Changing Voting Procedure MID vote - Outraged

[Guest Amy in Ohio]

The political party for our county held a meeting last night.

Nine members were nominated to fill five committee seats. We were told by our Parliamentarian that we would be voting by rising and moving towards our candidates all at once. It was stated that whichever candidate received the simple majority would be elected into office and removed from the second round of voting where we would then elect one out of the remaining eight nominees. This would continue until all five seats were filled with five total elections taking place.

All nine nominees stood in separate parts of the room. We were told to begin voting. We proceeded to move to elect our first member by simple majority (with around 120 or so voting members). We proceeded to move towards our first nominee (with probably thirty to fifty people moving towards one candidate and many of the remaining candidates having about twenty or less moving towards them. In the middle of this procession, the vote was stopped and ALL members were told to sit down and take a "short" (five to ten minute) recess while they decided on a new voting protocol. (Which allowed members to rethink their voting strategies as well.)

After the recess, the Parliamentarian decided (without debate though many of us were questioning the legalities of this) that we were going to use the HONOR SYSTEM to do a show of hands for each candidate asking that none of us (on our honor) vote more than five times for the nine nominees. We then proceeded through the nine candidates doing a simple show of hands per candidate (taking nine votes hoping our possibly corrupt governing body would be just and fair). The top five vote winners would then be elected. We voted.

Had the vote proceeded according to the originally stated procedure, person A probably would have won the first round. However, since they halted the meeting, talked with each other, and restructured HOW the vote would take place, person A never got elected. We are supposed to be using Robert's Rules to govern our party. This seems counter-intuitive to any parliamentary proceedings. I believe common sense was supposed to prevail in these meetings.

I took out my RROD 10th edition copy and attempted to find anything on plurality voting and multiple nominee elections. I found one section that talked about preferential voting and how any system like this should be deemed in advance (lines 25-31) but that is regarding paper ballots. Again, we were using simple majority and not preferential voting.

How should this have been executed and are there ways that I can assist our party in making things right? Frustrated and deeply saddened in Ohio...

[Josh Martin]

How should this have been executed and are there ways that I can assist our party in making things right?

This should have been handled as prescribed in your party's rules. If there are no rules in your organization for elections, then the assembly did have the right to choose how the election would be conducted - the assembly, by majority vote, not the Parliamentarian making up nonsense on the fly. The assembly should have chosen a sensible method like a ballot vote. Other methods tend to be unwise with so many candidates. This bizarre method of standing by your candidate is not supported by anything in RONR and would require a suspension of the rules (2/3 vote) to accomplish, unless your rules actually prescribe this unusual method. No candidates may be dropped from subsequent voting unless a rule in your Bylaws requires it. Once a procedure of voting is decided upon, nothing should have been permitted to interrupt the vote, and the switching of methods mid-vote was most certainly out of order. Additionally, the second system used plurality vote, which requires a rule at least on the level of a special rule of order.

That's what should have happened. As for what to do now, a Point of Order would have had to be timely. None of the violations constitute a continuing breach (unless, perhaps, your Bylaws require a ballot vote). If the assembly meets again in the near future, you could rescind the elections of the committee members (2/3 vote, vote of a majority of the entire membership, or a majority vote with previous notice). Also, the Parliamentarian should be fired and replaced with someone competent.

In the future, you need to raise a Point of Order and even appeal from the decision of the chair if necessary right away when these things happen.

[Guest Amy]

Thank you. I will forward this on to anyone in our party who will read it and even outside who will read it. I was not the only person to object but we were all dismissed without debate. No 2/3 vote occurred. There were no rules in our bylaws or constitution regarding these methods.

[Guest Amy]

As for ballots, I specifically asked for us to use paper ballots. We were told (and had just amended our bylaws) that SECRET voting was not allowed. I suggested making it an open paper ballot vote where we would be accountable for our individual votes by placing our names on the ballots.

[hmtcastle]

This should have been handled as prescribed in your party's rules. . . . This bizarre method of standing by your candidate is not supported by anything in RONR and would require a suspension of the rules (2/3 vote) to accomplish, unless your rules actually prescribe this unusual method.

The method described is familiar to anyone who watched the Iowa caucuses in the Presidential primaries. As Wikipedia describes it,

Participants indicate their support for a particular candidate by standing in a designated area of the caucus site (forming a preference group). An area may also be designated for undecided participants. Then, for roughly 30 minutes, participants try to convince their neighbors to support their candidates. Each preference group might informally deputize a few members to recruit supporters from the other groups and, in particular, from among those undecided. Undecided participants might visit each preference group to ask its members about their candidate.

Whether this Ohio organization followed its own rules is unknown, but the mere fact that the process might not have been familiar, and did not conform to RONR, does not, in and of itself, make it out of order. It's not enough to be armed with a copy of RONR.

[Dan Honemann]

Josh Martin's response is entirely correct.

Procedures used in the Iowa caucuses is irrelevant.

[Guest Amy]

The method described is familiar to anyone who watched the Iowa caucuses in the Presidential primaries. As Wikipedia describes it,

They decided to use this method. It doesn't matter if it was a prescribed method, they agreed and began to vote.

Whether this Ohio organization followed its own rules is unknown, but the mere fact that the process might not have been familiar, and did not conform to RONR, does not, in and of itself, make it out of order. It's not enough to be armed with a copy of RONR.

Our bylaws stated nothing of this. We were supposedly deferring to RONR IF the rules were unclear. The party in question is the Butler County Democratic Party. How can a vote be changed in the middle of the vote like this with obvious dismissal and ignoring of voting members raising objections? How can it be legal for any committee to change the method of voting once the vote is beginning to show a possible win for a candidate? Can a simple majority really take over for such an unprecedented occurrence? This single voting method change has further severed unity in our party. It is sad. All I can do is congratulate Mr. John Boehner in advance for the next congressional election. Butler County Democrats will help you win every time. Congratulations, Mr. Boehner.

[J. J.]

The first system, unless agreed to by a 2/3 vote or authorized in some rule, was probably out of order.

If you were not using a ballot (including a signed ballot), the chair would state the names of the first candidate and all members would vote yes or no, on that candidate. This would continue until 5 received a majority (pp. 427-8).

[Josh Martin]

The method described is familiar to anyone who watched the Iowa caucuses in the Presidential primaries.

I'm familiar with caucuses, but I haven't seen them used for quite this purpose. Such systems are usually used to determine the number of delegates who have pledged to support a candidate for a public office at a higher-level convention. Party offices and committee positions are typically elected through more traditional methods. The caucus procedure is used, however, because it is prescribed in the rules of the organization. Without such a rule, a suspension of the rules would be necessary, as it does not conform to any of the methods of voting in RONR.

How can a vote be changed in the middle of the vote like this with obvious dismissal and ignoring of voting members raising objections? How can it be legal for any committee to change the method of voting once the vote is beginning to show a possible win for a candidate? Can a simple majority really take over for such an unprecedented occurrence?

As I've already stated, none of those things are in order, however, a Point of Order would need to have been raised at the time, and an appeal if necessary.

[Guest Amy]

Thank you. My only recourse is to make this known as far and wide as I can and try to stop it from ever happening again. It deeply saddens me that this happens. I'm fine with losing elections, (and no, I was not a nominee), but to change the procedure of voting in the middle of an active vote with objections that were overlooked and ignored... wow. The Parliamentarian called for the recess, not the chair. He did it when it appeared that a candidate he specifically did NOT want to win looked like he might get enough votes to win. The chairs are turning a blind eye to it. Wow.