancient and foundationally democratic thing that it must be considered either as a basic right of the individual member or a fundamental principle of parliamentary law.  You choose.

And noting in the footnotes takes that right away. If the voters are ignorant of their right to continue voting for a dropped candidate, that is again a matter foe education.

1 hour ago, Rob Elsman said:

All of this hinges on how "run-off" elections in ordinary societies are administered.  In actual fact, are votes by legal voters for identifiable, eligible persons other than the "top two" counted as valid votes?  If it can be determined in a rational way that they are, then my line of argumentation falls to the ground.

Whether some, or even most, ordinary societies handle "run-offs", the rule is clear. Again, the remedy is better education, not changing the rules. I believe your argument "falls to the ground" regardless.

1 hour ago, Rob Elsman said:

Truth be told (aha! it was bound to come out!), I wish ordinary societies would stop using the "run-off" election.  For those societies that find multiple rounds of voting impractical, it is much more desirable to use some form of preferential voting.

You're certainly entitled to "wish" all you want. But every form of preferential voting has its own problems, too. The late Dr. John Stackpole (if I recall correctly) once gave an excellent workshop illustrating why every form of preferential voting sometimes yields anomalous results. 

Edited June 25, 2021 at 02:47 AM by Weldon Merritt
Edited to correct typo.