Bullet Voting Tactic

[Guest Mike Foley]

Is the practice of Bullet Voting fair or devious? Can an election committee rule against this practice and invalidate ballots that obviously used this tactic?

[Weldon Merritt]

On 11/9/2021 at 8:00 PM, Guest Mike Foley said:

Is the practice of Bullet Voting fair or devious?

I suppose that depends on your viewpoint, It certainly violates no rule in RONR.

On 11/9/2021 at 8:00 PM, Guest Mike Foley said:

Can an election committee rule against this practice and invalidate ballots that obviously used this tactic?

No. That would violate the members' right to abstain (or in this instance, to partially abstain). It would require a bylaws provision to disallow bullet voting.

[Rob Elsman]

It is fair.  A voter only has a duty to vote when he has formed a judgment on the question.  If a voter has only formed an opinion about one suggestion or candidate, he only has a duty to vote for the one.  He has no duty to vote on suggestions or candidates about which he has not formed a judgment.

[J. J.]

On 11/9/2021 at 10:00 PM, Guest Mike Foley said:

Is the practice of Bullet Voting fair or devious? Can an election committee rule against this practice and invalidate ballots that obviously used this tactic?

An election committee could not invalidate a ballot because of an abstention for one or more positions on its own.  The society could adopt a bylaw or a special rule removing the right of abstention, however. 

[Dan Honemann]

On 11/12/2021 at 7:38 AM, J. J. said:

An election committee could not invalidate a ballot because of an abstention for one or more positions on its own.  The society could adopt a bylaw or a special rule removing the right of abstention, however. 

I disagree that this can be done by special rule of order. As I have noted in a previous discussion:

"It is certainly true that a special rule of order can effectively deny members the right to abstain since a rule requiring the vote of a majority of the members present (or a majority of the entire membership) can be created by a special rule of order (RONR, 11th ed., p. 404, ll. 20-24).

"But that's beside the point. The rule in question here is a rule which effectively denies a member who, for example, supports only two of three candidates the right to vote for the two candidates he supports, since he cannot do so without also voting for someone he does not support. A rule of this sort is a rule which effectively denies a member his right to vote for the candidates of his choice, and such a rule cannot be created except by a bylaw provision."

[J. J.]

On 11/12/2021 at 8:00 AM, Dan Honemann said:

I disagree that this can be done by special rule of order. As I have noted in a previous discussion:

"It is certainly true that a special rule of order can effectively deny members the right to abstain since a rule requiring the vote of a majority of the members present (or a majority of the entire membership) can be created by a special rule of order (RONR, 11th ed., p. 404, ll. 20-24).

"But that's beside the point. The rule in question here is a rule which effectively denies a member who, for example, supports only two of three candidates the right to vote for the two candidates he supports, since he cannot do so without also voting for someone he does not support. A rule of this sort is a rule which effectively denies a member his right to vote for the candidates of his choice, and such a rule cannot be created except by a bylaw provision."

Then it should be in the text. 

A member wishing to partly abstain may move to suspend the rule that all must vote for a candidate, since his doing would not indicate what candidate he is supporting, even in a ballot vote.

Where in RONR do you find a rule that a member has a right to vote for the [eligible] candidate of his choice, unless limited by a bylaw.  Some methods of voting could preclude that possibility.