What does the term "Majority" mean when voting

[Rev Ed]

I should hope we're all clear that under RONR, the applicable rule is that the assembly continues balloting until the required number of candidates have received a majority vote. Deviations from this rule (dropping candidates, plurality vote, etc.) would have to be in the Bylaws. Whether such amendments to the Bylaws would be beneficial is a decision for the assembly to make. The merits (or lack thereof) of possible deviations from the rules is beyond the scope of this forum.

I concur - but the problem, and some people will vote for lower candidates. But I do believe that the organization should be free to determine their own way of dealing with lengthy voting procedures (lengthy in theory anyway) if they wish.

[Gary Novosielski]

I concur - but the problem, and some people will vote for lower candidates. But I do believe that the organization should be free to determine their own way of dealing with lengthy voting procedures (lengthy in theory anyway) if they wish.

Indeed they are free to do so. But to the extent that this freedom takes them far afield from the time-proven methods found in RONR, the greater their potential for remorse.

Having the right to do something is not the same as having done something right.

[Trina]

Yes, that's an excellent distinction to draw. It seems quite likely to me that Official Interpretation 2006-18 applies here.

....

Reading back over the various postings from (presumably) the same Guest, I don't think it's even clear if a result of the election was announced at all... although, if the candidate who didn't get the highest vote count protested at the time, there must have been something he was protesting against. Presumably he protested against the announcement that the highest vote getter had won. Perhaps Ronnie Edwards (or one of his aliases) can tell us:

A) was the result of the election announced (not just the vote counts, but an announcement of a winner)?

B) did the protest occur right after the results were announced?

C) what happened when the not-winning candidate protested -- was there a ruling in response to the protest?

[Rev Ed]

Indeed they are free to do so. But to the extent that this freedom takes them far afield from the time-proven methods found in RONR, the greater their potential for remorse.

Having the right to do something is not the same as having done something right.

I disagree with the remorse. In some organizations, multiple ballots are readily welcomed, while in othere they are not. The members have a right to make their own changes for a reason - they can deal with their own unique issues.

[Guest Ronnie Edwards]

Reading back over the various postings from (presumably) the same Guest, I don't think it's even clear if a result of the election was announced at all... although, if the candidate who didn't get the highest vote count protested at the time, there must have been something he was protesting against. Presumably he protested against the announcement that the highest vote getter had won. Perhaps Ronnie Edwards (or one of his aliases) can tell us:

A) was the result of the election announced (not just the vote counts, but an announcement of a winner)?

B) did the protest occur right after the results were announced?

C) what happened when the not-winning candidate protested -- was there a ruling in response to the protest?

[Guest Ronnie Edwards]

No. The winner was not announced at the election. The totals were provided pending a 7-Day challenge period and the counting of special ballots (unverified registered voters). Following that process, the results were adjusted and the winner announced.

[Josh Martin]

Following that process, the results were adjusted and the winner announced.

Did this announcement occur at a meeting?