At 07:38 PM 12/27/2008, James Gilmour wrote:
Most UK organisations, large and small, from national trade unions
to local badminton clubs, would follow essentially the same
procedures, particularly with regard to making no provision for
"write-ins" and requiring written confirmation by each candidate of
consent to nomination.
What are the standard rules of procedure? What manual, if any, is the
most common used? In the U.S., the most common rules for
nongovernmental organizations are based on Robert's Rules of Order,
which was based on the rules for the U.S. House, which rules also
descended from English procedure. There is another parliamentary
manual that is common for New England Town Meetings, Town Meeting Time.
So there you have it - but I don't think it provides many (any ?)
useful pointers for a robust "write-in" procedure. "Write-ins"
are just not part of our political culture, but I do understand and
do appreciate that, in their various forms, they are very much
part of the political culture in the USA.
They are also part of standard balloting procedure under Robert's
Rules. U.S. elections actually had, long ago, no printed names on the
ballot. Rather the voter would write in the candidate's name. I would
assume, then, that "write-in votes" continued to be allowed, that
it's quite possible that the practice of printing major candidates on
the ballot was only acceptable because of this continued possibility.
(Even with write-ins, being on the ballot confers a huge advantage,
but the *possibility* of write-ins allows the public to fix egregious
problems with the nomination process, with the list of those on the
ballot, and it does work that way from time to time.)
Under Robert's Rules, by default, all elections must be won by a
majority of votes, the basis for the majority being all ballots with
some mark on them that might possibly be a vote. Blank ballots are
"so much scrap paper," but marked ballots count. In other words,
"None of the above" has always been an option under the Rules. If
there is no majority, the election *fails* and is effectively moot,
except that the electorate is now much better informed as to the
situation and as to possible compromises.
It's been considered impossible to do this with public elections;
however, with internet voting, it *could* become possible. Asset
Voting, though, makes something *almost* as democratic -- possibly,
in some senses *more* democratic -- possible. Same rules, majority
required (for single winner, quota for multiple winner), but a
greatly reduced electorate which votes in public, and therefore the
process becomes far less cumbersome.
(More democratic, because being able to designate a proxy is a
*freedom,* and increases the power of the client, the one
represented. In some Asset implementations, any voter willing to vote
in public can register to receive votes, and then participate in
subsequent process, so it truly is a freedom and not a restriction.)
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
