Voting

[Guest Phil Hartline]

If there are two people running for an office and neather is acceptable to the voters and no votes are cast ,are the no votes considered as part of the votes of majarity or are they considered abstention votes. Exc. 17 no votes,19 votes for can. 1, 18 votes for can. 2 Does this example show that neather of the canadates has a majorty of the voting members.

[J. J.]

If there are two people running for an office and neather is acceptable to the voters and no votes are cast ,are the no votes considered as part of the votes of majarity or are they considered abstention votes. Exc. 17 no votes,19 votes for can. 1, 18 votes for can. 2 Does this example show that neather of the canadates has a majorty of the voting members.

I would treat a no vote as an illegal vote, though I think the decision could be appealed, thought I'd expect the decision of the chair to be sustained by a vote of about 35 to 19. A majority of the members are very likely to determine that neither candidate #1 or #2 were elected.

[J. J.]

I'll also assume that you did not have the choice "no" on the ballot which would be out of order.

[George Mervosh]

J.J., what about OI 2006-5 ?

[J. J.]

J.J., what about OI 2006-5 ?

I don't agree that it is an abstention and, definitely more importantly, the 35 that voted "no" or candidate #2 may not agree with that interpretation. I think on this one, it is the majority's call.

[George Mervosh]

Well, if I'm Mr. Hartline, I'm sticking with the Authorship Team's interpretation on this one.

[Trina]

I'll also assume that you did not have the choice "no" on the ballot which would be out of order.

J.J., what about OI 2006-5 ?

So, Mr. Hartline, did the ballot have a space for 'no' on it? With 19 people voting 'no' it seems like a distinct possibility that they didn't all come up with the same (improper) idea spontaneously.

[J. J.]

Well, if I'm Mr. Hartline, I'm sticking with the Authorship Team's interpretation on this one.

It won't be Mr. Hartline's decision, singularly, or mine or yours or the Authorship Team's. A proper tellers report should report them to the chair, and the chair should submit the question to the assembly (p. 402). It would be up to the assembly to determine if these "no" votes were abstentions or were illegal votes.

I would, since an interpretation implies ambiguity, be much more comfortable leaving the decision to the majority of Mr. Hartline's organization, though in the circumstances I would strongly suspect that they would determine there was no election.

BTW: I did work with a gentleman named Mr. No.

[hmtcastle]

BTW: I did work with a gentleman named Mr. No.

I don't suppose he was a doctor?

A second-baseman?

A Republican?

[J. J.]

I don't suppose he was a doctor?

A second-baseman?

A Republican?

Welfare caseworker. It is an Asian surname. (One of professors in college, also Asian, was Doctor Hu.)

Even discounting the possibility that there is an eligible person named No. I think that there is enough ambiguity in this case that the assembly will have to be the ones to solve it.

[hmtcastle]

One of professors in college, also Asian, was Doctor Hu.

First base!

(Sorry; couldn't resist.)

[J. J.]

First base!

(Sorry; couldn't resist.)

Who was on first base, not second.

[hmtcastle]

Who was on first base, not second.

That's why I said, "First base!".

[Weldon Merritt]

Who was on first base, not second.

I don't know.

[hmtcastle]

I don't know.

"He's on third, we're not talking about him."

[Are we feelin' the wrath yet?]

[J. J.]

That's why I said, "First base!".

You said, "A second-baseman?" but this did have a Ph D.

[Gary Novosielski]

A second-baseman?

What's the guy's name on second base.

[hmtcastle]

You said, "A second-baseman?" but this did have a Ph D.

Well, I said "A second baseman?" in response to Mr. No, not Mr. Hu.

As Mr. Novosielski notes, What's the guy's name on second.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Well, I said "A second baseman?" in response to Mr. No, not Mr. Hu.

As Mr. Novosielski notes, What's the guy's name on second.

...

"Hu is on first.

What's on second.

I don't know's on third."

...

"On payday, Hu gets the money. -- Every dollar of it."

[Josh Martin]

Well, if I'm Mr. Hartline, I'm sticking with the Authorship Team's interpretation on this one.

I would too, but I'm not sure J. J. and the Authorship Team would disagree here. Since there was an unusually high number of no votes, it seems likely to me that the voters were led to believe they could vote against candidates in this fashion, and in such a case their votes must be credited. (Official Interpretation 2006-5)

[J. J.]

I would too, but I'm not sure J. J. and the Authorship Team would disagree here. Since there was an unusually high number of no votes, it seems likely to me that the voters were led to believe they could vote against candidates in this fashion, and in such a case their votes must be credited. (Official Interpretation 2006-5)

Hard cases make bad law.

The judgment, in this instance would be in the hands of the majority. The chair's presumed interpretation that the "no" votes should be counted as abstentions would be appealable. If the majority should decide that the chair is in error, I would venture that what we, or the Authorship Team, would say will have no bearing on the issue. It is properly the judgment of the assembly (p. 395).

That said, if I were asked to declare the judgment of the assembly in this particular case, I'd error on the side of caution and declare that no candidate was elected, subject to appeal. I'd be somewhat happy if the assembly would overrule that decision.

Just as a note, I really hate judgment calls.

[David A Foulkes]

I would too, but I'm not sure J. J. and the Authorship Team would disagree here. Since there was an unusually high number of no votes, it seems likely to me that the voters were led to believe they could vote against candidates in this fashion, and in such a case their votes must be credited. (Official Interpretation 2006-5)

It seems to me that this is the deciding factor in this.

Mr. Hartline -- was this option expressly provided to the voters? Or did the 17 nay-sayers just all come up with the idea on their own individual initiative?

Hel-loOOoo?

[Guest Don Wiley]

Once a motion has been voted on in the affirmative, may a member who voted for it bring it up again at a later date in order to have a new vote and (presumably) vote against it?

[Guest Don Wiley]

The voting that Phil Hartline was talking about. We don't use p reprinted ballots. We use blank slips of paper and write the name of the person we want to have the office. If we don't want either person running for the office we wrote no on the blank ballot. One person got 24 votes, one person got 14 votes, no got 14 votes also. There was not a majority. They were telling us that the no votes do not count. What is your opinion on the no votes counting?

[Rob Elsman]

The voting that Phil Hartline was talking about. We don't use p reprinted ballots. We use blank slips of paper and write the name of the person we want to have the office. If we don't want either person running for the office we wrote no on the blank ballot. One person got 24 votes, one person got 14 votes, no got 14 votes also. There was not a majority. They were telling us that the no votes do not count. What is your opinion on the no votes counting?

See RONR, Off. Interp. 2006-5 at the Robert's Rules of Order website, www.robertsrules.com.