Was this a properly held vote?

[HawaiiThad]

At my local Neighborhood Board last night, there was an election to fill a vacant seat. I ran. There are nine seats on the Board including the vacant seat. The Chair stated that five votes were needed to be elected to fill the vacant seat. The Chair also stated that "as per Robert's Rules" the names of the candidates would be read and the candidates would be voted on one-by-one and the first candidate to get the needed five votes would be elected. There were two candidates. Needless to say, my name would have been read second, but the first candidate got six votes and was declared the winner.

How can this be? My name wasn't even read! Robert's Rules can't possibly place more emphasis on who's name is called first than anything else in an election, can it?

[George Mervosh]

When a ballot vote is not required or ordered, a voice vote can be taken and from your facts, it seems it was done correctly, yes. Typically the names are voted upon in the order nominated.

See RONR, p. 427-428

[Josh Martin]

How can this be? My name wasn't even read! Robert's Rules can't possibly place more emphasis on who's name is called first than anything else in an election, can it?

Unless your Bylaws require a ballot vote, what happened was entirely proper. In a voice vote, the first candidate to receive a majority is elected. If the members supported you over your opponent they should have voted against your opponent.

[hmtcastle]

Robert's Rules can't possibly place more emphasis on who's name is called first than anything else in an election, can it?

Robert's Rules recommends voting by ballot for elections.

[Weldon Merritt]

Robert's Rules recommends voting by ballot for elections.

Yes (and probably for good reason, including this situation), but RONR does not require one. The bylaws may or may not. If they do, then that requirement may not be waived.

[Tim Wynn]

At my local Neighborhood Board last night, there was an election to fill a vacant seat. I ran. There are nine seats on the Board including the vacant seat. The Chair stated that five votes were needed to be elected to fill the vacant seat. The Chair also stated that "as per Robert's Rules" the names of the candidates would be read and the candidates would be voted on one-by-one and the first candidate to get the needed five votes would be elected. There were two candidates. Needless to say, my name would have been read second, but the first candidate got six votes and was declared the winner.

How can this be? My name wasn't even read! Robert's Rules can't possibly place more emphasis on who's name is called first than anything else in an election, can it?

I don't find this to be an appropriate application of the rules. The viva-voce method is applicable principally in mass meetings or when the candidate is unopposed or not strongly contested. It gives an extreme advantage to the first candidate, escpecially when the normal voting rules are used, requiring only a majority -- as opposed to a majority of the fixed membership, which appears to have been used in this case.

[Tim Wynn]

Unless your Bylaws require a ballot vote, what happened was entirely proper. In a voice vote, the first candidate to receive a majority is elected. If the members supported you over your opponent they should have voted against your opponent.

It appears that they were using a majority of the fixed membership as the voting threshold, in which case voting against a candidate would have no effect, as only voting for a candidate would make a difference.

[Josh Martin]

I don't find this to be an appropriate application of the rules. The viva-voce method is applicable principally in mass meetings or when the candidate is unopposed or not strongly contested. It gives an extreme advantage to the first candidate, escpecially when the normal voting rules are used, requiring only a majority -- as opposed to a majority of the fixed membership, which appears to have been used in this case.

While the board may have exercised poor judgment, it did not violate any parliamentary rule. Unless the Bylaws require a ballot vote, the results of the election stand.

It appears that they were using a majority of the fixed membership as the voting threshold, in which case voting against a candidate would have no effect, as only voting for a candidate would make a difference.

Okay, then they should have abstained on the first candidate.

[Weldon Merritt]

I don't find this to be an appropriate application of the rules. The viva-voce method is applicable principally in mass meetings or when the candidate is unopposed or not strongly contested. It gives an extreme advantage to the first candidate, escpecially when the normal voting rules are used, requiring only a majority -- as opposed to a majority of the fixed membership, which appears to have been used in this case.

All very good reason why this method should not have been used. But again, it is not prohibited unless the bylaws require a ballot vote. The time to have have objected was before the vote was taken.

[Tim Wynn]

I agree with both you characters on it being a bad idea and on it not violating any rule (that we can see).

[Gary Novosielski]

It appears that they were using a majority of the fixed membership as the voting threshold, in which case voting against a candidate would have no effect, as only voting for a candidate would make a difference.

How on earth can you use a viva voce method for a majority of the fixed membership? Since absent members and abstentions would be silent, only one of the counted methods could possibly be useful.

[Josh Martin]

How on earth can you use a viva voce method for a majority of the fixed membership? Since absent members and abstentions would be silent, only one of the counted methods could possibly be useful.

Huh. I don't know how we missed that. Nevertheless, it's not that difficult to modify the viva voce election to a vote by counted show of hands or counted rising vote.

[Gary Novosielski]

Huh. I don't know how we missed that. Nevertheless, it's not that difficult to modify the viva voce election to a vote by counted show of hands or counted rising vote.

I guess with only five votes needed it is marginally possible to judge by eye, but marginally. I don't know what the generally accepted upper limit is on how many simultaneous events can be reliably discerned by the human ear/eye, but I think this is pretty close to the margin.

[David A Foulkes]

How on earth can you use a viva voce method for a majority of the fixed membership? Since absent members and abstentions would be silent, only one of the counted methods could possibly be useful.

Well, we don't really know that was the required voting threshold qualification. It was introduced (not by the OP) at post #6 with "appears to have been the case", and the concept carried forward by most since.

I kind of wonder of it wasn't a misunderstanding of majority, as the 8-member Board would have required had all members voted, which may have been the expectation of the chair. Or perhaps he just doesn't understand "present and voting." I have also seen bylaws where it states that (on a nine-member board as well) that a quorum at board meetings shall be five members of the board and (at least) five members must concur to adopt any motion. Who knows what guided the chair to make his claim?

Perhaps Thad does, and will soon return to clarify for us.

[George Mervosh]

I guess with only five votes needed it is marginally possible to judge by eye, but marginally. I don't know what the generally accepted upper limit is on how many simultaneous events can be reliably discerned by the human ear/eye, but I think this is pretty close to the margin.

Gary, the poster didn't say if it was by voice or a show of hands.....the pages cited earlier say this:

"When there is more than one nominee for a given office in a viva-voce election - or in an election by rising vote or by show of hands - the candidates are voted on in the order in which they were nominated."

In either case the procedure is the same and unless some deluge of additional facts flow in, it seems like it's a done deal.

[HawaiiThad]

Hi all,

I wanted to read the pages listed in the first reply before I posted again, but i will now because I don't want to hold up the discussion. I've been following along with the discussion and want to thank everyone for their input. I was floored to learn that the method of stopping the voting when one candidate gets the required number of votes is an accepted standard way of voting. I am a mathematician and I have been thinking about it from a mathematical perspective. One thing to consider is whether or not those voting are doing so rationally or irrationally, although I won't comment on the rationality of the current members of my Neighborhood Board. ;-)

If we accept the voters voting for each candidate they find acceptable as rational, then it's very possible under this system to fail to elect the best candidate. For example, let's say there are two candidates, Al & Bob, being voted on by a nine-member Board and to keep it simple, let's say all members are present and vote and that a simple majority, in this case, five votes, is what's needed to win. If three voters don't have preference and vote for both candidates, two voters prefer Al, and four prefer Bob, then, if Al's name is read first, he would get five votes and win. Even though Bob was the preferred candidate and would have gotten seven votes he would not get elected.

I'm not saying this would have happened in my case. I just couldn't believe that that was how the voting was done!

[HawaiiThad]

The vote was by roll-call.

Oh, and congrats on your 1,000th post, George Mervosh!

[George Mervosh]

Oh, and congrats on your 1,000th post, George Mervosh!

Ugh, that depresses me......off to Happy Hour.

[tctheatc]

Would it be in order, before the voice voting started, to move for a ballot vote? far as I can tell the decision to go with this method of voting was at the discretion of the chair. And the rationale for this type of vote does seem to indicate it was not the best choice.

[Bruce Lages]

I realize it's only a hypothetical situation that you're presenting, but the statement "if three voters have no preference and vote for both candidates" makes absolutely no sense.

[Josh Martin]

I guess with only five votes needed it is marginally possible to judge by eye, but marginally. I don't know what the generally accepted upper limit is on how many simultaneous events can be reliably discerned by the human ear/eye, but I think this is pretty close to the margin.

It's never a good idea to count a voice vote by eye. The board seems small enough for a counted show of hands vote to be appropriate, though.

I was floored to learn that the method of stopping the voting when one candidate gets the required number of votes is an accepted standard way of voting. If we accept the voters voting for each candidate they find acceptable as rational, then it's very possible under this system to fail to elect the best candidate. For example, let's say there are two candidates, Al & Bob, being voted on by a nine-member Board and to keep it simple, let's say all members are present and vote and that a simple majority, in this case, five votes, is what's needed to win. If three voters don't have preference and vote for both candidates, two voters prefer Al, and four prefer Bob, then, if Al's name is read first, he would get five votes and win. Even though Bob was the preferred candidate and would have gotten seven votes he would not get elected.

As has been noted, it is an accepted method of voting but it is not recommended for important, contested elections for many of the reasons you have outlined. If a voice vote is to be used, the chair should be very clear about the procedure for such a vote.

The vote was by roll-call.

This is a somewhat important fact. If this is the case, the procedure followed was not proper. In an election by roll call, each member is called upon individually and rather than voting "yes" or "no" on a candidate he votes for the candidate of his choice. After all the votes are cast, if a candidate receives the required threshold he is elected, otherwise another round of voting is conducted. Failing to follow this procedure does not, however, constitute a continuing breach. A Point of Order would have had to be raised by a board member at the time.

In other words, the board screwed up but it's too late to fix it.

Would it be in order, before the voice voting started, to move for a ballot vote?

Yes.

I realize it's only a hypothetical situation that you're presenting, but the statement "if three voters have no preference and vote for both candidates" makes absolutely no sense.

I believe what he means is that some members may not understand the proper procedure for a viva voce election and vote for a candidate if they believe he is an acceptable candidate for the board. Following this philosophy, some members may believe both candidates are acceptable and vote in favor of both of them.

[HawaiiThad]

Following this philosophy, some members may believe both candidates are acceptable and vote in favor of both of them.

Yes, that 's what I meant.

That's actually what happened at the previous meeting where a vacant position was filled. There were four candidates. One was the preferred candidate of the Chair. A few Board members do not care for the Chair. It was roll-call vote. That time, they went through all the candidates. A couple of members voted in favor of everyone other than the Chair's candidate.

[Josh Martin]

That's actually what happened at the previous meeting where a vacant position was filled. There were four candidates. One was the preferred candidate of the Chair. A few Board members do not care for the Chair. It was roll-call vote. That time, they went through all the candidates. A couple of members voted in favor of everyone other than the Chair's candidate.

So it seems your board has been conducting roll-call elections wrong for some time. You do not vote on candidates individually in a "yes/no" fashion in a roll call election. Each member simply votes for his preferred candidate. While it's too late to fix the last election, following the proper procedure in the future should help to avoid further mistakes.

[Gary Novosielski]

Would it be in order, before the voice voting started, to move for a ballot vote? far as I can tell the decision to go with this method of voting was at the discretion of the chair. And the rationale for this type of vote does seem to indicate it was not the best choice.

Chairs, as a rule, have almost no unilateral discretion. If there's a best-kept secret of parliamentary law, that's my nomination right there.

Yes, it would have been in order for anyone to move for a ballot vote. And by a majority the board could have ordered it.

But here's something else to consider, which is not in RONR, but may be relevant because you are a school board. Are you elected by the public? If so, your state laws may require that all your votes (apart from purely procedural ones) require a recorded vote. If your state requires that then secret ballot votes would not be allowable, but signed ballots would.

[tctheatc]

Chairs, as a rule, have almost no unilateral discretion. If there's a best-kept secret of parliamentary law, that's my nomination right there.

Point well taken and I know it to be true. I suppose I should've said the chair seemed to decide unilaterally to do it that way!