multiple choice vote

[Guest D_FIT]

Our contract dictates the choices in a given vote are Approval, Approval with Reservations, or Non-Approval. To be approved the motion needs at least 2/3 of the votes cast to be "Approval." For Approval with Reservations to carry the vote needs to contain a simple majority of votes cast as "Approval with Reservations." Voters can vote any one of the three options. What is the result of a vote of 7 Approval and 7 Approval with Reservations?

[hmtcastle]

Our contract dictates the choices in a given vote are Approval, Approval with Reservations, or Non-Approval. To be approved the motion needs at least 2/3 of the votes cast to be "Approval." For Approval with Reservations to carry the vote needs to contain a simple majority of votes cast as "Approval with Reservations." Voters can vote any one of the three options. What is the result of a vote of 7 Approval and 7 Approval with Reservations?

If 14 votes were cast and you need two-thirds, you'd need at least 10 votes for "Approval". If you need a majority for "Approval with Reservations" you'd need at least 8 votes. Looks like you didn't get either.

[Gary Novosielski]

Our contract dictates the choices in a given vote are Approval, Approval with Reservations, or Non-Approval. To be approved the motion needs at least 2/3 of the votes cast to be "Approval." For Approval with Reservations to carry the vote needs to contain a simple majority of votes cast as "Approval with Reservations." Voters can vote any one of the three options. What is the result of a vote of 7 Approval and 7 Approval with Reservations?

In RONR, the choices for a given vote are Yes and No. Even so, there is at least an entire chapter devoted to it.

If you're going to make up new and "wondrous" voting methods like this one, you're going to have to write your own book on how they work. RONR has nothing to say on this sort of voting. I have a few choice words on it myself, but I'll also reserve them.

[Josh Martin]

Our contract dictates the choices in a given vote are Approval, Approval with Reservations, or Non-Approval. To be approved the motion needs at least 2/3 of the votes cast to be "Approval." For Approval with Reservations to carry the vote needs to contain a simple majority of votes cast as "Approval with Reservations." Voters can vote any one of the three options. What is the result of a vote of 7 Approval and 7 Approval with Reservations?

This question involves the interpretation of a contract (a legal document), not the rules of RONR. Such a question is therefore beyond the scope of this forum. You should consult a lawyer.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Our contract dictates the choices in a given vote are:

(a.) Approval = requires 2/3 of votes cast

(b.) Approval with Reservations = requires "simple" majority of votes cast

(c.) Non-Approval = no requirement

Voters can vote any one of the three options.

What is the result of a vote of _____ ?

7 Approval

7 Approval with Reservations

Given:

7 votes for #a

7 votes for #b

0 votes for #c

Implies:

#a got 7 of 14

#b got 7 of 14

#c got 0 of 14

Out of 14 votes cast:

• a two-thirds vote is 9.33..., which implies "10" is necessary for adoption.

• a majority vote (Q. Is RONR's "majority" the same thing as your "simple majority"?) is any value greater than 7, implying 8.

(Note: Votes come in integer sizes only, not in fractions.)

Q. Did #a reach its requirement of two-thirds?

A. No. Ten was not reached.

Q. Did #b reach its requirement of 'simple' majority?

A. No (probably). 8 was not reached.

Conclusion:

#c was achieved (namely, "non-approval").

Note:

None of this is from Robert's Rules of Order.

A calculator, and a working knowledge of fractions and decimals, is the only set of tools used above.

[Gary Novosielski]

Note:

None of this is from Robert's Rules of Order.

A calculator, and a working knowledge of fractions and decimals, is the only set of tools used above.

Well, as long as we're freely conjecturing on something that's nowhere in RONR...

It seems clear to me that, for the purposes of counting votes, the number of votes for Approval (without reservations) should be added to the votes for Approval With Reservations, since it is an even more stringent vote. Anyone who approves unconditionally would presumably accede to the adoption of the more hesitant approval level as well.

In this vote, all 14 members approved at least to the lesser degree, 7 of them to the lesser degree, and none of them expressed Non-Approval. So a vote result of Non-Approval makes no sense.

So,

There are not 2/3 for the highest (Approved) level (7 votes, 10 needed), so full Approval is not the result.

There are 14 votes for the second (Approved With Reservations) level or higher, which is a majority, so the result of the vote is Approved With Reservations.

[hmtcastle]

There are not 2/3 for the highest (Approved) level (7 votes, 10 needed), so full Approval is not the result.

There are 14 votes for the second (Approved With Reservations) level or higher, which is a majority, so the result of the vote is Approved With Reservations.

That certainly sounds reasonable.

[jstackpo]

This is the kind of problem -- just what is "reasonable"? What is the "will of the electorate?" -- that crops up all the time when a more-that-two-way-choice is involved.

Borda and Condorcet worked it over in the 18th century; the arguments have continued apace since. See Don Saari (via Google) as an example.

RONR uses (without perhaps realizing it) the method known as the "Condorcet Method" to count multiple choice votes; it is not the only way, nor even the best, I would argue.

[David A Foulkes]

I was thinking it was somewhat like a Yes, No, Maybe situation (Approval, Non-Approval, Approval with Reservations). The problem I have with Gary's solution is that, whatever it takes to turn a maybe to a yes may turn those 7 yeses to nos, and I'm unclear from the original post how Approval with Reservations is followed up. If there had been 8 of those votes (A w/R) to "win", how is/are the reservation(s) resolved? If something needs to change to turn a maybe to a yes, what if the 8 voters had 8 different reservations about it? Whatever it takes to get one maybe to a yes may turn 7 maybes to nos.

I suspect D_Fit has an answer for that, although it is not pertinent to his situation anyway. But I would be inclined to say that the 7 Approval votes mean they want the motion as it is. The 7 Approval with Reservation votes might want/need something changed before being swayed to Approval, or just may need mulling time or additional information. And since neither gained the respective threshold, the Nos have it.

[hmtcastle]

But I would be inclined to say that the 7 Approval votes mean they want the motion as it is. The 7 Approval with Reservation votes might want/need something changed before being swayed to Approval, or just may need mulling time or additional information. And since neither gained the respective threshold, the Nos have it.

Except there may not have been any nos (or noes or nays) at all.

Even though it was not my initial interpretation, I find Mr. Novosielski's analysis persuasive. Both "Approval" and "Approval with Reservations" are approvals.

In any event, this is something for the members to resolve. I suspect there may be legal requirements which dictate the nature of the vote and the implications of the result.

[David A Foulkes]

Except there may not have been any nos (or noes or nays) at all.

Sheesh ... and I thought I was picky.

[Gary Novosielski]

I was thinking it was somewhat like a Yes, No, Maybe situation (Approval, Non-Approval, Approval with Reservations). The problem I have with Gary's solution is that, whatever it takes to turn a maybe to a yes may turn those 7 yeses to nos, and I'm unclear from the original post how Approval with Reservations is followed up. If there had been 8 of those votes (A w/R) to "win", how is/are the reservation(s) resolved? If something needs to change to turn a maybe to a yes, what if the 8 voters had 8 different reservations about it? Whatever it takes to get one maybe to a yes may turn 7 maybes to nos.

I suspect D_Fit has an answer for that, although it is not pertinent to his situation anyway. But I would be inclined to say that the 7 Approval votes mean they want the motion as it is. The 7 Approval with Reservation votes might want/need something changed before being swayed to Approval, or just may need mulling time or additional information. And since neither gained the respective threshold, the Nos have it.

A valid point of view, except that there weren't any Nos.

The only way to handle this properly is, when you invent a custom voting method, explain all the rules for counting it.

[David A Foulkes]

A valid point of view, except that there weren't any Nos.

The only way to handle this properly is, when you invent a custom voting method, explain all the rules for counting it.

Indeed if nobody votes no, but not enough people vote yes or "yes but", then...... um..... .... .... ... next on our agenda, amendment of our contract voting rules.

[jstackpo]

GN sed: "The only way to handle this properly is, when you invent a custom voting method, explain all the rules for counting it. "

And chances are that someone else has already invented it and Don Saari could, with a few moments consideration, show you what is outrageously wrong with it.

NO systems are perfect (Arrow's Nobel winning theorem); all systems can be gamed (Gibbard–Satterthwaite).

[Josh Martin]

I was thinking it was somewhat like a Yes, No, Maybe situation (Approval, Non-Approval, Approval with Reservations). The problem I have with Gary's solution is that, whatever it takes to turn a maybe to a yes may turn those 7 yeses to nos, and I'm unclear from the original post how Approval with Reservations is followed up. If there had been 8 of those votes (A w/R) to "win", how is/are the reservation(s) resolved? If something needs to change to turn a maybe to a yes, what if the 8 voters had 8 different reservations about it? Whatever it takes to get one maybe to a yes may turn 7 maybes to nos.

GN sed: "The only way to handle this properly is, when you invent a custom voting method, explain all the rules for counting it. "

And chances are that someone else has already invented it and Don Saari could, with a few moments consideration, show you what is outrageously wrong with it.

NO systems are perfect (Arrow's Nobel winning theorem); all systems can be gamed (Gibbard–Satterthwaite).

Thankfully, questions of voting theory and the interpretation of contracts are not our problem.

The society should consult a lawyer to determine the proper interpretation of the contract as it stands now. When that is determined, then the society can start arguing about what is wrong with it.

[Gary Novosielski]

Thankfully, questions of voting theory and the interpretation of contracts are not our problem.

The society should consult a lawyer to determine the proper interpretation of the contract as it stands now. When that is determined, then the society can start arguing about what is wrong with it.

Well, as a technical matter it's interesting stuff, but <RANT> as a practical matter, it's just lunacy

Among other things, I'm a union president myself, and I'd never sit still for such voting. The way to ratify a contract (or not) is to vote either Yes or No. Then you count up the votes and see if you have a majority. End of story.

Spare me the "reservations". If you've got reservations then what you need to do, young Skywalker, is go find yourself a quiet place, sit down, and figure out whether your reservations are enough to make you vote No, or whether they are not. Then come back and vote, ya big baby.

</RANT>

Restaurant Hostess: Do you have reservations, sir?

Restaurant Patron: A few, but I'll eat here anyway. <rimshot>

[hmtcastle]

Restaurant Hostess: Do you have reservations, sir?

Restaurant Patron: A few, but I'll eat here anyway.

I always liked the Seinfeld episode where he thought he had rented a car.

"You know how to take the reservation, you just don't know how to hold the reservation. And that's really the most important part of the reservation: the holding."

[Gary c Tesser]

Hey, men, stay on topic.