Cumulative voting and minority rights

[J. J.]

On 2/7/2024 at 2:13 PM, Dan Honemann said:

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).

 

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.

I do not agree, based on the black letter wording of RONR. 

What we don't know, for sure, what the "particular size" of the minority is, but we do know the range and know that it is less than one third. 

[Dan Honemann]

On 2/7/2024 at 2:24 PM, J. J. said:

I do not agree, based on the black letter wording of RONR. 

What we don't know, for sure, what the "particular size" of the minority is, but we do know the range and know that it is less than one third. 

Well, this isn't the first time we have failed to agree.  😃

[J. J.]

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

Well, this isn't the first time we have failed to agree.  😃

It may be the difference between what you want to say, and what it says. 

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 2/7/2024 at 2:13 PM, Dan Honemann said:

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).

In that case, maybe the rule cannot be suspended at all, as suspending the rule would take away a member's right to vote (as many times as he is entitled to).

[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?

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?

On 2/7/2024 at 12:23 PM, Dan Honemann said:

In the general situation.  Is a unanimous vote required?

For the sake of closing this particular loop, I would say that "the vote required to suspend a rule requiring a three-fourths vote for the adoption of a particular motion" would be a three-fourths vote.

I accepted @J. J.'s premise that cumulative voting protected a minority just for the purposes of his OP; my conclusion that this would require unanimous consent or a unanimous vote was based on that premise.

For those who disagree with that premise, such as yourself, I agree with you that such a suspension would require a two-thirds vote.

[J. J.]

Just so you all know, this is based on a real question, and is the simplified version. 

I do thank everyone for the input. 

[Dan Honemann]

On 2/7/2024 at 3:45 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

In that case, maybe the rule cannot be suspended at all, as suspending the rule would take away a member's right to vote (as many times as he is entitled to).

In this instance, suspending the rule takes away a "right" which itself violates a fundamental principle of parliamentary law. Its suspension remedies that situation.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 2/7/2024 at 4:01 PM, Dan Honemann said:

In this instance, suspending the rule takes away a "right" which itself violates a fundamental principle of parliamentary law. Its suspension remedies that situation.

That's an interesting point, but I don't see why it should make any logical difference.

[Dan Honemann]

On 2/7/2024 at 4:10 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

That's an interesting point, but I don't see why it should make any logical difference.

Suspension of the rule doesn't take away any individual member's right to vote.  It takes away the right of all members to cast their votes in a certain manner.  All members are still entitled to cast their votes for candidates of their choice. 

[J. J.]

On 2/7/2024 at 4:25 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Suspension of the rule doesn't take away any individual member's right to vote.  It takes away the right of all members to cast their votes in a certain manner.  All members are still entitled to cast their votes for candidates of their choice. 

Then you could suspend the rules and require each member to vote for less than 4 candidates?  That is the path you seem to be on with this. 

[Dan Honemann]

On 2/7/2024 at 4:43 PM, J. J. said:

Then you could suspend the rules and require each member to vote for less than 4 candidates?  That is the path you seem to be on with this. 

No.

[J. J.]

On 2/7/2024 at 6:08 PM, Dan Honemann said:

No.

That is the path you are going down with this.  " It takes away the right of all members to cast their votes in a certain manner.  All members are still entitled to cast their votes for candidates of their choice." 

[Dan Honemann]

On 2/7/2024 at 6:22 PM, J. J. said:

That is the path you are going down with this.  " It takes away the right of all members to cast their votes in a certain manner.  All members are still entitled to cast their votes for candidates of their choice." 

If there are four positions on the committee to be filed, all members retain the right to vote for up to four candidates of their choice.  Nothing I have said implies otherwise.

[J. J.]

On 2/7/2024 at 6:28 PM, Dan Honemann said:

If there are four positions on the committee to be filed, all members retain the right to vote for up to four candidates of their choice.  Nothing I have said implies otherwise.

I merely quote you and will let others decide.  

[Dan Honemann]

On 2/7/2024 at 6:33 PM, J. J. said:

I merely quote you and will let others decide.  

Well when you do, please do so accurately and in context.

[J. J.]

On 2/7/2024 at 6:50 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Well when you do, please do so accurately and in context.

I did in my first quote. 

[Dan Honemann]

On 2/7/2024 at 6:53 PM, J. J. said:

I did in my first quote. 

Which one is that?

[J. J.]

On 2/7/2024 at 4:01 PM, Dan Honemann said:

In this instance, suspending the rule takes away a "right" which itself violates a fundamental principle of parliamentary law. Its suspension remedies that situation.

The "right" does not, by its nature, violate any fundamental principle.  It supersedes a rule that embodies a fundamental principle.  The fundamental principle rule is no longer in effect. 

[J. J.]

On 2/7/2024 at 6:53 PM, J. J. said:

I did in my first quote. 

 

On 2/7/2024 at 4:25 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Suspension of the rule doesn't take away any individual member's right to vote.  It takes away the right of all members to cast their votes in a certain manner.  All members are still entitled to cast their votes for candidates of their choice. 

Right there. 

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 2/7/2024 at 4:25 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Suspension of the rule doesn't take away any individual member's right to vote.  It takes away the right of all members to cast their votes in a certain manner.  All members are still entitled to cast their votes for candidates of their choice. 

Well I still think there is something fishy about suspending this rule. If this method of electing the committee were prescribed directly in the bylaws, would you still say that the rules could be suspended so as to disallow cumulative voting? 

[Dan Honemann]

On 2/7/2024 at 7:00 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

Well I still think there is something fishy about suspending this rule. If this method of electing the committee were prescribed directly in the bylaws, would you still say that the rules could be suspended so as to disallow cumulative voting? 

Yes.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 2/7/2024 at 7:02 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Yes.

Well then I have to disagree. I don't see what the point would be in having a rule that enfranchises the members in a certain way, if 2/3 of the members voting could get their desired outcome by suspending the rules when they could not achieve it directly. 

[J. J.]

On 2/7/2024 at 7:05 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

Well then I have to disagree. I don't see what the point would be in having a rule that enfranchises the members in a certain way, if 2/3 of the members voting could get their desired outcome by suspending the rules when they could not achieve it directly. 

I agree with you, for several reasons.

However, it still raises these questions:

1.  Can the rule be suspended?

2.  If yes, what is the vote needed to suspend? 

[Dan Honemann]

On 2/7/2024 at 7:00 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

Well I still think there is something fishy about suspending this rule. If this method of electing the committee were prescribed directly in the bylaws, would you still say that the rules could be suspended so as to disallow cumulative voting? 

 

On 2/7/2024 at 7:02 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Yes.

 

On 2/7/2024 at 7:05 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

Well then I have to disagree. I don't see what the point would be in having a rule that enfranchises the members in a certain way, if 2/3 of the members voting could get their desired outcome by suspending the rules when they could not achieve it directly. 

I honestly don't see any good reason why a rule mandating cumulative voting cannot be suspended.  In this instance the rule is a special rule of order adopted pursuant to bylaw authority, without which it could not have been adopted.  It is certainly a rule of order, and if it was in the bylaws it would be a bylaw in the nature of a rule of order.

The real question, it seems to me, is whether a rule mandating cumulative voting is a rule "protecting a minority of a particular size" within the meaning of 25:2(7).  In my simplistic view of things it is not.  If I understand him correctly, Mr. Martin says that it is, since in any particular instance the minority being protected can be determined by application of a mathematical formula to be applied based upon an assumption.  Dr. Kapur appears to object to the assumption being made.

At least for now, I'll stick to my admittedly simplistic belief that "a minority of a particular size" refers to a certain fraction, such as one-fifth.  

 

 

[J. J.]

First, I will disagree that this, if authorized in the bylaws is a rule in the nature of a rule of order and therefor, in that case suspendable; RONR prevents it from being a rule of order (2:16) fn 5).  However, that is not relevant to this situation as the bylaws permit this to be created as a rule of order.

Second, I am still of the opinion that the rule could be suspended as per 25:2 7.

Third it is a misstatement of fact to claim that this would not be fraction.

On 2/8/2024 at 7:31 AM, Dan Honemann said:

At least for now, I'll stick to my admittedly simplistic belief that "a minority of a particular size" refers to a certain fraction, such as one-fifth. 

A fraction is a type of mathematical formula.  In the one described in the quoted post it could mean "one fifth of the membership/5," e.g. if the membership is 200, 1/5 is 40.  Since it is unspecified.  From the quote, it also could have a different numerator, e.g. "one fifth of the members voting."  In that case, even with 200 members, if 120 voted, 24 is 1/5.

Both the answers provided by Mr. Martin and myself are fractions. 

Martin's Answer:  The minority protected is any number greater than  (Total number of voters / 2) / number of positions.  In the example (120/2) / 4 or 60 / 4 or any number greater than 15. (12.5% of numerator x 2)  The rule not be suspended by a vote of less than 105 of the members voting.

Jacobs Answer:  The minority protected is any number greater than  (Total number members/2) / number of positions]  In the example, (200 /2) / 4] or 100/4 or 25. (12.5% of numerator x 2)  The rule could not be suspended by a vote of less than 175. 

Claiming that this is not a fraction is gross misstatement of fact.  To the contrary, both of these yield the said percentage of the numerator. 

 

Edited February 8, 2024 at 04:36 PM by J. J.