voting

[Guest gene]

question: there are 6 positions to be filled by voting. two names were listed on the ballot, with additional lines for write-ins. there are additional names written in.

if there are only 3 write-ins,receiving 1 vote each, are there then 5 elected officials?

it would seem to me, that nothing written to the contrary, these additional write-ins would then be elected, with 1 vacancy existing for this position.

because we keep ballots for 30 days, i would appreciate a timely reply.

thanks, gene

[Trina]

question: there are 6 positions to be filled by voting. two names were listed on the ballot, with additional lines for write-ins. there are additional names written in.

if there are only 3 write-ins,receiving 1 vote each, are there then 5 elected officials?

it would seem to me, that nothing written to the contrary, these additional write-ins would then be elected, with 1 vacancy existing for this position.

because we keep ballots for 30 days, i would appreciate a timely reply.

thanks, gene

People need a majority (of votes cast) in order to be elected, per RONR.

See this recent thread for a related discussion:

[Kim Goldsworthy]

There are 6 positions to be filled by voting.

Two names were listed on the ballot, with additional lines for write-ins.

There are additional names written in.

Good so far.

If there are only 3 write-ins, receiving 1 vote each, are there then 5 elected officials?

It would seem to me, that nothing written to the contrary, these additional write-ins would then be elected, with 1 vacancy existing for this position.

Because we keep ballots for 30 days, I would appreciate a timely reply.

Unclear.

• If the positions are identical, then probably "no."

• If all positions are unique, then probably "yes."

Why?

Because each office stands as its own "question" in the parliamentary sense.

But where there is only one kind of office involved (e.g., identical directorships on a board), then the complexity rises.

***

i see that lower case letters are popular nowadays.

e.e. cummings is alive and well.

give my regards to new york writer don marquis' little friends, "archy" and "mehitabel".

***

[Guest gene]

People need a majority (of votes cast) in order to be elected, per RONR.

See this recent thread for a related discussion:

what i failed to state, was, we have used a plurality to elect our officers for almost 10 years; not a majority. also, the 6 positions are all the same in name, duties, etc.

gene

[Guest gene]

Good so far.

Unclear.

• If the positions are identical, then probably "no."

• If all positions are unique, then probably "yes."

Why?

Because each office stands as its own "question" in the parliamentary sense.

But where there is only one kind of office involved (e.g., identical directorships on a board), then the complexity rises.

***

i see that lower case letters are popular nowadays.

e.e. cummings is alive and well.

give my regards to new york writer don marquis' little friends, "archy" and "mehitabel".

***

[hmtcastle]

what i failed to state, was, we have used a plurality to elect our officers for almost 10 years; not a majority.

Is that something you just made up (ten years ago) or is that in your rules? If it's not in your rules, the default (RONR) requirement is a majority, not a plurality.

[Guest gene]

Is that something you just made up (ten years ago) or is that in your rules? If it's not in your rules, the default (RONR) requirement is a majority, not a plurality.

i made nothing up. we have been electing our officers using a plurality of the vote, not a majority. now, it appears that may be called into question after all of these years.

i understand the rr states what the default is, but it also states that custom and usage does come into play also.

i believe that with nothing to the contrary, custom and usage will prevail over nothing to the contrary. i know in the court system this is a legal concept.

gene

[Trina]

i made nothing up. we have been electing our officers using a plurality of the vote, not a majority. now, it appears that may be called into question after all of these years.

i understand the rr states what the default is, but it also states that custom and usage does come into play also.

i believe that with nothing to the contrary, custom and usage will prevail over nothing to the contrary. i know in the court system this is a legal concept.

gene

Custom falls to the ground when a conflict with a written rule is demonstrated. Sounds like you have such a conflict (assuming RONR is your parliamentary authority). I have to run, but I'm sure someone will be along with the relevant citation shortly.

[hmtcastle]

i made nothing up.

I didn't mean you, personally, but I could have made that clearer. Our own Chris H. would have said "you all".

i believe that with nothing to the contrary, custom and usage will prevail over nothing to the contrary.

True, but if you've adopted RONR as your parliamentary authority, then there is something to the contrary.

[Josh Martin]

question: there are 6 positions to be filled by voting. two names were listed on the ballot, with additional lines for write-ins. there are additional names written in.

if there are only 3 write-ins,receiving 1 vote each, are there then 5 elected officials?

also, the 6 positions are all the same in name, duties, etc.

Based on these facts, it seems to me that you have (at most) two elected officials, as it seems impossible that the write-in votes received a majority of the ballots cast. You then have an incomplete election and should hold another round of balloting to fill the remaining four positions. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 427, lines 6-19)

what i failed to state, was, we have used a plurality to elect our officers for almost 10 years; not a majority.

i made nothing up. we have been electing our officers using a plurality of the vote, not a majority. now, it appears that may be called into question after all of these years.

The fact that you have done something wrong for ten years is no reason to keep doing it wrong.

i understand the rr states what the default is, but it also states that custom and usage does come into play also.

i believe that with nothing to the contrary, custom and usage will prevail over nothing to the contrary.

That is correct. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 17, lines 15-18) RONR also says, however, that if a custom is in conflict with the parliamentary authority or any written rule of the organization, the rule prevails and the custom falls to the ground. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 17, lines 4-15) In this case, the parliamentary authority clearly states that plurality voting may only be used in an election if it is specified in the Bylaws. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 392, lines 2-6) Therefore, the custom is in conflict with the parliamentary authority and falls to the ground.

[Guest gene]

Based on these facts, it seems to me that you have (at most) two elected officials, as it seems impossible that the write-in votes received a majority of the ballots cast. You then have an incomplete election and should hold another round of balloting to fill the remaining four positions. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 427, lines 6-19)

The fact that you have done something wrong for ten years is no reason to keep doing it wrong.

That is correct. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 17, lines 15-18) RONR also says, however, that if a custom is in conflict with the parliamentary authority or any written rule of the organization, the rule prevails and the custom falls to the ground. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 17, lines 4-15) In this case, the parliamentary authority clearly states that plurality voting may only be used in an election if it is specified in the Bylaws. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 392, lines 2-6) Therefore, the custom is in conflict with the parliamentary authority and falls to the ground.

thank you. i agree. thanks again for your assistance.

gene

[David A Foulkes]

Custom falls to the ground when a conflict with a written rule is demonstrated. Sounds like you have such a conflict (assuming RONR is your parliamentary authority). I have to run, but I'm sure someone will be along with the relevant citation shortly.

That is correct. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 17, lines 15-18) RONR also says, however, that if a custom is in conflict with the parliamentary authority or any written rule of the organization, the rule prevails and the custom falls to the ground. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 17, lines 4-15) In this case, the parliamentary authority clearly states that plurality voting may only be used in an election if it is specified in the Bylaws. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 392, lines 2-6) Therefore, the custom is in conflict with the parliamentary authority and falls to the ground.

I don't have my book today, so I'm not sure which citation this may apply to, but I do remember reading (and I paraphrase here a bit) that when custom is in conflict with the rules (RONR, bylaws, etc) AND a Point of Order is raised, custom falls to the ground. It goes to the old saying "rules don't enforce themselves." That is, someone must stand and say "Hey, that ain't right!" for the custom to fall. Just picking that nit a little....

[hmtcastle]

That is, someone must stand and say "Hey, that ain't right!" for the custom to fall.

Well, now that Guest_gene_ has seen the light, I trust he'll be uttering that very phrase at the next election.

[Josh Martin]

I don't have my book today, so I'm not sure which citation this may apply to, but I do remember reading (and I paraphrase here a bit) that when custom is in conflict with the rules (RONR, bylaws, etc) AND a Point of Order is raised, custom falls to the ground. It goes to the old saying "rules don't enforce themselves." That is, someone must stand and say "Hey, that ain't right!" for the custom to fall. Just picking that nit a little....

Yes, just like any other violation of the rules, either the chair will need to make a ruling on it or a member will need to raise a Point of Order to force a ruling.

But I hope you're not suggesting that it would be proper for the assembly to continue with the custom by simply ignoring the conflict.

[Gary Novosielski]

question: there are 6 positions to be filled by voting. two names were listed on the ballot, with additional lines for write-ins. there are additional names written in.

if there are only 3 write-ins,receiving 1 vote each, are there then 5 elected officials?

it would seem to me, that nothing written to the contrary, these additional write-ins would then be elected, with 1 vacancy existing for this position.

because we keep ballots for 30 days, i would appreciate a timely reply.

thanks, gene

To be able to properly answer the question it is necessary to know how many (non-blank) ballots were cast, each containing from one t o six names.

A majority of that number of ballots is the number of votes required to elect someone to a seat. It's not likely that 1 vote would be enough, unless only one ballot were cast in the election.

(And of course I concur that custom does not trump ink on the page of the parliamentary authority. Without explicit authorization for plurality voting in the bylaws, majority voting is mandatory.)

If, however a society did have plurality voting in their bylaws, then in the scenario you mention, as long as there enough seats to go around, anyone getting at least one vote could be elected.

[Trina]

question: there are 6 positions to be filled by voting. two names were listed on the ballot, with additional lines for write-ins. there are additional names written in.

if there are only 3 write-ins,receiving 1 vote each, are there then 5 elected officials?

it would seem to me, that nothing written to the contrary, these additional write-ins would then be elected, with 1 vacancy existing for this position.

because we keep ballots for 30 days, i would appreciate a timely reply.

thanks, gene

....

If, however a society did have plurality voting in their bylaws, then in the scenario you mention, as long as there enough seats to go around, anyone getting at least one vote could be elected.

I suspect Guest_gene may have left the building by now, but I've been curious, if plurality voting is comfortably ensconced in the customs of this organization, why is this question coming up at all? Are some members uncomfortable about electing someone with just one vote?

Also, since the election is apparently over (Gene describes a period of keeping the ballots post-election), what results were announced after the ballots were counted?

[hmtcastle]

I suspect Guest_gene may have left the building by now

See this recent thread for a related discussion:

Since the length of that recent discussion was due in no small part to my own mental block, I want to point out that another post, by Mr. McClintock finally broke through my cranial logjam. There's nothing like an actual example to clear things up.

[Guest gene]

I suspect Guest_gene may have left the building by now, but I've been curious, if plurality voting is comfortably ensconced in the customs of this organization, why is this question coming up at all? Are some members uncomfortable about electing someone with just one vote?

Also, since the election is apparently over (Gene describes a period of keeping the ballots post-election), what results were announced after the ballots were counted?

just to close the issue and answer your questions - the voting body was not aware of the difference between plurality and majority voting. just a small social group that has grown and is now incorporated. there was no reason to change what everyone thought was ok, until, our new chairman, who is so smart he started reading rr, and raised the issue. but, he raised the issue after the election, thereby possibly changing the outcome for certain directors.

we have a 30 day window to challenge, then the ballots are destroyed if there are no challenges.

the chairman has announced the winners, but not the actual vote count. because there could be changes, depending which method is used, plurality or majority, i want to clearly have the issue stated before the actual tallies are announced. hoping to keep the issue on an objective vs subjective basis.

again, thank you. gene