Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Definition of a runoff during a voting session


Guest Britt Brooks

Recommended Posts

I have a simple question that I cannot seem to find answered previously.

Is a runoff election a continuation of the previous vote that precipatated the need for the runoff?

Example: 3 candidates running for the same position, 2 get 40% and one gets 20%. The top two candidates are then the candidates for the runoff and the vote is taken. Is this still considered part of the original vote? Can voting be complete if no candidate is chosen by the vote?

If the election is being governed by Robert's Rules, would a different set of voters be allowed to vote in the runoff?

Thanks for any information you can provide.

BB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a simple question that I cannot seem to find answered previously.

Is a runoff election a continuation of the previous vote that precipatated the need for the runoff?

Example: 3 candidates running for the same position, 2 get 40% and one gets 20%. The top two candidates are then the candidates for the runoff and the vote is taken. Is this still considered part of the original vote? Can voting be complete if no candidate is chosen by the vote?

If the election is being governed by Robert's Rules, would a different set of voters be allowed to vote in the runoff?

Thanks for any information you can provide.

BB

A runoff of this type is out of order under RONR, pp. 426-7. You would continue voting for all candidates until one gets a majority. There may be multiple subsequent ballots.

Any member present when the vote is taken may vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is a runoff election a continuation of the previous vote that precipatated the need for the runoff?

Example: 3 candidates running for the same position, 2 get 40% and one gets 20%. The top two candidates are then the candidates for the runoff and the vote is taken. Is this still considered part of the original vote? Can voting be complete if no candidate is chosen by the vote?

If the election is being governed by Robert's Rules, would a different set of voters be allowed to vote in the runoff?

If no one is elected in the first round of voting you vote again. All candidates (not just the top two) remain on the ballot (unless they voluntarily withdraw). All members can vote, whether they voted in the first round or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought that in order to vote in a runoff election (held in many states when no candidate receives a majority of the votes), you must previously have voted in the original election (it was a continuation of the vote).

So, if a group governed by Roberts Rules drops a candidate off the ballot as previously described, how should the vote be contended?

BB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought that in order to vote in a runoff election (held in many states when no candidate receives a majority of the votes), you must previously have voted in the original election (it was a continuation of the vote).

Not true!

At Round #2, (or Round #3, etc.), the only people who can vote are members who are still members or who are new members.

• The fact that Mr. Loyal voted yesterday in Round #1 is irrelevant if Mr. Loyal has lost his right to vote (lost his membership) by the time Round #2 arrives and ballots are being issued/taken. Mr. Loyal will have lost his right to vote in Round #2.

• The fact Ms. Newbie joined this morning is irrelevant regarding Ms. Newbie's right to vote. There is no waiting period. A member is a member, as soon as one fits the definition of "member," per one's bylaws. Give Ms. Newbie a ballot!

So, if a group governed by Roberts Rules drops a candidate off the ballot as previously described, how should the vote be contended?

A point of order must be raised, in a timely manner.

Once the elected results are announced, it will likely be too late to raise a point of order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, if a group governed by Roberts Rules drops a candidate off the ballot as previously described, how should the vote be contended?

BB

A point of order must be raised, in a timely manner.

Once the elected results are announced, it will likely be too late to raise a point of order.

Just get it right next time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So each vote is considered a new vote?

The bylawys of this group state that the voting membership cannot change during a vote. Since it was changed for the "runoff", I assume that argument is that it was a new vote, not a continuation of the previous vote.

I thought that in order for a vote to be complete (in these types of elections) a candidate had to obtain the majority before the vote could be over.

BB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bylaws of this group state that the voting membership cannot change during a vote. Since it was changed for the "runoff", I assume that argument is that it was a new vote, not a continuation of the previous vote.

That rule probably means that you can't add new members during an election. It probably does not mean that a member who didn't vote in the first round can't vote in the second round. But no one here can tell you what your bylaws mean. That's up to you to figure out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So each vote is considered a new vote?

Each ROUND of voting is a new ROUND.

Every candidates starts off at zero ballots cast in favor.

There is no "continuation". Nothing is "continuing" except the names on the ballot.

Round #2 is to be conducted and counted identically to Round #1 in all respects - just like it was the first time around.

The bylaws of this group state that the voting membership cannot change during a vote.

Are you asking a question about Robert's Rules of Order?

Are you asking a question about a customized rule of yours which does not match the default rule in Robert's Rules of Order?

The voting membership DOES change. Even from day to day.

If you have a bylaw which says otherwise, well, then you'll have to figure out who can vote, since you've jumped outside The Book, and no canned answer will be possible.

Do not confuse (a.) a subsequent round of voting on the same election, vs. (b.) the "same vote".

Note that a second or third round of balloting is not the "same vote".

When RONR uses the term, or implies the term, RONR is describing a sequence of methods of TAKING THE VOTE. - From voice, to rising, to counted rising, to balloting. - It is the same vote in that the vote totals for this Round One is not yet fixed, not yet permanently recorded in the minutes.

That sequence of more and more stringent counting is all possible for the same vote on the same question. (Here, the same election.)

If this item of business were to be laid on the table or if this item of business were to be postponed, then the vote which is conducted later will be a new vote, not the same vote, as RONR implies the act. The old, earlier vote had its vote totals final, without additions or subtractions. The numbers are not going to change, when voting on this "laid on the table" item or this "postponed" item. The minutes (the secretary's memoranda) can be re-read for the vote totals of Round One. The minutes will show a separate entry for this Round Two.

Thus, Round One and Round Two are not "continuations", in the parliamentary sense, nor the dictionary sense.

Since it was changed for the "runoff", I assume that argument is that it was a new vote, not a continuation of the previous vote.

"... it was changed ..."?

Q. What was "it"? What was changed? - (a.) The "membership" or (b.) the "continuation of the vote"?

I thought that in order for a vote to be complete (in these types of elections) a candidate had to obtain the majority before the vote could be over.

Yes. Majority vote elects. That's The Book. Majority of votes cast.

Q. How is this comment related to your question?

Majority elects, no matter what the "continuation" (?) turns out to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Each ROUND of voting is a new ROUND.

Every candidates starts off at zero ballots cast in favor.

There is no "continuation". Nothing is "continuing" except the names on the ballot.

Round #2 is to be conducted and counted identically to Round #1 in all respects - just like it was the first time around.

This is what I was looking for... Thanks for your help.

The re-seating of deleates in lieu of alternates for a runoff was confusing...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...