Majority vote during an election

[Guest Dr. Faye]

Hello - our nonprofit had an election of officers. 35 members present and all eligible to vote. What is the minimum number of votes needed to meet the majority (50%+1) with this being an odd number ? Please advise.

[Bruce Lages]

It's not possible to tell in advance what the minimum number to achieve a majority will be because if you follow the rules in RONR for your election, that number is dependent on the number of members who actually cast a vote. A majority vote in RONR is more than half of the members present and voting. In your example that number could be anywhere between 1 - if only one member votes and everyone else abstains - and 18 - if all members present cast a vote.

Also, please forget about this 50% + 1 idea. A majority is simply more than half of the votes cast. Half of 35 is 17.5, and because votes (and voters) almost always come in whole numbers only, then you need 18; 17 is clearly not more than 17.5. Do you see what happens when you erroneously use the '50% + 1' criteria? That results in 17.5 + 1, or 18.5 votes, and again, since your votes come in whole numbers only, you would require 19 votes - in other words, one more vote than an actual, true majority.

[Guest Dr. Faye]

Thanks, Bruce!  Follow up question...if it was stated before the vote that the criteria is 50%+1 to the 35 members present and eligible to vote, can you change it to simple majority after the vote? 

[Bruce Lages]

Who stated it and what is the basis of that statement? If you have defined the criteria as 50% + 1 in your bylaws or a  special rule of order then you will have to abide by that definition. On the other hand, if the chair or some other officer (or even some member) simply announced that that's the criteria we'll use (maybe because that's what that person believes to be the right definition of majority) then you might want to raise a point of order that that is not the correct definition of majority. Let's hope that your organization has adopted RONR as your parliamentary authority - if you have then you can use RONR as your authoritative source for the definition of majority. Refer to RONR, 12th ed. 44:1 as your reference.

[Josh Martin]

On 3/20/2023 at 9:37 PM, Guest Dr. Faye said:

Thanks, Bruce!  Follow up question...if it was stated before the vote that the criteria is 50%+1 to the 35 members present and eligible to vote, can you change it to simple majority after the vote? 

It depends on what the basis for this statement is. Does the organization have some rule providing that the criteria is "50%+1 of the 35 members present and eligible to vote?" Or did someone just say this was the requirement?

If there was simply an erroneous statement to this effect, then the assembly should follow the correct rule after the vote, notwithstanding the statement to the contrary. The chair should apologize for the error but inform the assembly that the correct rule shall now be followed.

If the organization has some rule providing that a majority (or "50%+1", which is not actually the same thing) of the "members present and eligible to vote" is required for election, then that rule must be followed.

It may be helpful if we had the exact results of the vote in question.

Edited March 21, 2023 at 11:37 AM by Josh Martin

[Guest Dr. Faye]

The statement of the 50 plus one as the majority was stated by the parliamentarian when asked by a member.  We looked back at the bylaws and the bylaws do not address the majority definition.  
 

If this was the incorrect process or definition for a majority by the parliamentarian, what should be done to rectify this for the vote for an elected Vice President ? Keen to hear your guidance per RONR. Thanks. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 3/21/2023 at 11:42 AM, Guest Dr. Faye said:

The statement of the 50 plus one as the majority was stated by the parliamentarian when asked by a member.  We looked back at the bylaws and the bylaws do not address the majority definition.  
 

If this was the incorrect process or definition for a majority by the parliamentarian, what should be done to rectify this for the vote for an elected Vice President ? Keen to hear your guidance per RONR. Thanks. 

One might have wished for a more knowledgeable parliamentarian, but the fact that the threshold was misstated does not change the actual rule. 

What was the election tally?  Would the less-than-one-vote difference have changed the result?  

[Josh Martin]

On 3/21/2023 at 10:42 AM, Guest Dr. Faye said:

The statement of the 50 plus one as the majority was stated by the parliamentarian when asked by a member.  We looked back at the bylaws and the bylaws do not address the majority definition.  
 

If this was the incorrect process or definition for a majority by the parliamentarian, what should be done to rectify this for the vote for an elected Vice President ? Keen to hear your guidance per RONR. Thanks. 

We would need to know the exact results of the vote in question in order to know if there is anything at all to rectify and, if so, what that would be.

[Guest Dr. Faye]

The result. Candidate A had 18 votes and Candidate B had 17 votes. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 3/21/2023 at 1:03 PM, Guest Dr. Faye said:

The result. Candidate A had 18 votes and Candidate B had 17 votes. 

Well, that is a majority, since more than half of the votes went to A.  

But if the bylaws said 50 % + 1, then you would need 18.5, and neither candidate would be elected, so you'd need a second ballot.  But if they don't, then the election is complete.

[Guest Dr. Faye]

Want to confirm: Election is completed if the bylaws did not state 50% + 1 but the Parliamentarian stated 50%+1 before the election? Please confirm. Thanks!

[Bruce Lages]

Dr Faye - Do your bylaws specify RONR as your parliamentary authority?

 

 

[Guest Dr. Faye]

Yes, the bylaws specify RONR as the parliamentary authority. 

[Guest Dr. Faye]

Hello Bruce,

Yes, our bylaws specify RONR as the parliamentary authority.

 

[Bruce Lages]

OK, good. So contrary to your statement above that your bylaws don't address the majority definition, in fact they do just that by establishing RONR as your parliamentary authority, and therefore incorporating RONR's definition of majority (and majority vote) into your rules. You can show your parliamentarian the RONR reference I cited above for that definition.

This is important to get straightened out because, as Mr. Novosielski noted above, despite the fact that candidate A was elected with a majority vote as defined by RONR as your parliamentary authority, if you stick with the 50%+1 definition then you haven't elected anyone yet and will need to have another round of balloting.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 3/21/2023 at 2:01 PM, Guest Dr. Faye said:

Want to confirm: Election is completed if the bylaws did not state 50% + 1 but the Parliamentarian stated 50%+1 before the election? Please confirm. Thanks!

Yes, that's correct.  The Parliamentarian was giving out incorrect information.  That's grounds for an apology, or perhaps discipline, but it's not enough to overturn an election that was won by a clear majority.

[Dan Honemann]

On 3/21/2023 at 5:06 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Yes, that's correct.  The Parliamentarian was giving out incorrect information.  That's grounds for an apology, or perhaps discipline, but it's not enough to overturn an election that was won by a clear majority.

But if the chair declared that there was no election (no winner), and no point of order was raised at the time, then there was no election.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 3/21/2023 at 6:05 PM, Dan Honemann said:

But if the chair declared that there was no election (no winner), and no point of order was raised at the time, then there was no election.

Well, sure, but I was hoping the chair knew better than the parliamentarian.  It springs eternal.

[Josh Martin]

On 3/21/2023 at 12:03 PM, Guest Dr. Faye said:

The result. Candidate A had 18 votes and Candidate B had 17 votes. 

Then I am confused about what the question is, because Candidate A was elected whether the requirement is a majority of the votes cast or a majority of the members present. So I don't think there is anything to be done "to rectify this for the vote for an elected Vice President," other than to remember to correctly describe things next time.

I suppose if one interprets the parliamentarian's "50% + 1" statement literally (as opposed to someone just trying to say "majority" and doing a poor job of it, which is usually what is meant by this), then this could be viewed as a problem, but as previously noted, the actual rules take precedence over the parliamentarian's erroneous statement.

Am I missing something? Did the chair declare that Candidate A was not elected? If so, what happened next? Was another round of voting held?

[Richard Brown]

On 3/22/2023 at 9:29 AM, Josh Martin said:

Am I missing something? Did the chair declare that Candidate A was not elected?

I don't think Guest Dr. Faye has ever told us.  So, Dr. Faye, what was the chair's pronouncement after the vote?  Did he declare a winner?  Did he declare that there was no election (or no winner)?  If so, what happened next?  The fact that the chair SHOULD have declared that candidate A won the election means nothing if he did not do so.   The chair's pronouncement controls, so if the chair stated that there was no winner, then that is that and you need to have a new election.

Edited to add:  And get a new parliamentarian or insist that the present one get more training.  It's a common beginner's error, but not one that an experienced or credentialed parliamentarian should ever make, although I did once personally witness a PRP (Professional Registered Parliamentarian) state in a training for laymen that "a majority vote means 50 percent plus one".

Edited March 22, 2023 at 06:37 PM by Richard Brown
Added last paragraph