Cumulative voting and minority rights

[Dan Honemann]

On 2/8/2024 at 11:16 AM, J. J. said:

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.

None of this makes any sense.

 

On 2/8/2024 at 11:16 AM, J. J. said:

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

I agree that the rule can be suspended.  The dispute concerns whether the second sentence of 25:2(7) is applicable.

On 2/8/2024 at 11:16 AM, J. J. said:

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

But isn't it true that this fraction will vary depending upon what assumption is made concerning how many of the members present will vote? 

[J. J.]

On 2/8/2024 at 12:29 PM, Dan Honemann said:

None of this makes any sense.

 

I agree that the rule can be suspended.  The dispute concerns whether the second sentence of 25:2(7) is applicable.

But isn't it true that this fraction will vary depending upon what assumption is made concerning how many of the members present will vote? 

The first paragraph makes sense to everyone else.

The second line is applicable, because the minority will always be less than 1/3.

No, it may, in fact, be based on the total number of members, i.e. the total number that could vote.  That is one possibility. 

Further the percentage will not change based on the number of people voting in either example.  For example, if Mr. Martin's premise is correct, the rule will always protect a minority of greater than 12.5% of the members voting; at least 87.5% of the voters is needed to suspend the rule.  If my premise is correct, it will always protect a minority of greater than 12.5% of the members; at least 87.5% of the membership is needed to suspend the rule.

The percentage necessary is based on the number of positions or slots, not the number of voters or members, and it is fixed progression.

If the rule can be suspended, and Mr. Martin is right, the minority protected is anything above these numbers:

2 slots- 25%- 75% needed to suspend

3 slots-16.6667%-83.333% needed to suspend
4 slots- 12.5%-87.5%             "  "
5 slots - 10%-90%                  ''   ''
6 slots - 8.3333%-91.6667%  "    "
7 slots - 7.1429%-92.8671%  "      "
8 slots - 6.5%- 93.5%            "        " 
9 slots- 5.5556%-94.4444%  "       "
10  slots - 5%-95%                   "       "

Under Mr. Martin's premise the percentage would be of the members voting. 

If the rule can be suspended, and I am right, the minority protected is anything above these numbers:

2 slots- 25%- 75% needed to suspend

3 slots-16.6667%-83.333% needed to suspend
4 slots- 12.5%-87.5%             "  "
5 slots - 10%-90%                  ''   ''
6 slots - 8.3333%-91.6667%  "    "
7 slots - 7.1429%-92.8671%  "      "
8 slots - 6.5%- 93.5%            "        " 
9 slots- 5.5556%-94.4444%  "       "
10  slots - 5%-95%                   "       "

Under my premise the percentage would be of the total membership.

In neither case would this percentage fluctuated on the number of people voting, at least as I would understand Mr. Martin's premise. 

Edited February 9, 2024 at 02:15 PM by J. J.

[Dan Honemann]

On 2/8/2024 at 1:38 PM, J. J. said:

The first paragraph makes sense to everyone else.

The second line is applicable, because the minority will always be less than 1/3.

No, it may, in fact, be based on the total number of members, i.e. the total number that could vote.  That is one possibility. 

Further the percentage will not change based on the number of people voting in either example.  For example, if Mr. Martin's premise is correct, the rule will always protect a minority of greater than 12.5% of the members voting; at least 87.5% of the voters is needed to suspend the rule.  If my premise is correct, it will always protect a minority of greater than 12.5% of the members; at least 87.5% of the membership is needed to suspend the rule.

The percentage necessary is based on the number of positions or slots, not the number of voters or members, and it is fixed progression.

If the rule can be suspended, and Mr. Martin is right, the minority protected is anything above these numbers:

2 slots- 25%- 75% needed to suspend

3 slots-16.6667%-83.333% needed to suspend
4 slots- 12.5%-87.5%             "  "
5 slots - 10%-90%                  ''   ''
6 slots - 8.3333%-91.6667%  "    "
7 slots - 7.1329%-92.8671%  "      "
8 slots - 6.5%- 93.5%            "        " 
9 slots- 5.5556%-94.4444%  "       "
10  slots - 5%-95%                   "       "

Under Mr. Martin's premise the percentage would be of the members voting. 

If the rule can be suspended, and I am right, the minority protected is anything above these numbers:

2 slots- 25%- 75% needed to suspend

3 slots-16.6667%-83.333% needed to suspend
4 slots- 12.5%-87.5%             "  "
5 slots - 10%-90%                  ''   ''
6 slots - 8.3333%-91.6667%  "    "
7 slots - 7.1329%-92.8671%  "      "
8 slots - 6.5%- 93.5%            "        " 
9 slots- 5.5556%-94.4444%  "       "
10  slots - 5%-95%                   "       "

Under my premise the percentage would be of the total membership.

In neither case would this percentage fluctuated on the number of people voting, at least as I would understand Mr. Martin's premise. 

I don't think that any of this is accurate, but let's just focus now on the assertion that the fraction will not change based on a change in the number of people voting.

Suppose, in your original scenario, only 20 of the 120 members present vote in the election for the 4 seats on the committee. This means that 11 votes will be needed for adoption, and that a minimum of 3 members will need to vote for a candidate in order to ensure his election. This is 3/20 (15%) of the members voting, which is not the same fraction arrived by Mr. Martin when he assumed that all 120 of the members present vote. 

If Mr. Martin thinks I have gotten any of this wrong (I wouldn't be shocked if I have), I hope that he will so advise us.

 

[Josh Martin]

On 2/8/2024 at 6:13 PM, Dan Honemann said:

I don't think that any of this is accurate, but let's just focus now on the assertion that the fraction will not change based on a change in the number of people voting.

Suppose, in your original scenario, only 20 of the 120 members present vote in the election for the 4 seats on the committee. This means that 11 votes will be needed for adoption, and that a minimum of 3 members will need to vote for a candidate in order to ensure his election. This is 3/20 (15%) of the members voting, which is not the same fraction arrived by Mr. Martin when he assumed that all 120 of the members present vote. 

If Mr. Martin thinks I have gotten any of this wrong (I wouldn't be shocked if I have), I hope that he will so advise us.

I think what J.J. is getting at is that *, because my premise is based on the number of members present, the calculation I used will not change regardless of the number of members voting. It is of course correct that the actual number of members needed to ensure a candidate's election under cumulative voting will change based on the number of members actually voting.

My presumption in my original post was that the motion to suspend the rules would be adopted prior to members actually voting, and therefore I had to base my calculation on some quantity that was known (the number of members present), since it is impossible to know in advance how many members would vote.

(Indeed, I'm not sure it would be in order to suspend this rule after members had actually voted, as such a motion would likely compromise the secrecy of a ballot vote.)

But given all of this discussion, I think the last paragraph I wrote is the most important part of my original response.

* EDIT: I am no longer certain this is what J. J. was getting at.

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

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 9, 2024 at 01:07 PM by Josh Martin

[J. J.]

On 2/8/2024 at 7:13 PM, Dan Honemann said:

I don't think that any of this is accurate, but let's just focus now on the assertion that the fraction will not change based on a change in the number of people voting.

Suppose, in your original scenario, only 20 of the 120 members present vote in the election for the 4 seats on the committee. This means that 11 votes will be needed for adoption, and that a minimum of 3 members will need to vote for a candidate in order to ensure his election. This is 3/20 (15%) of the members voting, which is not the same fraction arrived by Mr. Martin when he assumed that all 120 of the members present vote. 

If Mr. Martin thinks I have gotten any of this wrong (I wouldn't be shocked if I have), I hope that he will so advise us.

 

The fraction is still the same under Mr. Martin's premise.  If there are 120  votes cast, 105 votes would be needed to suspend the rules.  If there are 100 votes cast, 88 votes would be needed (in whole numbers) would be needed to suspend the rule.  If 20 votes are cast,  then 18 votes (in whole numbers) would be needed.

Both mathematically and by the terms of 46:45 there is a rule protecting a minority of a particular size. 

[Josh Martin]

On 2/8/2024 at 8:15 PM, J. J. said:

The fraction is still the same under Mr. Martin's premise.  If there are 120  votes cast, 105 votes would be needed to suspend the rules.  If there are 100 votes cast, 88 votes would be needed (in whole numbers) would be needed to suspend the rule.  If 20 votes are cast,  then 18 votes (in whole numbers) would be needed.

Are you saying the assembly is suspending the rules after the votes are cast?

[J. J.]

On 2/9/2024 at 8:06 AM, Josh Martin said:

Are you saying the assembly is suspending the rules after the votes are cast?

No, but I am suggesting the vote needed to suspend could be 87.5%, or 7/8 of the votes cast, which I think is your premise. 

The rule described is tantamount to a rule stating that a minority of greater than 1/8 could elect one committee member.  That is clearly covered under the second sentence of 25:2 7.

I would be interested in hearing opinions on why the rule could only be suspended by 7/8 of the entire membership or why the rule could not be suspended.

 

Edited February 9, 2024 at 02:11 PM by J. J.

[Josh Martin]

On 2/9/2024 at 8:02 AM, J. J. said:

No, but I am suggesting the vote needed to suspend could be 87.5%, or 7/8 of the votes cast, which I think is your premise. 

Oh, I understand, you're saying it would be based on the number of persons voting on the motion to Suspend the Rules.

I hadn't considered that possibility. Certainly, since it will not be known in advance how many persons would vote in the election itself, some proxy must be used for this. I had used the number of members present. But using the number of persons voting on the motion to Suspend the Rules would be another alternative.

[J. J.]

On 2/9/2024 at 10:23 AM, Josh Martin said:

Oh, I understand, you're saying it would be based on the number of persons voting on the motion to Suspend the Rules.

I hadn't considered that possibility. Certainly, since it will not be known in advance how many persons would vote in the election itself, some proxy must be used for this. I had used the number of members present. But using the number of persons voting on the motion to Suspend the Rules would be another alternative.

Okay then, Jacobs 2. 

This would be identical to a motion to suspend the rules, except for the vote needed, because of the second line of 25.2 7, i.e. the rule protects a minority of less than 1/3.  I had actually taken that to be your initial position.

[Dan Honemann]

On 2/9/2024 at 10:23 AM, Josh Martin said:

Oh, I understand, you're saying it would be based on the number of persons voting on the motion to Suspend the Rules.

I hadn't considered that possibility. Certainly, since it will not be known in advance how many persons would vote in the election itself, some proxy must be used for this. I had used the number of members present. But using the number of persons voting on the motion to Suspend the Rules would be another alternative.

It is not possible to determine what vote will be needed for adoption of the motion to suspend the rules without knowing how many votes will be cast in the election. 

 Suppose we assume that, under your scenario, all 120 members vote on the motion to suspend the rules.  For this to be adopted, at least 105 will have to vote in the affirmative, which is 87.5% of the votes cast. A minority of 16 members are protected by the rule.

Let's also assume, under my scenario, that all 120 members vote on the motion to suspend the rules.  For this to be adopted, at least 118 will have to vote in the affirmative, which is 98.3% of the votes cast. A minority of 3 members are protected by the rule.

The disparity is greater if fewer members vote on the motion to suspend.

Suppose we assume that, under your scenario, 100 members vote on the motion to suspend the rules.  For this to be adopted, at least 85 will have to vote in the affirmative (16 members are protected), which is 85% of the votes cast.

Under my scenario, if 100 members vote on the motion to suspend the rules at least 98 will have to vote in the affirmative (3 members are protected), which is 98% of the votes cast. 

 

[J. J.]

On 2/9/2024 at 11:32 AM, Dan Honemann said:

It is not possible to determine what vote will be needed for adoption of the motion to suspend the rules without knowing how many votes will be cast in the election. 

 

 

 

This is not hypothetical.  Why not?

If there was a rule, for example, that 1/5 voting could order a ballot vote on any main motion, why would we need to know what the result would be prior to suspending the rules (by greater than a 4/5 vote). 

Perhaps, in light of this question, we should ask if cumulative voting creates a right members, including those that abstain, or for members that  vote?

 

Edited February 9, 2024 at 04:44 PM by J. J.

[Dan Honemann]

On 2/9/2024 at 11:32 AM, Dan Honemann said:

It is not possible to determine what vote will be needed for adoption of the motion to suspend the rules without knowing how many votes will be cast in the election. 

 

On 2/9/2024 at 11:39 AM, J. J. said:

This is not hypothetical.  Why not?

First of all, I should have noted that this statement I had bolded assumes that a rule mandating cumulative voting protects a minority of a particular size, which is not the case.

The examples I supplied illustrate that the vote necessary to suspend the rule mandating cumulative voting will vary depending on the number of members voting in the election.

On 2/9/2024 at 11:39 AM, J. J. said:

If there was a rule, for example, that 1/5 voting could order a ballot vote on any main motion, why would we need to know what the result would be prior to suspending the rules (by greater than a 4/5 vote). 

We wouldn't, because the fraction of members protected (1/5) is fixed and constitutes a minority of a particular size. It won't change no matter how many members vote on the main motion.

On 2/9/2024 at 11:39 AM, J. J. said:

Perhaps, in light of this question, we should ask if cumulative voting creates a right members, including those that abstain, or for members that  vote?

 

I'm not sure I understand this question.  Cumulative voting creates a right (of sorts) in a minority group whose size will vary depending upon the circumstances.  

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 2/9/2024 at 11:32 AM, Dan Honemann said:

It is not possible to determine what vote will be needed for adoption of the motion to suspend the rules without knowing how many votes will be cast in the election. 

But if the fraction of members voting in opposition on the motion to suspend the rules is as large as the fraction protected by the rule governing the election, then it seems obvious to me this should be sufficient to prevent the suspension of the rules.

Conversely, if sufficient members eligible to vote in the election either abstain or vote in favor of suspending the rules, then this may be taken as a relinquishment of their rights to achieve their desired outcome in the election by the particular fraction in question. 

[Dan Honemann]

On 2/9/2024 at 12:54 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

But if the fraction of members voting in opposition on the motion to suspend the rules is as large as the fraction protected by the rule governing the election, then it seems obvious to me this should be sufficient to prevent the suspension of the rules.

For what seems to me now to be about the fiftieth time, I will point out that there is no way of knowing what fraction is protected by the rule mandating cumulative voting until you know how many members vote in the election.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 2/9/2024 at 12:59 PM, Dan Honemann said:

For what seems to me now to be about the fiftieth time, I will point out that there is no way of knowing what fraction is protected by the rule mandating cumulative voting until you know how many members vote in the election.

But we know what the minimum is to guarantee it. 

And presumably the members who are present and are eligible to vote in the election know how they intend to vote in the election, and therefore know what to do to protect their rights in voting in the election.

The motion to suspend the rules relating to the election becomes part of the election process, and that motion cannot violate their rights either. 

[Dan Honemann]

On 2/9/2024 at 1:07 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

But we know what the minimum is to guarantee it. 

I think it was Dr, Kapur who, about fifty years ago, pointed out that the minimum number of members protected by the rule is 1.

When you say that "we know what the minimum is to guarantee it" what are you referring to?

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 2/9/2024 at 1:21 PM, Dan Honemann said:

When you say that "we know what the minimum is to guarantee it" what are you referring to?

We know that no more members can vote in the election than the number who are present at the time of the election.

And for purposes of suspending the rules relating to the number of votes necessary for election, I think this number (the number present) is adequate to work with, because as I pointed out to J. J. earlier, there's nothing preventing the assembly from actually conducting the election at that time, so any consideration with regard to the rights of absent members is not relevant. 

And I further think that the number present and voting is adequate to work with, because any members who abstain thereby relinquish any rights given up by adoption of the motion to suspend the rules. 

[Atul Kapur]

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

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.

Much of the discussion arose from the assumption that it is. I agree with Mr. Honemann that it does not (and I am certain he is much relieved with my support 😉).

In the OP, @J. J. said "46:43 describes cumulative voting as a method for electing someone from a 'minority group.'" and then concludes (at least for the purposes of his question) 

Quote

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

46:43 says "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."

I believe that is an error to take the fact that the rule, among other things, gives the minority the ability to utilize a particular tactic and claim that therefore this is a "rule protecting a minority of a particular size", particularly since there is no guarantee that the tactic will be successful.

So, my answer is that the rule can be suspended with a 2/3 vote.

In the alternative (that 25:2(7) is applicable), I stick with my assertion that the minimum is one member.

[Dan Honemann]

On 2/9/2024 at 1:31 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

We know that no more members can vote in the election than the number who are present at the time of the election.

This I can agree with.

On 2/9/2024 at 1:31 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

And for purposes of suspending the rules relating to the number of votes necessary for election, I think this number (the number present) is adequate to work with, because as I pointed out to J. J. earlier, there's nothing preventing the assembly from actually conducting the election at that time, so any consideration with regard to the rights of absent members is not relevant. 

What you seem to be saying here is that, when the vote is taken to suspend the rules, the outcome of the vote is to be determined by assuming that, when the election is held, the same number of members will vote in the election as vote on the motion to suspend the rules.  The outcome of a vote should never have to be based upon such an assumption.

On 2/9/2024 at 1:31 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

And I further think that the number present and voting is adequate to work with, because any members who abstain thereby relinquish any rights given up by adoption of the motion to suspend the rules. 

I find this to be an equally untenable notion.  Members have a right to abstain, and are free to exercise this right without relinquishing any other right.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 2/9/2024 at 2:24 PM, Dan Honemann said:

I find this to be an equally untenable notion.  Members have a right to abstain, and are free to exercise this right without relinquishing any other right.

You can't abstain on a motion to give up your rights and then claim the same rights after the motion is legitimately adopted. 

[Dan Honemann]

On 2/9/2024 at 2:32 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

You can't abstain on a motion to give up your rights and then claim the same rights after the motion is legitimately adopted. 

Of course you can.  Did all members who voted yes on the motion to suspend the rules also give up their rights after the motion is adopted?

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 2/9/2024 at 2:38 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Of course you can.  Did all members who voted yes on the motion to suspend the rules also give up their rights after the motion is adopted?

Yes, they gave up their rights to have the election conducted by cumulative voting. 

[Dan Honemann]

On 2/9/2024 at 2:45 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

Yes, they gave up their rights to have the election conducted by cumulative voting. 

But since the election will be held by cumulative voting regardless of what they wanted, all of the rules relating thereto will be in full force and effect.  

I don't see how it could be otherwise. The election will be held by ballot, so any effect that abstentions and yes votes in voting on the motion to suspend the rules will have on the election will affect all voters equally.  

If I vote no or abstain on a motion to reconsider, do I lose any of my rights on reconsideration if the motion to reconsider is adopted?

[J. J.]

On 2/9/2024 at 3:12 PM, Dan Honemann said:

But since the election will be held by cumulative voting regardless of what they wanted, all of the rules relating thereto will be in full force and effect.  

I don't see how it could be otherwise. The election will be held by ballot, so any effect that abstentions and yes votes in voting on the motion to suspend the rules will have on the election will affect all voters equally.  

If I vote no or abstain on a motion to reconsider, do I lose any of my rights on reconsideration if the motion to reconsider is adopted?

No, the vote would not be held by cumulative voting, if a sufficient number vote to suspend that rule.  The question is what is that number?

The election will not be held by secret ballot.

[J. J.]

On 2/9/2024 at 1:21 PM, Dan Honemann said:

 

When you say that "we know what the minimum is to guarantee it" what are you referring to?

I would say, the minimum is the number that could elect, based on the number of votes cast to suspend the rule.