Policy Title: Tied Elections

Purpose

Status of this Document

History

The board was informally requested by the members at the 2001 AGM to develop a process to resolve future tied elections. The Committee made recommendations to the Board in September, 2001. The Board adopted the recommendations in September, but didn't have quorum.

Concern

The current (April 2001) Bylaws do not describe a process for resolving a tied election. At the 2001 AGM, there was a tied election for the position of President. The lack of a defined process to deal with the situation resulted in uncertainty and the need to choose an ad-hoc process on the spot.

A defined process will reduce uncertainty and add to the legitimacy of future elections.

Analysis

SAR Alberta elections happen at two different kinds of meetings.

• At AGMs, where Officers are elected.
• At Regional Meetings, where the Region's Director and Deputy Director are elected.

Policy

In the case of a tied election, the Members eligible to vote in the election shall be presented an additional opportunity to resolve the tie. ^[A1,R1]

This opportunity shall consist of: ^[A2,R2]

1. additional statements from the candidates. ^[A2,R2]
2. a period of time for the Members to undertake private discussions. ^[A2,R2]
3. an additional vote by the Voting Members. ^[A2,R2]

If the election remains tied, the Board Members shall elect from among the candidates tied for the position. The candidate elected by the Board Members shall be declared elected to the position. ^[A1,R14]

If the tied election occurs as part of a General Meeting, the decision shall be made immediately by the Board Members in attendance ^[A1,R3] and shall be made without additional campaigning, debate or discussion. ^[A2,R4] If the tied election occurs as part of a Regional Meeting or otherwise, the decision shall be made at the next Board Meeting. ^[A1,R5]

Board Members who are one of the tied candidates shall be absent during the decision of the Board Members. ^[A1,R6]

The election by the Board Members shall be by secret ballot. ^[A1,R7]

Each Board Member in attendance shall be obliged to vote for one of the tied candidates, with the exception that if a tied ballot could theoretically occur, the chair shall not vote. ^[A1,R8]

Alternative Policies

The following alternative policies were considered, but the Bylaws and Policies Committee recommends they not be implemented.

1. Decision made by the chair of the Meeting. ^[R14]
2. Jury System: the meeting continues to hold additional ballots until the vote count changes. ^[R9]
3. Decide by random means: straws, toss of a coin. ^[R10]
4. Use a seniority system among the Members to drop or add a vote. ^[R11]
5. Assign the tied candidates to co-responsibility for the role. ^[R12]
6. Split the term between the candidates. ^[R13]

Authority

[A1] current Board Resolution 2001-09-22 Motion 11 ratified 2001-11-03 Motion 2:

Moved that the following Special Resolution amending the Bylaws be recommended to the Members.

proposed Special Resolution:

Moved that the following text be inserted as a new section 5.1.4 of the Bylaws between the existing sections 5.1.3 and 5.1.4, and the subsequent sections renumbered.

proposed Bylaw:

5.1.4 Tied Elections

In the case of a tied election, the Members eligible to vote in the election shall be presented an additional opportunity to resolve the tie.

If the election remains tied, the Board Members shall elect from among the candidates tied for the position. The candidate elected by the Board Members shall be declared elected to the position.

If the tied election occurs as part of a General Meeting, the decision shall be made by the Board Members in attendance. If the tied election occurs as part of a Regional Meeting or otherwise, the decision shall be made at the next Board Meeting.

Board Members who are one of the tied candidates shall be absent during the decision of the Board Members.

The election by the Board Members shall be by secret ballot.

Each Board Member in attendance shall be obliged to vote for one of the tied candidates, with the exception that if a tied ballot could theoretically occur, the chair shall not vote.

[A2] current Board Resolution 2001-09-22 Motion 10.5 ratified 2001-11-03 Motion 2:

Moved that the following be established as the policies governing the administration of elections:

When presenting Members an additional opportunity to resolve a tied election, the opportunity shall consist of:

1. additional statements from the candidates.
2. a period of time for the Members to undertake private discussions.
3. an additional vote by the Voting Members.

If the tied election occurs as part of a General Meeting, the decision by the Board Members in attendance shall be made immediately without additional campaigning, debate or discussion.

Rationale

[R1] A final ballot by the Members gives the Membership an opportunity to resolve tied elections by themselves. Often the Membership will be able to draw upon its own deep wisdom to find an appropriate decision. This policy needs to be expressed as a Bylaw so it isn't overridden by later tie resolution mechanisms in the Bylaws.

[R2] The Membership needs to be given time and information for deliberating. The best process for the additional opportunity may change (for instance with restricted or extended meeting length), so this process is better expressed as a Board resolution.

[R3] Most Board Members should be in attendance at General Meetings, so they will be able to make their decision immediately. This will resolve the matter and resolve tension. This policy needs to be expressed as a Bylaw to give it the authority needed to determine who will be elected.

[R4] There is no further discussion, debate, or campaigning because to do so would suspend and unduly delay the General Meeting. If General Meetings were to change to allow such a delay (for instance, a scheduled break), this policy may need to change, so it is best expressed as a Board resolution.

[R5] Board Members will not be gathered at the time of other elections (i.e. Regional Elections) so their decision has to wait until the next Board Meeting. This is expressed a Bylaw because the case of Officer elections is also expressed as a Bylaw.

[R6] Candidates should not be part of the decision by the board, therefore they should not be present while the board makes its decision. This is expressed as a Bylaw to restrict the early Bylaw text that gives the decision to all Board Members present.

[R7] Because of the pressure, the Board Members should be given the protection of a secret ballot. On this decision, their votes do not need to be visible to the Members they represent because they are deciding on behalf of the whole Membership, and the Membership is evenly split. This is expressed as a Bylaw because section 4.3.5 would otherwise require it be a vote by show of hands.

[R8] We must avoid deadlock with the election by the Board Members, therefore the number of votes must be such that a tied election does not occur. To control the number of votes, each Board Member must be obliged to vote and the presence or absence of the chair's vote changes the number so that a tie vote is not possible. This is expressed as a Bylaw to further restrict the early Bylaw text that gives the decision to all Board Members present.

[R9] The Jury System might occasionally lead to long periods of deadlock (perhaps hours) which would be wasteful and could radicalize the divisions in the Membership.

[R10] Tied candidates might each be considered equally worthy, and so chosen by random means but the process demeans the seriousness of the decision and could devalue the legitimacy of the elected.

[R11] A seniority system creates different statuses for Members and could create undue focus on minor differences.

[R12] If the tied candidates were co-responsible, they could easily become deadlocked over differences in how to implement their responsibility.

[R13] Split terms would create an extra training burden on the organization and would cause problems with Automatic Successions (e.g. Vice-President to President).

[R14] A tied vote is likely to create a situation of intense political pressure. Letting that pressure fall on a single person, whether that is the chair or a given Member, could be destructive to the person's relationship with others in the SAR community. It is better to spread the burden on a group (i.e. the Board Members).