Determining an election winner

[Guest Rabs]

Our organization has traditionally had a run-off for officer's position if no candidate received over 50% of the vote. Our by-laws are silent on this issue and our new president says that is "unconstitutional" and therefore, only a plurality of votes is necessary to elect a winner. Is he correct?

Thanks,

Rabs

[Gary Novosielski]

Our organization has traditionally had a run-off for officer's position if no candidate received over 50% of the vote. Our by-laws are silent on this issue and our new president says that is "unconstitutional" and therefore, only a plurality of votes is necessary to elect a winner. Is he correct?

Thanks,

Rabs

None of the above. If your bylaws are silent, the rules in RONR say that officers are elected by a majority vote. But there is no such thing as a run-off--that is, you may not drop anyone from the ballot on a re-vote unless they voluntarily withdraw. You vote again (and again) until someone gets a majority. Write-ins are encouraged.

Plurality voting is prohibited by RONR unless you have explicitly authorized in your bylaws. Your president is poorly informed.

[hmtcastle]

our new president says that is "unconstitutional" and therefore, only a plurality of votes is necessary to elect a winner.

If he's correct, he should be able to point to a rule in your "constitution" which supports his claim.

[Josh Martin]

Our by-laws are silent on this issue and our new president says that is "unconstitutional" and therefore, only a plurality of votes is necessary to elect a winner. Is he correct?

Since it seems your organization has Bylaws and not a Constitution, I can't imagine how it could be correct or what Constitution he is referring to.

Because your Bylaws are silent, the rules of RONR are controlling and you should follow the procedure outlined by Mr. Novosielski.