Proxy Voting.

  • 31 Aug 2018 8:40 PM
    Message # 6648960

    A large international organization held its annual convention in Chicago recently. There were about 2000 delegates of which 777 were voting and carried with them about 25000 proxy votes. The bylaws permit such proxy votes. At one regional director election, the results were as follows:

    Candidate S 10843

    Candidate H 10814

    Illegal Votes 1477

    S was declared winner.

    Then after about 40mins, the decision was made by the Chair to declare it null and void, since it didn't have a majority, and ordered a re-vote. 

    New results as follows, 

    Candidate S 10467

    Candidate H 11505

    Illegal Votes 282.

    This time, H had more than the majority and declared new Winner. 

    All voting processes done by electronic keypads. Each delegate could carry two proxies minimum to represent a club, or as many as a few hundred proxies for a large district of a few hundred clubs.  Each club has 2 proxies maximum. Only some delegates@large, very few, carried own votes, in person.

    Was the declaration of first winner in line withtheRoberto or the generalparliamentary law?

    Whatwent wrong?  Thank you. KimSee Teo. 


  • 1 Sep 2018 7:24 AM
    Reply # 6649322 on 6648960
    Kim-See Teo wrote:

    A large international organization held its annual convention in Chicago recently. There were about 2000 delegates of which 777 were voting and carried with them about 25000 proxy votes. The bylaws permit such proxy votes. At one regional director election, the results were as follows:

    Candidate S 10843

    Candidate H 10814

    Illegal Votes 1477

    S was declared winner.

    Then after about 40mins, the decision was made by the Chair to declare it null and void, since it didn't have a majority, and ordered a re-vote. 

    New results as follows, 

    Candidate S 10467

    Candidate H 11505

    Illegal Votes 282.

    This time, H had more than the majority and declared new Winner. 

    All voting processes done by electronic keypads. Each delegate could carry two proxies minimum to represent a club, or as many as a few hundred proxies for a large district of a few hundred clubs.  Each club has 2 proxies maximum. Only some delegates@large, very few, carried own votes, in person.

    Was the declaration of first winner in line withtheRoberto or the generalparliamentary law?

    Whatwent wrong?  Thank you. KimSee Teo. 


    Interesting question. My first question is how you can have illegal votes on an electronic keypad? Presumably they voted for a "blank" number not assigned to Candidate S or Candidate H? In that case, they essentially turned in a "blank" ballot, not an illegal one. Your election rules might have addressed this point.

    Secondly, there appears to be no exception as noted on page 445 of RONR that would permit the reballoting -- in other words, no question of qualifications of the candidates, no question of a prior candidate previously elected and still in office, no suggestion that ballots were cast by improper voters, no question of lack of notice of an election to fill a vacancy, and no question that members were prevented from voting.  There does not seem to be a breach of a continuing nature, as noted on page 251. Absent any of these exceptions, RONR says that "An election to an office becomes final immediately if the candidate is present and does not decline, or if he is absent but has consented to the candidacy." (Page 444) 

    Therefore it seems to me that reballoting was improper, absent an immediate point of order raised after the results were announced. Even then, I would still ask what constitutes an illegal ballot. 

  • 2 Sep 2018 7:19 AM
    Reply # 6650204 on 6648960

    Thank you, Kay. 

    I had written a long reply to appreciate your very kind and intellectual response to my question. But I couldn't post it simply because the system rejected it, after many attempts. Cheers. KimSee. 

  • 2 Sep 2018 5:40 PM
    Reply # 6650716 on 6648960
    Lawrence Cisar (Administrator)

    If there was no immediate point of order, the first election stands as called. From the information given, the You Snooze, You Loose principle applies.


  • 2 Sep 2018 10:38 PM
    Reply # 6650936 on 6648960
    Anonymous

    That was what I thought. No point of order raised. And after about 40 mins, the Chair decided to reverse his decision and declared it, null and void. Then ordered a new re-balloting, still using the keypads. Thank you, Larry.

  • 2 Sep 2018 10:59 PM
    Reply # 6650943 on 6648960
    Anonymous

    Thank you very much, Kay, for your very refreshing approach. It makes sense too. But I doubt the Chair thought of it when he declared S elected as Winner. Maybe a benefit of doubt, there. In any case, there ought to be an objection by someone present who had raised a point order to move on to the next step. Otherwise, S should remain as winner, rightfully as declared. 

    What the pc system should or could do in order to perfect the e-voting process, was at best inderminate. Nobody knew what and why the situation had transpired. Obviously, a lot could be explained or analysed further. Cheers. KimSee.

© Copyright - American Institute of Parliamentarians
1100 E Woodfield Rd, Suite 350, Schaumburg, IL 60173
888-664-0428

Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software