Memeber wants ballot returned

[Guest Laura Manary]

We have a member in our club who wants her ballot returned and a new one sent to her. She quoted page 395, lines 9-12, RONR "A member has a right to change his vote up to the time the result is announced; after that, he can make the change only by the unanimous consent of the assembly granted without debate (see p. 46)."

Is that talking about oral voting? I could not find anywhere where it said once you submit a ballot it can be returned so you can change your mind. Thanks for your time.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

We have a member in our club who wants her ballot returned and a new one sent to her.

She quoted page 395, lines 9-12, RONR "A member has a right to change his vote up to the time the result is announced; after that, he can make the change only by the unanimous consent of the assembly granted without debate (see p. 46)."

Is that talking about oral voting?

Yes.

A secret ballot cannot be returned. At least, no text in RONR supports such a concept.

Ballots are secret. Or at least, SUPPOSED to be secret.

How would the member find his ballot and tell it apart from all the rest of the ballots, without tainting the election? -- without revealing who voted for whom, while searching out that single ballot?

If you have a non-secret balloting method, then it might be possible. -- There is no secrecy to risk divulging. It's just bookkeeping, at that point.

[Josh Martin]

Yes.

A secret ballot cannot be returned. At least, no text in RONR supports such a concept.

Ballots are secret. Or at least, SUPPOSED to be secret.

How would the member find his ballot and tell it apart from all the rest of the ballots, without tainting the election? -- without revealing who voted for whom, while searching out that single ballot?

If you have a non-secret balloting method, then it might be possible. -- There is no secrecy to risk divulging. It's just bookkeeping, at that point.

Since the poster appears to be talking about a mail ballot, it is entirely possible to send in a new ballot so long as the ballots have not yet been opened. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 411, lines 9-13)

[jstackpo]

And there is no need to "return" the first such mail ballot when a second one shows up - it can be merely trashed, but NOT opened & counted, that's for sure.

[Rob Elsman]

Since the poster appears to be talking about a mail ballot, it is entirely possible to send in a new ballot so long as the ballots have not yet been opened. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 411, lines 9-13)

Well, I suspect Mr. Martin means so long as the inner envelope has not been removed from the outer envelope. The point is that the mailed-in ballot needs to be identifiable.

This seems to be a controversial point, but it is my opinion that the voter may also change his previously mailed-in vote at a meeting before the president announces the results if, and only if, the voter is willing to disclose how he had voted. The rule in RONR (10th ed.), p. 395, ll. 9-12, is not qualified with respect to the method of voting. The reference in that paragraph to p. 46 does not qualify the rule on p. 395 to only those methods discussed on p. 45. The discussion on pp. 45, 46 is part of a "primer", if you will, on the general handling of motions with special reference to main motions. Voting by ballot is not discussed in this section of the book, so what is said on p. 46 does not limit the application of the rule on p. 395 to the three methods mentioned on p. 45; rather, what is said on p. 46 is merely the rule on p. 395 applied to the three methods discussed on p. 45.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

... so long as the inner envelope has not been removed from the outer envelope. The point is that the mailed-in ballot needs to be identifiable.

... it is my opinion that the voter may also change his previously mailed-in vote at a meeting before the president announces the results if, and only if, the voter is willing to disclose how he had voted.

Wait a minute.

That allows the changer to vote TWICE.

• once, as normal with secret mail-in ballots

• again, when, at the time of the announced results, he asserts that he wishes to change his vote, but actually is exposing, not his own vote, but the pretense of the opposite side's vote.

If the mailed in envelope was identifiable, and unopened, then that is a different story.

But when the chair is announcing the result of a vote, at that point, all ballots are fungible (freely exchangeable with other units of its kind), and there is no back-trace capability to un-cast (i.e., "subtract") the early vote, as you "add" the new oral vote.

Q. What is the safeguard?

[Rob Elsman]

Wait a minute.

That allows the changer to vote TWICE.

• once, as normal with secret mail-in ballots

• again, when, at the time of the announced results, he asserts that he wishes to change his vote, but actually is exposing, not his own vote, but the pretense of the opposite side's vote.

If the mailed in envelope was identifiable, and unopened, then that is a different story.

But when the chair is announcing the result of a vote, at that point, all ballots are fungible (freely exchangeable with other units of its kind), and there is no back-trace capability to un-cast (i.e., "subtract") the early vote, as you "add" the new oral vote.

Q. What is the safeguard?

I suppose the safeguard is the member's word of honor that he had voted for X and wishes to change his vote to Y.

[Gary Novosielski]

I suppose the safeguard is the member's word of honor that he had voted for X and wishes to change his vote to Y.

That's sweet. But you forgot the smiley face.

Words of honor are all fine and dandy, but we don't take the voters word on anything else, and this is no time to start.

In a properly run election, tellers check carefully to see that nobody who is not entitled to vote manages to cast a ballot. Voters are instructed to fold their ballots twice to ensure that double ballots can be detected. Tellers who collect ballots feel them to make sure there is only one. The vote is often, by custom, counted in full view of the assembly.

I submit that all of these procedures to prevent and/or detect fraudulent voting would be an insult to any fine upstanding assembly whose members could be trusted upon their word of honor never to attempt to monkey with the results of an election.

But the problem is that no such assembly exists, or the procedures above never would have been included in RONR.

On a secret ballot, unless the member has clear and convincing proof of the nature of his vote, such as a signed and still sealed mailed envelope, then he can't substantiate that he is, in fact changing his vote, not manipulating it.

[hmtcastle]

Words of honor are all fine and dandy, but we don't take the voters word on anything else, and this is no time to start.

We apparently do in the case of a motion to reconsider when the motion to be reconsidered was decided by ballot (p. 305).

[Gary Novosielski]

We apparently do in the case of a motion to reconsider when the motion to be reconsidered was decided by ballot (p. 305).

Yes we do in that specific case, which argues against doing so in general.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

We apparently do in the case of a motion to reconsider when the motion to be reconsidered was decided by ballot (p. 305).

I thought of that.

But in Reconsider, the sanctum sanctorum is the secrecy of one's ballot.

If the individual freely chooses to give up this secrecy, then that is his decision.

But the other sanctum sanctorum is that no one's vote counts more than another person's vote.

If you allow a person to vote by ballot, and vote again orally, then you have given this person two votes.

And that is something which cannot be granted, or tolerated, in proper parliamentary procedure.

"No one votes twice. It isn't nice."

– anonymous

[Rob Elsman]

I thought of that.

But in Reconsider, the sanctum sanctorum is the secrecy of one's ballot.

If the individual freely chooses to give up this secrecy, then that is his decision.

But the other sanctum sanctorum is that no one's vote counts more than another person's vote.

If you allow a person to vote by ballot, and vote again orally, then you have given this person two votes.

And that is something which cannot be granted, or tolerated, in proper parliamentary procedure.

Obviously, a member who changes his vote from X to Y is not voting twice. That's true whether the vote is by ballot or otherwise.

[Josh Martin]

Obviously, a member who changes his vote from X to Y is not voting twice. That's true whether the vote is by ballot or otherwise.

Well, this again assumes that the member is truthful about his first vote.

While it is true that members of an assembly should generally assume that their fellow members are being truthful, all this usually means is giving members the benefit of the doubt when they speak in debate or processing a motion to Reconsider. These seem like reasonable concessions which help to ensure the harmony of the assembly. But taking a member at his word in a case like this could potentially influence the result of an election, and that seems like a much harder pill to swallow. I maintain that the member may change his vote only if his first ballot is identifiable, such as if this is a mail vote and the inner envelopes have not yet been removed from the outer envelopes.

[Rob Elsman]

Well, this again assumes that the member is truthful about his first vote.

While it is true that members of an assembly should generally assume that their fellow members are being truthful, all this usually means is giving members the benefit of the doubt when they speak in debate or processing a motion to Reconsider. These seem like reasonable concessions which help to ensure the harmony of the assembly. But taking a member at his word in a case like this could potentially influence the result of an election, and that seems like a much harder pill to swallow. I maintain that the member may change his vote only if his first ballot is identifiable, such as if this is a mail vote and the inner envelopes have not yet been removed from the outer envelopes.

We take the member's word of honor when he changes his vote in a voice vote, a show of hands, or a rising vote, even if the change affects the result of the vote. There's no real way to verify the original vote in these cases, either, but the pill doesn't seem so hard to swallow. I don't understand what's so difficult about this with respect to a ballot vote, provided the member is willing to give up the secrecy of his vote.

[Josh Martin]

There's no real way to verify the original vote in these cases, either, but the pill doesn't seem so hard to swallow.

Hm. I think that depends to some extent on the size of the assembly, and to change the result it would need to be some form of counted vote, but it is still a fair point. I'm still not sure I agree with you, but I can at least see where you're coming from now.

[Gary Novosielski]

We take the member's word of honor when he changes his vote in a voice vote, a show of hands, or a rising vote, even if the change affects the result of the vote. There's no real way to verify the original vote in these cases, either, but the pill doesn't seem so hard to swallow. I don't understand what's so difficult about this with respect to a ballot vote, provided the member is willing to give up the secrecy of his vote.

Because it is an invitation to fraud. Absent clear and convincing proof of how the member voted, it is not possible to confirm that they are really changing their vote and not doubling it.

In the other cases noted, the vote took place in public, and the voter could have been seen or heard.

More to the point, has anyone ever seen someone change his vote in the case of a voice vote or any other vote where the outcome was not recorded? How could anyone ever claim that their vote changed the outcome? It's ludicrous. Is the chair supposed to figure out whether the change of one less voice saying Aye, and one more voice saying No would have changed his judgment of the outcome?

It seems clear to me that, apart from a roll-call vote, where it makes sense, changing of one's vote on non-recorded votes, while it may be allowed, is an exercise in parliamentary pointlessness.

In the case of a counted rising vote or show of hands, if someone claimed that they wanted to change their vote, the best course of action would be to vote again, and count again, if the vote was within 1 either way. In the case of a ballot vote, where the ballot is not identifiable, it should simply be disallowed.

[Dan Honemann]

My own view of it is that the right of a member to change his vote is limited to instances in which the vote is being taken either by one of the regular methods of voting or by a roll-call vote, and in all such instances it must be done prior to the time the result is announced. RONR specifically refers to vote changes in these instances.

I don't think that the situation described on page 411, lines 9-13, is a situation in which a vote that has been cast is being changed. It is a situation in which a determination is being made as to which ballot is to be counted in the first instance.