Attending Members vs All Members Votes

[Guest James]

We are considering a change to our By Laws and I'd like to get the opinion of the folks here to make sure that I properly understand the ramifications of the change.

Our current By Laws state that an election is determined by having a majority of votes of members in attendance at the meeting when the elections take place. Our current By Laws also state that absentee ballots are permitted. I believe that this puts us in the position whereby two people could be elected to the same seat.

Example -- We have 50 members eligible to vote. We have 30 members present at the meeting when the elections take place. The By Laws would state that in order to win the seat, the nominee would need 16 or more votes. But, we've taken 10 absentee ballots. This could lead to a situation where two nominees recieve over 16 votes.

Also, it is my understanding that having the number of votes required to pass a motion be tied to the attendance of the meeting, that abstentions become de facto "no" votes. Is this correct?

Do the members of RONR Discussion Board favor one method of voting over the other?

Thanks in advance ...

[Guest Guest]

We are considering a change to our By Laws and I'd like to get the opinion of the folks here to make sure that I properly understand the ramifications of the change.

Our current By Laws state that an election is determined by having a majority of votes of members in attendance at the meeting when the elections take place. Our current By Laws also state that absentee ballots are permitted. I believe that this puts us in the position whereby two people could be elected to the same seat.

Example -- We have 50 members eligible to vote. We have 30 members present at the meeting when the elections take place. The By Laws would state that in order to win the seat, the nominee would need 16 or more votes. But, we've taken 10 absentee ballots. This could lead to a situation where two nominees recieve over 16 votes.

Also, it is my understanding that having the number of votes required to pass a motion be tied to the attendance of the meeting, that abstentions become de facto "no" votes. Is this correct?

Do the members of RONR Discussion Board favor one method of voting over the other?

Thanks in advance ...

First, there seems to be a logical conflict of counting a ballot from someone that is not counted in determining a "majority". You could have more votes than those counted as determining the majority. Also, mixing voting in person with absentee votes creates a problem if there are nominations from the floor, since the absentee voters can't know all the niminees.

I would start by considering either eliminating the absentee ballot option completely OR having all votes done outside the meeting by all voters.

[Josh Martin]

Also, it is my understanding that having the number of votes required to pass a motion be tied to the attendance of the meeting, that abstentions become de facto "no" votes. Is this correct?

It is correct that with such a rule, abstentions have the same effect as "no" votes, but even in such a case, an abstention is not a vote. (FAQ #6) For this reason, RONR advises against such a rule. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 390, lines 13-21)

Do the members of RONR Discussion Board favor one method of voting over the other?

RONR strongly advises against combining absentee voting with votes at a meeting. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 409, lines 4-15) If the election requires multiple rounds of balloting due to no candidate receiving the required number of votes in the first round, this could be highly problematic. It would be best to amend the Bylaws so that all members vote by the same method.

Certainly I agree that if some or all of the voters are absentees, then basing the required threshold on the number of members present defies logic and leads to impossible dilemmas.

[Gary Novosielski]

We are considering a change to our By Laws and I'd like to get the opinion of the folks here to make sure that I properly understand the ramifications of the change.

Our current By Laws state that an election is determined by having a majority of votes of members in attendance at the meeting when the elections take place. Our current By Laws also state that absentee ballots are permitted. I believe that this puts us in the position whereby two people could be elected to the same seat.

Well, at a minimum, you should delete that clause regarding a "members in attendance at the meeting when the elections take place." By default, in RONR, elections are determined by a majority of ballots cast for that office, so if you simply leave out any language pertaining to that, the rules in RONR will apply.

But others have also pointed out the problems inherent in combining live votes with absentee votes, especially in the event that subsequent ballots are required.

If you're looking for RONR's recommendation, it is to hold live, in-person voting in the context of a legal meeting with a quorum present. Anything else is less recommended.