Voting for multiple positions

[AFS1970]

After our fire department's recent bylaws' revision, there are more candidates eligible for several positions compared to last year. However, this had led to more questions than answers and some factional battles. Two of the positions have multiple openings. We will be electing two Captains and two Lieutenants. Currently we have 6 candidates for Captain and 5 candidates for Lieutenant. Our bylaws only require vote by ballot. This has brought up two questions on how the election will work.

First it has been asked if we each vote for one candidate, or do we vote for any two candidates? Years ago, these were separate positions, but they were combined at different times in previous revisions. Lieutenants were combined 2 years ago but Captains were combined sometime before 2013, although multiple presidents have run separate elections in apparent violations of the bylaws. Many of our members are used to voting for two candidates for two separate positions. 

The second question is a bit more bizarre and entirely dependent on the first answer. One candidate insists that since he can cast two votes, that he can vote for himself twice instead of voting for two separate candidates. He has said that in another fire department he is a member of he voted for himself 5 times for a similar position with 5 openings. He believes this guarantees him a victory and has said that RONR does not prohibit him from voting for the same person twice. This seems like something that shouldn't be allowed. 

There are definitely going to be growing pains this year, we are running into issues with who is actually eligible to run for various positions and how those rulings are backed up, but those will not really affect the above questions, other than possibly changing the number of candidates.

 

[Joshua Katz]

On 5/18/2022 at 5:37 PM, AFS1970 said:

Years ago, these were separate positions, but they were combined at different times in previous revisions. Lieutenants were combined 2 years ago but Captains were combined sometime before 2013, although multiple presidents have run separate elections in apparent violations of the bylaws.

I don't understand. If they were combined, why are you electing more than one still? 

On 5/18/2022 at 5:37 PM, AFS1970 said:

One candidate insists that since he can cast two votes, that he can vote for himself twice instead of voting for two separate candidates.

There is a form of voting that achieves this, but, I think, it contradicts RONR and would need to be adopted in the bylaws or as a special rule of order. Under the forms of voting described in RONR, vote for up to 7 candidates means just what, not that you can make Mr. X all 7 of your votes.

 

On 5/18/2022 at 5:37 PM, AFS1970 said:

He believes this guarantees him a victory and has said that RONR does not prohibit him from voting for the same person twice.

Well this is a silly thing to believe. Under the forms of voting that permit this, a candidate cannot win by receiving votes from a mathematical majority of the number of people voting. The victory conditions are simply defined differently. No form of voting makes sense in a democratic society that allows anyone to guarantee themselves a win.

[AFS1970]

On 5/18/2022 at 5:42 PM, Joshua Katz said:

I don't understand. If they were combined, why are you electing more than one still? 

For Clarification, at some time before 2013 we had the position 1st Captain and the separate position of 2nd Captain. Going back to at least the 2013 bylaws the text read there will be two (2) Captains. However, for as long as anyone can remember we still nominated and elected the positions separately. Up until 2019 we had three positions 1st Lieutenant, 2nd Lieutenant and the oddly named Second 2nd Lieutenant. In 2019 those were combined by changing the language to mirror the captains by saying there will be three (3) Lieutenants. This is how we discovered that previous elections had been conducted wrong. This year's revision eliminated one lieutenant position so it now says there will be two (2) Lieutenants.

[Atul Kapur]

On 5/18/2022 at 5:37 PM, AFS1970 said:

First it has been asked if we each vote for one candidate, or do we vote for any two candidates?

Let's look at the example of 6 candidates for 2 captain positions (assuming the two positions are identical). You list the 6 candidates on one ballot. Voters can vote for one or two (different) candidates, or can write-in one or two names instead of choosing a listed candidate. Any ballot that shows 1 or 2 votes counts as one ballot cast (ballots with zero votes are ignored and those with >2 are illegal). To win, a candidate has to have votes from a majority of the ballots cast. If more than two candidates have that majority, the two with the highest number of votes are declared elected. 

You could vote for each individual captain position separately, but if you do that, then I would recommend that you complete the vote for one before starting the vote for the second. That way, people who are unsuccessful for the first position can be candidates for the second. This method takes more time but is allowable unless your governing documents say otherwise.

On 5/18/2022 at 5:37 PM, AFS1970 said:

One candidate insists that since he can cast two votes, that he can vote for himself twice instead of voting for two separate candidates.

This is called "cumulative voting" and is only allowed if it is explicitly permitted in your governing documents (some corporate statutes, for example, allow it). Otherwise it is prohibited because it violates a fundamental principle of parliamentary law.

On 5/18/2022 at 5:37 PM, AFS1970 said:

He ... has said that RONR does not prohibit him from voting for the same person twice.

RONR (12th ed.) 46:43 does prohibit it, but doesn't say it in so many words. It says that "the bylaws may provide" for it. If the bylaws (or higher authority) don't provide for it, then it's not allowed.

On 5/18/2022 at 5:37 PM, AFS1970 said:

There are definitely going to be growing pains this year

You should strongly consider having a parliamentarian advise on your procedures and, likely, be present at the meeting.

Edited May 18, 2022 at 10:46 PM by Atul Kapur

[Atul Kapur]

On 5/18/2022 at 5:42 PM, Joshua Katz said:

it contradicts RONR and would need to be adopted in the bylaws or as a special rule of order.

A special rule of order won't suffice. 46:43 says it needs to be in the bylaws.

[Joshua Katz]

On 5/18/2022 at 6:47 PM, Atul Kapur said:

A special rule of order won't suffice. 46:43 says it needs to be in the bylaws.

Okay, thanks.

[Joshua Katz]

On 5/18/2022 at 6:54 PM, Joshua Katz said:

Okay, thanks.

 

On 5/18/2022 at 6:47 PM, Atul Kapur said:

A special rule of order won't suffice. 46:43 says it needs to be in the bylaws.

On second thought, that's interesting to me. It's clearly in the nature of a rule of order. RONR says it cannot be in the special rules of order. But RONR also says that, in the event of a conflict, special rules of order win out over RONR. So how is RONR capable of telling us what must be in the bylaws vs. the special rules of order?

[Atul Kapur]

As I understand it, because it violates a FPPL, a special rule doesn't suffice.

The relevant hierarchy here is not Special Rules supersede RONR, but that bylaws supercede FPPL.

Edited May 18, 2022 at 11:40 PM by Atul Kapur

[Joshua Katz]

On 5/18/2022 at 7:39 PM, Atul Kapur said:

The relevant hierarchy here is not Special Rules supersede RONR, but that bylaws supercede FPPL.

And, presumably, that FPPL win out over special rules. But where does that come from? Note that the source has to also win out over special rules, and I'm not aware of a source that does.

Note: this has nothing to do with our advice to the OP, I just am thinking about this now.

[Rob Elsman]

You can reach the conclusion by deduction.

For example, the use of ballots for voting through the mail violates the fundamental principle of parliamentary law that voting is limited to those who are actually present at a meeting, RONR (12th ed.) 45:56.  In RONR (12th ed.) 45:57, we read, "...when authorized in the bylaws", not when authorized in a special rule of order; therefore, a bylaw is necessary to overcome the interference of the fundamental principle of parliamentary law.  A special rule of order will not do.

[Joshua Katz]

But this deduction depends on RONR. Why should I believe it? It is itself outranked by special rules of order. How can RONR tell me my special rule of order falls, when it falls before my special rule of order?

[Rob Elsman]

😂 😝

[Dan Honemann]

On 5/18/2022 at 8:55 PM, Joshua Katz said:

But this deduction depends on RONR. Why should I believe it? It is itself outranked by special rules of order. How can RONR tell me my special rule of order falls, when it falls before my special rule of order?

If you read the footnote on page 14 carefully, I think you will be able to figure this out for yourself.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 5/19/2022 at 8:40 AM, Dan Honemann said:

If you read the footnote on page 14 carefully, I think you will be able to figure this out for yourself.

What if my copy does not have pages?  (One of them does, but I'm just sayin'.)

[Dan Honemann]

On 5/19/2022 at 12:14 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

What if my copy does not have pages?  (One of them does, but I'm just sayin'.)

I don't care.  I was responding to Mr. Katz.  🙂

[Gary Novosielski]

On 5/19/2022 at 12:20 PM, Dan Honemann said:

I don't care.  I was responding to Mr. Katz.  🙂

Wrathful  insouciance noted..  I was merely seeking an opportunity to be able to figure it out for myself as well.

[Rob Elsman]

You didn't even get to choose your own switch. 😁

[Gary Novosielski]

On 5/19/2022 at 1:59 PM, Rob Elsman said:

You didn't even get to choose your own switch. 😁

Electric light, or hickory?

[Joshua Katz]

On 5/19/2022 at 8:40 AM, Dan Honemann said:

If you read the footnote on page 14 carefully, I think you will be able to figure this out for yourself.

Thank you.

[J. J.]

On 5/18/2022 at 7:55 PM, Joshua Katz said:

And, presumably, that FPPL win out over special rules. But where does that come from? Note that the source has to also win out over special rules, and I'm not aware of a source that does.

Note: this has nothing to do with our advice to the OP, I just am thinking about this now.

Couldn't you adopt a special rule to permit several main motions to be pending at once?  (I'm not saying you should.)

[AFS1970]

So, I made the ballots for the secretary, because she is not great with a computer. I included a single write in, should I have actually included two? Since we have a curious tradition of including an option to abstain on the ballot, which I have never personally agreed with. Now, I realize that candidates need to get a majority of the votes cast but I suspect the President will accept a winner by plurality. If this is done, could this be appealed just as any ruling from the chair?

[Joshua Katz]

On 5/22/2022 at 6:19 PM, AFS1970 said:

If this is done, could this be appealed just as any ruling from the chair?

Yes.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 5/22/2022 at 6:19 PM, AFS1970 said:

If this is done, could this be appealed just as any ruling from the chair?

Yes, but presumably there would first be a Point of Order which, if it were ruled well-taken, would not need to be Appealed.