improperly filled out ballots

[Guest elindholm]

We elect certain committee members by ballot, with the bylaws stating that the winning candidate must receive a majority of votes cast. How do improperly filled out ballots count? If we receive 50 ballots, 24 for A, 23 for B, and 3 rejected, has A won a majority? Thanks!

[George Mervosh]

Exactly why were they rejected?

[Guest Guest]

Exactly why were they rejected?

It's hypothetical so far, but the main possibility we're concerned about is faulty designation of secondary choices for instant run-off purposes, which we are moving toward adopting. So a more accurately representative scenario would be 50 ballots, 20 in favor of A, 18 for B, 12 for C; and then among the C voters, 4 indicating A as second choice, 5 indicating B, and 3 declining to specify. Would those 3 count as abstentions for the purpose of the run-off? Under what circumstances does it matter what the reason for the rejection is?

[George Mervosh]

Under what circumstances does it matter what the reason for the rejection is?

"All illegal votes of the type described in the preceding paragraph - that is, illegal votes cast by legal voters - are taken into account in determining the number of votes cast for purposes of computing the majority." RONR, p. 402

[Josh Martin]

It's hypothetical so far, but the main possibility we're concerned about is faulty designation of secondary choices for instant run-off purposes, which we are moving toward adopting. So a more accurately representative scenario would be 50 ballots, 20 in favor of A, 18 for B, 12 for C; and then among the C voters, 4 indicating A as second choice, 5 indicating B, and 3 declining to specify. Would those 3 count as abstentions for the purpose of the run-off?

An assembly which has adopted a system of preferential voting (also known as "instant run-off" voting) in its Bylaws should adopt special rules of order to determine how such a procedure works and to address questions like this one.

Under what circumstances does it matter what the reason for the rejection is?

Depending on the circumstances, the ballot might be treated as an abstention, as an illegal vote (in which case it counts as a ballot cast, but is not credited toward any candidate), or may simply be tossed out. You should read RONR, 10th ed., pg. 401, line 24 - pg. 403, line 2 and Official Interpretation 2006-5 for more information.

[Guest elindholm]

"All illegal votes of the type described in the preceding paragraph - that is, illegal votes cast by legal voters - are taken into account in determining the number of votes cast for purposes of computing the majority." RONR, p. 402

Thank you for this. Seeing as I have no copy of RONR in front of me, nor can identify the text of p. 402 from the 10th edition online, can you clarify how illegal votes are "taken into account"?

[Guest elindholm]

An assembly which has adopted a system of preferential voting (also known as "instant run-off" voting) in its Bylaws should adopt special rules of order to determine how such a procedure works and to address questions like this one.

Depending on the circumstances, the ballot might be treated as an abstention, as an illegal vote (in which case it counts as a ballot cast, but is not credited toward any candidate), or may simply be tossed out. You should read RONR, 10th ed., pg. 401, line 24 - pg. 403, line 2 and Official Interpretation 2006-5 for more information.

Super, thanks very much for the help.

[Josh Martin]

Seeing as I have no copy of RONR in front of me, nor can identify the text of p. 402 from the 10th edition online, can you clarify how illegal votes are "taken into account"?

That would be because the 10th edition is not available online. You're probably looking at the 4th edition.

[Shmuel Gerber]

It's hypothetical so far, but the main possibility we're concerned about is faulty designation of secondary choices for instant run-off purposes, which we are moving toward adopting. So a more accurately representative scenario would be 50 ballots, 20 in favor of A, 18 for B, 12 for C; and then among the C voters, 4 indicating A as second choice, 5 indicating B, and 3 declining to specify. Would those 3 count as abstentions for the purpose of the run-off? Under what circumstances does it matter what the reason for the rejection is?

First of all, it's difficult to explain this if you don't have the right book to refer to. But essentially, yes; those three ballots are treated as abstentions in the second round, and they do not affect the outcome. Preferential voting is discussed in RONR (10th ed.), pp. 411-414. A ballot is set aside only when all of the candidates marked on it have been eliminated from the competition. At that point, those ballots are no longer counted in determining the majority. In your scenario, C is eliminated in the first round, and in the second round A ends up with 24 votes, B ends up with 23 votes, and three ballots have been set aside because no preference was marked for A or B. So, A wins.

[tctheatc]

Thank you for this. Seeing as I have no copy of RONR in front of me, nor can identify the text of p. 402 from the 10th edition online, can you clarify how illegal votes are "taken into account"?

They are counted as votes cast for the purposes of determining exactly what number constitutes a majority.

[Josh Martin]

Preferential voting is discussed in RONR (10th ed.), pp. 411-414. A ballot is set aside only when all of the candidates marked on it have been eliminated from the competition. At that point, those ballots are no longer counted in determining the majority. In your scenario, C is eliminated in the first round, and in the second round A ends up with 24 votes, B ends up with 23 votes, and three ballots have been set aside because no preference was marked for A or B. So, A wins.

The method of preferential voting in RONR is included for illustration purposes. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 411, lines 30-31) If an assembly wishes to use preferential voting, it should describe the process in detail in its rules, which may differ greatly from the process described in RONR. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 413, lines 25-28)

I'm also not entirely sure if it is accurate that ballots which have "run out" of preferences should be treated as abstentions, even in the sample procedure used in RONR. The relevant citation (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 413, lines 3-6) appears ambiguous on this matter. The text says the ballots should be "set aside," which could suggest they are to be treated as abstentions or as illegal votes.

[Shmuel Gerber]

The method of preferential voting in RONR is included for illustration purposes. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 411, lines 30-31) If an assembly wishes to use preferential voting, it should describe the process in detail in its rules, which may differ greatly from the process described in RONR. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 413, lines 25-28)

I'm also not entirely sure if it is accurate that ballots which have "run out" of preferences should be treated as abstentions, even in the sample procedure used in RONR. The relevant citation (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 413, lines 3-6) appears ambiguous on this matter. The text says the ballots should be "set aside," which could suggest they are to be treated as abstentions or as illegal votes.

Well, by way of illustration let us assume that the bylaws authorize the procedure in RONR.

But I think you are right, and that the ballots in fact are not treated as abstentions. I don't think they are treated as illegal votes, either. The member has the right to vote for C and nobody else, and that vote is counted in determining the majority even if it prevents any candidate from being elected, as stated on page 413, l. 34 to p. 414, l. 1.