Cumulative voting and minority rights

[J. J.]

(This is incredibly convoluted but is based on a real situation)

A society has a bylaw permitting a special rule to establish cumulative voting for seats on a standing committee.  The society adopts the special rule that says:  "The ABC Committee shall consist of four members of the assembly, elected by cumulative voting,"  The society has 200 enrolled members, with no fixed quorum in the bylaws; the default is a majority.  No rule or bylaw requires secret ballots for this. There are currently 120 members present.

46:43 describes cumulative voting as a method for electing someone from a "minority group." 

1.  Does cumulative voting protect a "minority of a particular size," within the meaning of 25:2 #7?  (I will go with yes, currently.)

2.  May the rule be suspended in this case?

3.  If the answer to  2 is yes, what is the vote required to suspend, i.e. "the minority of a particular size?"  How many votes would be necessary to prevent suspension?

 

 

[Josh Martin]

On 2/5/2024 at 11:20 AM, J. J. said:

1.  Does cumulative voting protect a "minority of a particular size," within the meaning of 25:2 #7?  (I will go with yes, currently.)

I am inclined to think so.

"For ballot or roll-call elections of boards, committees, delegates, or other positions held by more than one individual, the bylaws may provide for cumulative voting. In this form of voting, each member is entitled to cast one vote for each position, so that if, for example, three directors are to be elected, each member may cast three votes. These votes may all be cast for one, two, or three candidates, as the voter chooses. A minority group, by coordinating its effort in voting for only one candidate who is a member of the group, may be able to secure the election of that candidate as a minority member of the board." RONR (12th ed.) 46:43

On 2/5/2024 at 11:20 AM, J. J. said:

2.  May the rule be suspended in this case?

I cannot think of any reason why the rule could not be suspended.

On 2/5/2024 at 11:20 AM, J. J. said:

3.  If the answer to  2 is yes, what is the vote required to suspend, i.e. "the minority of a particular size?"  How many votes would be necessary to prevent suspension?

It seems to me that for cumulative voting, "the minority of a particular size" which is protected is the minimum number of persons required to elect one person on the body in question. I think, for the sake of simplicity, it would be assumed all members present would vote in the election for purposes of this calculation.

In the specific scenario described, there are 120 members present, and there are four members to elect to the committee. Assuming all members vote, a majority is 61. An individual member could cast, at most, four votes for one candidate. Therefore, a minimum of 16 members would need to vote for a candidate in order to elect them.

As a result, it seems to me that the rule could only be suspended if both of the following conditions are met:

• No more than 15 members vote in the negative
• At least two-thirds of the members present and voting vote in the affirmative (this condition is quite likely to be met if the first is met, unless there is an unusually high number of abstentions)

In the long run, however, I think it would be advisable for the society to either a.) amend the rule to provide that it cannot be suspended or b.) amend the rule to clearly specify what is required for its suspension. Because I think this is all more math and thinking than most assemblies will want to deal with.

Edited February 5, 2024 at 06:13 PM by Josh Martin

[J. J.]

That is basically my answer.

I think the suspension could not happen in the face of a negative vote (N) equal to a majority of the members voting (M) divided by the number of positions (P).  N<(M/P).  M > 60.  P= 4,  M/P = any number greater than 15, and N </= 2N as well. 

I will agree that the math is not easy. 

Edited February 5, 2024 at 06:42 PM by J. J.

[Atul Kapur]

On 2/5/2024 at 1:12 PM, Josh Martin said:

I think, for the sake of simplicity, it would be assumed all members present would vote in the election for purposes of this calculation.

Since when did "the sake of simplicity" become a factor in discussions in this forum? 😃

More seriously, there is no reason to assume that all members present would vote, or that they would cast all the votes they are eligible to cast. The safer assumption—the one that provides the most protection to a minority group—is to assume the smallest minority, that is one person, so suspension would require unanimous consent.

And it's even simpler to calculate, no matter the number of members present.

Edited February 5, 2024 at 10:10 PM by Atul Kapur

[J. J.]

On 2/5/2024 at 5:09 PM, Atul Kapur said:

Since when did "the sake of simplicity" become a factor in discussions in this forum? 😃

More seriously, there is no reason to assume that all members present would vote, or that they would cast all the votes they are eligible to cast. The safer assumption—the one that provides the most protection to a minority group—is to assume the smallest minority, that is one person, so suspension would require unanimous consent.

And it's even simpler to calculate, no matter the number of members present.

You should have to look at the size of the minority that could be protected by the rule. 

[Atul Kapur]

On 2/6/2024 at 1:45 AM, J. J. said:

You should have to look at the size of the minority that could be protected by the rule. 

The minority that could be protected by the rule – which in this case involves an election and, therefore, the possibility of multiple abstentions – is one. Before the ballot is held, it is the only response in which we can have confidence. because it is not dependent on the results.

[Dan Honemann]

On 2/6/2024 at 9:10 AM, Atul Kapur said:

The minority that could be protected by the rule – which in this case involves an election and, therefore, the possibility of multiple abstentions – is one. Before the ballot is held, it is the only response in which we can have confidence. because it is not dependent on the results.

Dr. Kapur, am I right in concluding that, in your opinion, the second sentence of 25:2(7) is inapplicable and a two thirds vote is required and is sufficient to suspend the special rule referred to in J.J.'s statement the facts?

[J. J.]

On 2/5/2024 at 5:09 PM, Atul Kapur said:

Since when did "the sake of simplicity" become a factor in discussions in this forum? 😃

More seriously, there is no reason to assume that all members present would vote, or that they would cast all the votes they are eligible to cast. The safer assumption—the one that provides the most protection to a minority group—is to assume the smallest minority, that is one person, so suspension would require unanimous consent.

And it's even simpler to calculate, no matter the number of members present.

 

On 2/6/2024 at 9:34 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Dr. Kapur, am I right in concluding that, in your opinion, the second sentence of 25:2(7) is inapplicable and a two thirds vote is required and is sufficient to suspend the special rule referred to in J.J.'s statement the facts?

Based on his first quote, I do not get the impression that this is what he is claiming. 

My impression is that, Dr. Kapur is saying is that, at least before the votes are cast, the rule could only be suspended by unanimous consent [or by a unanimous vote] because, in theory, one person could elect the members of the ABC Committee. 

[J. J.]

Looking at this question in another way, you could argue that it would take 175 votes to suspend the rule.  There is no scenario where 175 people could not elect candidates of their choice for all seats. There is a scenario where 174 voters could not elect all the candidates of their choice.

Edited February 6, 2024 at 11:10 PM by J. J.

[Atul Kapur]

On 2/6/2024 at 9:34 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Dr. Kapur, am I right in concluding that, in your opinion, the second sentence of 25:2(7) is inapplicable and a two thirds vote is required and is sufficient to suspend the special rule referred to in J.J.'s statement the facts?

On the contrary, I believe the minority being protected could be as low as one  member and, before the vote is conducted, we should assume it is one. J.J. has captured it well

On 2/6/2024 at 10:44 AM, J. J. said:

My impression is that, Dr. Kapur is saying is that, at least before the votes are cast, the rule could only be suspended by unanimous consent [or by a unanimous vote] because, in theory, one person could elect the members of the ABC Committee. 

And, since the rule needs to be suspended before the vote is conducted, that minimum prevails throughout that election.

My second post was intended to reinforce that point. Apologies if I was unclear.

[J. J.]

So far, unanimous consent or a unanimous vote seems to be only way to truly protect a minority here. 

[Dan Honemann]

On 2/7/2024 at 12:02 AM, J. J. said:

So far, unanimous consent or a unanimous vote seems to be only way to truly protect a minority here. 

So what would you say is the vote required to suspend a rule requiring a three-fourths vote for the adoption of a particular motion?

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 2/6/2024 at 3:38 PM, J. J. said:

Looking at this question in another way, you could argue that it would take 175 votes to suspend the rule.  There is no scenario where 175 people could not elect candidates of their choice for all seats. There is a scenario where 174 voters could not elect all the candidates of their choice.

This seems to me a terrible argument, because only 120 members are present, and the absentees cannot vote for anyone regardless of which rule is in place. 

[J. J.]

On 2/7/2024 at 10:29 AM, Shmuel Gerber said:

This seems to me a terrible argument, because only 120 members are present, and the absentees cannot vote for anyone regardless of which rule is in place. 

They could show up before the vote is taken. 

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 2/7/2024 at 11:27 AM, J. J. said:

They could show up before the vote is taken. 

Or the vote could be taken, without suspending the rules, before they show up. By being absent, they have no say in the matter, so it doesn't matter what they could do if they were present.

If you were talking about a situation in which the election could not be held at that time but a motion is made to suspend the rules controlling the election, that would (or at least might) be a different story. 

[J. J.]

On 2/7/2024 at 6:09 AM, Dan Honemann said:

So what would you say is the vote required to suspend a rule requiring a three-fourths vote for the adoption of a particular motion?

I would say that if you had at least 150 votes in this case you are protecting the rights of a minority. 

We are told that "no rule protecting a minority of a particular size can be suspended in the face of a negative vote as large as the minority protected by the rule (25:2 7).'

Arguably, that could be one member. Arguably, it could be 26 members.  Arguably, it could be some number in between. 

[J. J.]

On 2/7/2024 at 11:39 AM, Shmuel Gerber said:

Or the vote could be taken, without suspending the rules, before they show up. By being absent, they have no say in the matter, so it doesn't matter what they could do if they were present.

If you were talking about a situation in which the election could not be held at that time but a motion is made to suspend the rules controlling the election, that would (or at least might) be a different story. 

The election could be pending, i.e. candidates are nominated and debated after the rule is suspended.  The rule could be suspended and then the election postponed or a recess, a brief one, is taken.  It may take, and likely would, take some time to physically cast the votes.  In all cases, they are voting after the rule has been suspended. 

 

[Atul Kapur]

On 2/7/2024 at 6:09 AM, Dan Honemann said:

So what would you say is the vote required to suspend a rule requiring a three-fourths vote for the adoption of a particular motion?

Is this question linked to J.J.'s cumulative voting scenario or are you asking in the general situation beyond that context?

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 2/7/2024 at 12:09 PM, J. J. said:

The election could be pending, i.e. candidates are nominated and debated after the rule is suspended.  The rule could be suspended and then the election postponed or a recess, a brief one, is taken.  It may take, and likely would, take some time to physically cast the votes.  In all cases, they are voting after the rule has been suspended. 

That's an interesting point, but under such a theory a motion, even if it requires only a majority vote, could never be adopted by unanimous consent, because absent members might have shown up to vote against the motion during the time it would have taken to vote. 

[J. J.]

On 2/7/2024 at 12:18 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

That's an interesting point, but under such a theory a motion, even if it requires only a majority vote, could never be adopted by unanimous consent, because absent members might have shown up to vote against the motion during the time it would have taken to vote. 

Well, the action was carried out in the case of unanimous consent. 

[Dan Honemann]

On 2/7/2024 at 12:15 PM, Atul Kapur said:

Is this question linked to J.J.'s cumulative voting scenario or are you asking in the general situation beyond that context?

In the general situation.  Is a unanimous vote required?

[J. J.]

First, I want to be clear, I am not wedded to a method for suspending the rule, but I do thing the rule, in this case, is supendable.

I do wonder, however, if the question should be, how many votes are needed to prevent someone from being elected?

Assume that Mary is a candidate and that most of the members do not want her elected to the ABC Committee.  How many members would be needed to prevent that, in all cases?  If 175 people will not vote for Mary, and will vote for someone else, on any given round of voting, Mary cannot with.  If only 174 feel that way, Mary could win. 

That would answer a lot of the questions that have come up here. 

 

[Dan Honemann]

On 2/7/2024 at 12:36 PM, J. J. said:

First, I want to be clear, I am not wedded to a method for suspending the rule, but I do thing the rule, in this case, is supendable.

I suppose the method for suspending this rule is the making and adoption of a motion to do so.

On 2/7/2024 at 12:36 PM, J. J. said:

I do wonder, however, if the question should be, how many votes are needed to prevent someone from being elected?

The first question to be answered is whether or not the rule in the second sentence of 25:2(7) is applicable, and I think the answer to this question is no.

A rule requiring a certain fraction of the votes cast for adoption, such as four-fifths, is a rule protecting a minority of a particular size.  A rule authorizing or mandating cumulative voting is not.

[J. J.]

On 2/7/2024 at 1:49 PM, Dan Honemann said:

The first question to be answered is whether or not the rule in the second sentence of 25:2(7) is applicable, and I think the answer to this question is no.

A rule requiring a certain fraction of the votes cast for adoption, such as four-fifths, is a rule protecting a minority of a particular size.  A rule authorizing or mandating cumulative voting is not.

The way that it is worded in 46:43 creates a right for a "minority group."  Suspending it by a 2/3 vote would certainly violate the rights of that minority of less than 2/3.

Could the rule be suspended? 

[Dan Honemann]

On 2/7/2024 at 1:55 PM, J. J. said:

The way that it is worded in 46:43 creates a right for a "minority group."  Suspending it by a 2/3 vote would certainly violate the rights of that minority of less than 2/3.

I do not think that the rule in 46:43 protects "a minority of a particular size" as contemplated by the rule in 25:2(7).

 

On 2/7/2024 at 1:55 PM, J. J. said:

Could the rule be suspended?

Yes, the rule you refer to in your initial post is a rule that can be suspended by a two-thirds vote.  The rules may not be suspended in order to authorize cumulative voting.