Voting Procedure for Electing Convention Delegates and Alternates

[Howard Roark]

RONR (12th ed.) 58:13 recommends electing an equal number of delegates and alternates, with the alternates being ranked in order of the number of votes received.  In our organization, this will be a 'plurality at large' election, with 100 candidates to be elected.  The top 50 vote getters will be delegates, and the next 50 will be alternates.

When conducting 'majority at large' elections, each member gets one vote per position to be filled. This is reasonable since a majority is required for election.  But is that still appropriate for a 'plurality at large' election? 

In the above situation, should members be given 100 votes, or only 50 votes?

Edited March 10, 2024 at 06:20 AM by Howard Roark
corrected typo

[J. J.]

I think that each member could still vote for up to 100 individuals.  Plurality deals with the number of votes needed to elect, not the numbers of votes that may be cast by a member.

[Atul Kapur]

On 3/10/2024 at 1:18 AM, Howard Roark said:

But is that still appropriate for a 'plurality at large' election?

I don't see a reason why it would not be. Do you have a particular scenario or specific question?

[Atul Kapur]

On 3/10/2024 at 1:18 AM, Howard Roark said:

should members be given 100 votes, or only 50 votes?

 

On 3/10/2024 at 8:19 AM, J. J. said:

I think that each member could still vote for up to 100 individuals

I think it would also be reasonable to have each member vote for up to 50 individuals, as there are significant differences between delegates and alternates, so they could be considered not equivalent (in that mindset, you're just electing 50 delegates and a ranked list of backups).

Edited March 10, 2024 at 01:18 PM by Atul Kapur

[Dan Honemann]

On 3/10/2024 at 9:18 AM, Atul Kapur said:

 

I think it would also be reasonable to have each member vote for up to 50 individuals, as there are significant differences between delegates and alternates, so they could be considered not equivalent (in that mindset, you're just electing 50 delegates and a ranked list of backups).

Then how are the alternates to be elected?

[J. J.]

On 3/10/2024 at 9:18 AM, Atul Kapur said:

 

I think it would also be reasonable to have each member vote for up to 50 individuals, as there are significant differences between delegates and alternates, so they could be considered not equivalent (in that mindset, you're just electing 50 delegates and a ranked list of backups).

The question is, however, if this would be different due to the election being conducted by a plurality.   I see no difference based on that.

[Howard Roark]

On 3/10/2024 at 6:01 AM, Atul Kapur said:

I don't see a reason why it would not be. Do you have a particular scenario or specific question?

Yes: if there are fewer nominees than the allowable quota, will a large number of ties result if 100 votes are allowed?  For example, if there are 100 total slots to fill, but only, say, 75 nominees, a concern was expressed that all the members (each having up to 100 votes) will be able to vote for all 75 nominees, resulting in a massive tie.  (Unlikely, perhaps, but Murphy's Law applies to our meetings.)

It would seem that a tie among the top 50 nominees would be no problem as the delegates need not be ranked, but the alternates do need to be ranked, so a tie amongst them would need to be resolved. (Our bylaws provide for a lottery to resolve ties, but it would slow things down significantly in these already too-long meetings.)

So the question boils down to: which option would result in fewer ties among the alternates? 

There seem to be two opposing forces at work here:

• Allowing only 50 votes would force members to be more selective and prevent them from "voting for everyone" and thus avoid a massive tie among the bottom vote getters. 
• On the other hand, allowing only 50 votes would result in a large number of ties among the bottom vote getters, as there would be numerous nominees with only one vote.

I'm stumped!

[Josh Martin]

On 3/10/2024 at 12:23 PM, Howard Roark said:

Yes: if there are fewer nominees than the allowable quota, will a large number of ties result if 100 votes are allowed?  For example, if there are 100 total slots to fill, but only, say, 75 nominees, a concern was expressed that all the members (each having up to 100 votes) will be able to vote for all 75 nominees, resulting in a massive tie.  (Unlikely, perhaps, but Murphy's Law applies to our meetings.)

I think a large number of ties are a significant possibility with this many positions in either event.

On 3/10/2024 at 12:23 PM, Howard Roark said:

So the question boils down to: which option would result in fewer ties among the alternates? 

There seem to be two opposing forces at work here:

• Allowing only 50 votes would force members to be more selective and prevent them from "voting for everyone" and thus avoid a massive tie among the bottom vote getters. 
• On the other hand, allowing only 50 votes would result in a large number of ties among the bottom vote getters, as there would be numerous nominees with only one vote.

If all 100 positions are elected simultaneously, as in the circumstance described, then each member may vote for up to 100 persons.

In the alternative, the delegates could be elected first on one ballot, and then the alternates on a second ballot, after the delegates are determined. In this situation, members could only vote for up to 50.

In either case, a large number of ties seems like a significant possibility, so it may be desirable to adopt some "tiebreaker" rules, if the organization has not already done so, to avoid a need for repeated balloting.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 3/10/2024 at 1:18 AM, Howard Roark said:

RONR (12th ed.) 58:13 recommends electing an equal number of delegates and alternates, with the alternates being ranked in order of the number of votes received. 

I don't see where the book says that the alternates are ranked in order of the number of votes received — although that is one possibility for the method of ranking. 

It also does not say that the number of alternates should always equal the number of delegates; it says the numbers frequently are equal. 

[Howard Roark]

On 3/10/2024 at 1:37 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

I don't see where the book says that the alternates are ranked in order of the number of votes received — although that is one possibility for the method of ranking. 

It also does not say that the number of alternates should always equal the number of delegates; it says the numbers frequently are equal. 

Indeed, but our bylaws require those things.  We would certainly be interested in amending them to specify a better procedure -- if we could find or develop a better one.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 3/10/2024 at 9:18 AM, Atul Kapur said:

 

I think it would also be reasonable to have each member vote for up to 50 individuals, as there are significant differences between delegates and alternates, so they could be considered not equivalent (in that mindset, you're just electing 50 delegates and a ranked list of backups).

 

On 3/10/2024 at 11:24 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Then how are the alternates to be elected?

Speed-knitting contest. 

[Atul Kapur]

On 3/10/2024 at 9:18 AM, Atul Kapur said:

I think it would also be reasonable to have each member vote for up to 50 individuals

 

On 3/10/2024 at 11:24 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Then how are the alternates to be elected?

As a majority is not required to elect here, the top 50 vote getters would be elected delegates and the 51st-100th vote getters would be the alternates.

On 3/10/2024 at 1:23 PM, Howard Roark said:

which option would result in fewer ties among the alternates? 

My quick thought was that limiting voters to 50 choices would result in fewer ties, but as @Josh Martin says, there are likely to be many under either scenario - fewer in the up-to-50 group, still many.

On 3/10/2024 at 5:36 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

Speed-knitting contest. 

With all the tying-on and tying-off, ties would be inevitable. Breath holding?

[Dan Honemann]

On 3/10/2024 at 11:24 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Then how are the alternates to be elected?

 

On 3/10/2024 at 10:56 PM, Atul Kapur said:

As a majority is not required to elect here, the top 50 vote getters would be elected delegates and the 51st-100th vote getters would be the alternates.

Thank you.  I flubbed that one.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 3/10/2024 at 4:51 PM, Howard Roark said:

Indeed, but our bylaws require those things.  We would certainly be interested in amending them to specify a better procedure -- if we could find or develop a better one.

I think it makes more sense to elect the delegates first and the alternates on a subsequent ballot.  But if that requires a bylaws amendment in your case, then you'll have to do that first.

[Howard Roark]

On 3/11/2024 at 11:31 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

I think it makes more sense to elect the delegates first and the alternates on a subsequent ballot.  But if that requires a bylaws amendment in your case, then you'll have to do that first.

I see the advantage in that, but the additional time required to conduct two ballot elections would likely be an issue.  Additionally, setting up the ballot for the alternates' election could not be done in advance since it would depend on the results of the delegates' election.

BTW, I am told that the organization has just decided to use the "50 votes" option.  If there is any interest, I'll post a "post-mortem" here after the meeting in a couple of months.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 3/11/2024 at 3:49 PM, Howard Roark said:

I see the advantage in that, but the additional time required to conduct two ballot elections would likely be an issue.  Additionally, setting up the ballot for the alternates' election could not be done in advance since it would depend on the results of the delegates' election.

BTW, I am told that the organization has just decided to use the "50 votes" option.  If there is any interest, I'll post a "post-mortem" here after the meeting in a couple of months.

So you've "decided" to violate your own rules?  Or you don't believe this would?

[Howard Roark]

On 3/11/2024 at 2:18 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

So you've "decided" to violate your own rules?  Or you don't believe this would?

What rule are you referring to?  Our rules do not specify how the election is to be conducted.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 3/11/2024 at 5:37 PM, Howard Roark said:

What rule are you referring to?  Our rules do not specify how the election is to be conducted.

If you have adopted RONR as your parliamentary authority, then the rules in RONR are yours too. 🙂

If 100 seats are being filled, RONR would require that voters be able to vote for up to 100 people.  And if I understood what you said earlier, your bylaws do authorize plurality voting and ranking by vote count.  If not, you can't use plurality voting.

Edited March 11, 2024 at 11:51 PM by Gary Novosielski

[J. J.]

On 3/11/2024 at 7:48 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

If you have adopted RONR as your parliamentary authority, then the rules in RONR are yours too. 🙂

If 100 seats are being filled, RONR would require that voters be able to vote for up to 100 people.  And if I understood what you said earlier, your bylaws do authorize plurality voting and ranking by vote count.  If not, you can't use plurality voting.

I disagree a bit.  A special rule could be adopted to elect delegates by plurality (44:11).

[Gary Novosielski]

Yes, good point.  While a Special Rule of Order (in contrast to a bylaws provision) would not be sufficient to allow the election of officers by plurality, it would be enough if applied to the election of delegates.

If no such provision of either kind has been adopted, a majority is required to elect.

Edited March 12, 2024 at 04:29 AM by Gary Novosielski

[Howard Roark]

On 3/11/2024 at 4:48 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

If 100 seats are being filled, RONR would require that voters be able to vote for up to 100 people. 

That would certainly nail down the question for us.  Do you have a citation for that?

[Gary Novosielski]

On 3/12/2024 at 10:38 AM, Howard Roark said:

That would certainly nail down the question for us.  Do you have a citation for that?

I can't at the moment provide a rule that says so in so many words, but that may be a fault in my memory or perhaps because the authors felt it was so obvious.  For example, if three board seats are open, a member may vote for up to three names.

Ironically enough, the principle may be stated most clearly in 46:43, Cumulative Voting, which is a voting method which violates this very principle of one-candidate/one-vote.  It says, in relevant part:

However, this method of voting, which permits a member to cast multiple votes for a single candidate, must be viewed with reservation since it violates the fundamental principle of parliamentary law that each member is entitled to one and only one vote on a question.

Absent a provision in the bylaws authorizing it, cumulative voting is therefore prohibited by RONR on the grounds of this fundamental principle of parliamentary law.  Just as a ballot to elect three board members comprises three questions, i.e., who shall fill each of three positions, a ballot to elect a delegation of one hundred poses 100 questions, and each member is entitled to vote on who shall fill each of them.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 3/11/2024 at 7:48 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

If 100 seats are being filled, RONR would require that voters be able to vote for up to 100 people. 

But RONR does not discuss this particular situation, where the assembly is attempting to fill 50 delegate seats, and using the results of that election as a ranking mechanism for up to 50 additional alternates. 

I think the closest parallel that is discussed in RONR (46:34) is the election of directors with varying terms, in which those with more votes are given the longer terms. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 3/12/2024 at 2:27 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

But RONR does not discuss this particular situation, where the assembly is attempting to fill 50 delegate seats, and using the results of that election as a ranking mechanism for up to 50 additional alternates. 

I think the closest parallel that is discussed in RONR (46:34) is the election of directors with varying terms, in which those with more votes are given the longer terms. 

That is certainly the closest parallel with respect to assigning positions based on vote counts, but I don't think it speaks to the question of having 100 positions to fill and therefore instructing voters to Vote for up to 100.  And that paragraph also notes that multiple ties may require subsequent ballots, which may still happen unless there is a very large number of candidates.

I would favor one ballot for fifty delegate seats, and a second one for fifty alternate seats.  If a copying machine is available, take a blank first ballot, white-out the names that have already been elected, and copy off enough for the second ballot.  If there is no copier, use the same ballot for both votes, and after passing out ballots for the second round, instruct voters to line out the names of the elected delegates

 

Edited March 12, 2024 at 07:44 PM by Gary Novosielski

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 3/12/2024 at 3:43 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

I would favor one ballot for fifty delegate seats, and a second one for fifty alternate seats.  If a copying machine is available, take a blank first ballot, white-out the names that have already been elected, and copy off enough for the second ballot.  If there is no copier, use the same ballot for both votes, and after passing out ballots for the second round, instruct voters to line out the names of the elected delegates

But we've been told that there may be 75 candidates altogether. Under this system of taking two ballots, that would mean that on the second ballot, every member could vote for every candidate, which would be useless for purposes of ranking.