Impact of revote after an election

[Guest KnnyM56]

This is a hypothetical but given current circumstances, could happen at our Condo Association elections.  Elections for Board members are "at large", that is, we vote for 3 "Board members", whom after being elected, vote for their officers.   Per the Bylaws, a simple majority is required to be elected, with written ballots required.  The association is required to use Roberts Rules, so long as that does not disagree with the Bylaws or State Law.  So the ballot will usually have 3 or more nominees. Using an example, for 40 valid ballots with 3 open positions there are 3 nominees, A, B, and C. A gets 25 votes, B gets 21 and C gets 10.  This means (if I understand correctly), that A and B are elected, but C is not (lack of a majority).  Therefore, a revote for only the 3rd spot is required.  Also, if the membership approves via a motion and a vote on that motion, nominations may be reopened before the revote.

My question is this: suppose that in the revote, C continues to run for the third spot, and no one new is nominated.  But again there remains a lack of majority for C (or anyone else).  So a second revote is required.  Again, only C is nominated and does not get a majority.  Aside from the fact that someone else may finally get nominated which might stop the endless revotes, what is the proper procedure if upon multiple revotes where C, or anyone else for that matter, never gets a majority to be elected?  The Bylaws offer no details, so Roberts Rules prevails.  Is there an appropriate way to stop these endless revotes under this circumstance?

[Dan Honemann]

On 1/1/2024 at 9:06 AM, Guest KnnyM56 said:

This is a hypothetical but given current circumstances, could happen at our Condo Association elections.  Elections for Board members are "at large", that is, we vote for 3 "Board members", whom after being elected, vote for their officers.   Per the Bylaws, a simple majority is required to be elected, with written ballots required.  The association is required to use Roberts Rules, so long as that does not disagree with the Bylaws or State Law.  So the ballot will usually have 3 or more nominees. Using an example, for 40 valid ballots with 3 open positions there are 3 nominees, A, B, and C. A gets 25 votes, B gets 21 and C gets 10.  This means (if I understand correctly), that A and B are elected, but C is not (lack of a majority).  Therefore, a revote for only the 3rd spot is required.  Also, if the membership approves via a motion and a vote on that motion, nominations may be reopened before the revote.

My question is this: suppose that in the revote, C continues to run for the third spot, and no one new is nominated.  But again there remains a lack of majority for C (or anyone else).  So a second revote is required.  Again, only C is nominated and does not get a majority.  Aside from the fact that someone else may finally get nominated which might stop the endless revotes, what is the proper procedure if upon multiple revotes where C, or anyone else for that matter, never gets a majority to be elected?  The Bylaws offer no details, so Roberts Rules prevails.  Is there an appropriate way to stop these endless revotes under this circumstance?

How is it that C did not receive a majority of the votes cast on the second ballot?  What did the tellers report?

In any event, the answer to your question is that repeated balloting is required until someone is elected by a majority vote.

 

[Josh Martin]

On 1/1/2024 at 8:06 AM, Guest KnnyM56 said:

Using an example, for 40 valid ballots with 3 open positions there are 3 nominees, A, B, and C. A gets 25 votes, B gets 21 and C gets 10.  This means (if I understand correctly), that A and B are elected, but C is not (lack of a majority).  Therefore, a revote for only the 3rd spot is required.  Also, if the membership approves via a motion and a vote on that motion, nominations may be reopened before the revote.

Yes, this is all correct.

However, unless something unusual happens, it's extremely likely that Nominee C will be elected on the second ballot.

On 1/1/2024 at 8:06 AM, Guest KnnyM56 said:

But again there remains a lack of majority for C (or anyone else).

How does this happen? Are other persons nominated? Are there a bunch of write-in votes?

It's not permissible to simply vote "no" on a candidate. Additionally, blank ballots and abstentions are excluded from the total. The only way to vote "against" a candidate is to vote for someone else.

On 1/1/2024 at 8:06 AM, Guest KnnyM56 said:

Aside from the fact that someone else may finally get nominated which might stop the endless revotes, what is the proper procedure if upon multiple revotes where C, or anyone else for that matter, never gets a majority to be elected? The Bylaws offer no details, so Roberts Rules prevails.  Is there an appropriate way to stop these endless revotes under this circumstance?

Well, for starters, keeping the following rules in mind might resolve the problem. The previous facts have not suggested that any persons other than Nominee C received any votes on the second ballot. Under such circumstances, Nominee C would, in fact, have received a majority on the second ballot.

"In elections, “for” and “against” spaces or boxes may not be used. They are applicable only with respect to votes on motions. In an election, a voter can vote against one candidate only by voting for another who has been nominated or by writing in the name of another candidate." RONR (12th ed.) 45:26

"In recording the votes cast, the principle followed is that a choice has no mandate from the voting body unless approval is expressed by more than half of those entitled to vote and registering any evidence of having some preference. Accordingly, the tellers ignore blank ballots and other ballots that indicate no preference, treating them as abstentions. (Blank ballots are sometimes cast by members to conceal the fact that they do not wish to vote.)" RONR (12th ed.) 45:31

But supposing that it is in fact the case that no person receives a majority, because other persons have been nominated or because members are casting votes for write-in candidates, the only way to stop the endless revotes is to elect someone. Eventually, the members will have to learn how to compromise.

Edited January 1, 2024 at 07:38 PM by Josh Martin

[J. J.]

On 1/1/2024 at 9:06 AM, Guest KnnyM56 said:

 Using an example, for 40 valid ballots with 3 open positions there are 3 nominees, A, B, and C. A gets 25 votes, B gets 21 and C gets 10.  This means (if I understand correctly), that A and B are elected, but C is not (lack of a majority).  Therefore, a revote for only the 3rd spot is required.  Also, if the membership approves via a motion and a vote on that motion, nominations may be reopened before the revote.

My question is this: suppose that in the revote, C continues to run for the third spot, and no one new is nominated.  But again there remains a lack of majority for C (or anyone else).  So a second revote is required.  Again, only C is nominated and does not get a majority.  Aside from the fact that someone else may finally get nominated which might stop the endless revotes, what is the proper procedure if upon multiple revotes where C, or anyone else for that matter, never gets a majority to be elected?  The Bylaws offer no details, so Roberts Rules prevails.  Is there an appropriate way to stop these endless revotes under this circumstance?

Your first paragraph is correct, if this is what happened:  On the first ballot that were a total 40 ballots that included at least one vote.  In that case A and B were elected.  They have more than half of the vote cast

On the second ballot, there are no new nominees and no write-in votes.  The only votes are cast for C.   If the same 10 people vote for C, C gets 10 votes and no one else gets any (though there might be 30 blank ballots); C will be elected.    10 is more than half of 10, so C is elected.  If C only had 1 vote and the other 39 ballots were blank, C would still have more than half of 1, and be elected.

The only way that this could happen is if no one voted for C after the first ballot, which is unlikely.  

[alanh49]

If (A) (B) & (C) are all running for 3 different positions.

They are not running against each other. This means they all got a majority of the votes cast for that office or position and were elected.

(A) by a vote of 25 to 0,

(B) by a vote of 21 to 0, and

(C) by a vote of 10 to 0.

There was no need to take a separate  vote on (C) 

 

 

 

[Joshua Katz]

On 1/3/2024 at 6:27 PM, alanh49 said:

There was no need to take a separate  vote on (C) 

 

This is incorrect, and the premise of the original question was correct. Voters may select up to 3 choices on their ballots if one is used. Selecting A and B indicates, at least potentially, disapproval of C. On the next round, those who did not want C may vote for write-ins or move to reopen nominations. 

It is true, though, that if a ballot vote is not required, and there are 3 candidates for 3 positions, then the chair will declare all 3 elected as unopposed. It is also true that if they were seeking different positions, and no ballot was required, the chair would declare each elected to their position as unopposed. But here a ballot is required, and so a majority is needed.

[alanh49]

On 1/3/2024 at 6:32 PM, Joshua Katz said:

This is incorrect, and the premise of the original question was correct. Voters may select up to 3 choices on their ballots if one is used. Selecting A and B indicates, at least potentially, disapproval of C. On the next round, those who did not want C may vote for write-ins or move to reopen nominations. 

It is true, though, that if a ballot vote is not required, and there are 3 candidates for 3 positions, then the chair will declare all 3 elected as unopposed. It is also true that if they were seeking different positions, and no ballot was required, the chair would declare each elected to their position as unopposed. But here a ballot is required, and so a majority is needed.

I was going to cite RONR 12th ed. 45:36 to prove my point.

But then I read RONR 12th ed. 46:33 which proves your point

So I'll concede that that I was wrong.

 

 

 

 

[Josh Martin]

On 1/3/2024 at 5:27 PM, alanh49 said:

If (A) (B) & (C) are all running for 3 different positions.

They are not running against each other. This means they all got a majority of the votes cast for that office or position and were elected.

(A) by a vote of 25 to 0,

(B) by a vote of 21 to 0, and

(C) by a vote of 10 to 0.

There was no need to take a separate  vote on (C) 

Sure. But in this instance, the candidates were not running for different positions - they were running for identical positions. So the controlling rule is found in 46:33.

I think you'll also find that your logic breaks down if you have more than three candidates.

Edited January 4, 2024 at 01:55 PM by Josh Martin

[Gary Novosielski]

On 1/3/2024 at 6:27 PM, alanh49 said:

If (A) (B) & (C) are all running for 3 different positions.

They are not running against each other. This means they all got a majority of the votes cast for that office or position and were elected.

(A) by a vote of 25 to 0,

(B) by a vote of 21 to 0, and

(C) by a vote of 10 to 0.

There was no need to take a separate  vote on (C)

But per the original question, they were all running for three identical open director seats, so this analysis does not seem to apply.