Jump to content

BCA ballot question


bhambulldog

Recommended Posts

Three people will be elected. You can vote for one, two or three candidates. You cannot vote for the same candidate 3 times. We are not in Chicago.

If your spouse is a member and their name is on the mailing label, they get a vote too.

Thank you, that answers my question. You see my point about casting three votes would be casting two votes AGAINST my candidate.

And, you anticipated and answered my next question (3 votes for one candidate, NOT Chicago ;-D )

There are three vacancies each election.

So John, you'll be getting one vote from me. And I will NOT be voting AGAINST you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You see my point about casting three votes would be casting two votes AGAINST my candidate.

But there are 3 vacancies.... I appreciate that you want to help your prime candidate win but what about the other 2 vacancies. I am voting for 3, in hopes that the 3 that I feel to be the best of the six who are running will win. I am sure your prime candidate appreciates you sentiment but I am betting he would also appreciate folks voting for other candidates who might share some of his ideas and stand on the same platform.

You see MY point? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But there are 3 vacancies.... I appreciate that you want to help your prime candidate win but what about the other 2 vacancies. I am voting for 3, in hopes that the 3 that I feel to be the best of the six who are running will win. I am sure your prime candidate appreciates you sentiment but I am betting he would also appreciate folks voting for other candidates who might share some of his ideas and stand on the same platform.

You see MY point? :)

Yes, I do. And it is a very valid point it is.

And, I would like to elaborate on my point,

I belong to a local association of professionals.

That association has a very similar board of six at large members serving two year terms.

Each year, three of the seats terms' end. And those three seats are filled in a very similar manner, where voters are allowed to vote for three candidates.

In the election that my candidate lost by two votes, I realized that two of my votes kept him out of a runoff.

edit;

I am betting he would also appreciate folks voting for other candidates who might share some of his ideas and stand on the same platform.

JohnD1956, are there candidates that you would so consider?

Edited by bhambulldog (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim, I appreciate your vote of confidence. But as a candidate myself, I think it would be in poor taste to endorse any other candidate over another.

I did just look at the bio's of all the candidates who are running this year and I think, Wow! There is a lot of BCA experience represented there. These are all great folks who are willing to contribute at the executive level of this Club. I don't think any one of us would have a problem working with any of the others. So it would really be a matter of everyone voting their individual impression of the various candidates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how the Buick Club does it, but wisely written by-laws

can very much protect a club. It is best, as I understand it, if voters

can vote for UP TO three people; and then that the by-laws require

a MAJORITY (1 vote more than 50%), not a plurality, for election.

To illustrate with some exaggeration!

Suppose 4 possible choices are John Smith, Adolph Hitler, Charles Manson,

and Joseph Stalin. Do you really want to vote for 3? If you must vote for 3,

or if only a plurality of votes is needed, some undesirable candidates could

be elected. Suppose the voting came out like this:

Smith: 100 votes

Hitler: 3 votes

Manson: 4 votes

Stalin: 2 votes

Smith, Hitler, and Manson would be taking office--because only a

plurality, not a majority, was required!

The right to ABSTAIN from a vote--voting for up to 3,

not mandatorily for 3--is a privilege that should be protected.

And that must be coupled with a MAJORITY needed to elect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how the Buick Club does it, but wisely written by-laws

can very much protect a club. It is best, as I understand it, if voters

can vote for UP TO three people; and then that the by-laws require

a MAJORITY (1 vote more than 50%), not a plurality, for election.

To illustrate with some exaggeration!

Suppose 4 possible choices are John Smith, Adolph Hitler, Charles Manson,

and Joseph Stalin. Do you really want to vote for 3? If you must vote for 3,

or if only a plurality of votes is needed, some undesirable candidates could

be elected. Suppose the voting came out like this:

Smith: 100 votes

Hitler: 3 votes

Manson: 4 votes

Stalin: 2 votes

Smith, Hitler, and Manson would be taking office--because only a

plurality, not a majority, was required!

The right to ABSTAIN from a vote--voting for up to 3,

not mandatorily for 3--is a privilege that should be protected.

And that must be coupled with a MAJORITY needed to elect.

An extreme example , as you said.

but, it's that thinking that brought the question to my mind

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buick5563, you have a good point. In my example,

when majority votes were required, there would then

have to be a run-off election(s), and I'm not sure how

practical that would be with mail-in voting.

A couple of friends of mine are registered parliamentarians

(and one has written an excellent book), but I am not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it was a majority of BCA members, nobody would ever get elected.

Maybe 15%?

I joke...

Not really

Buick5563, you have a good point. In my example,

when majority votes were required, there would then

have to be a run-off election(s), and I'm not sure how

practical that would be with mail-in voting.

A couple of friends of mine are registered parliamentarians

(and one has written an excellent book), but I am not.

That is true. Runoff with mailed ballots would not work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Typically, the majority is based on the number of votes cast,

not on the total number of members or eligible voters.

In the example above, if there were 250 members but

150 votes cast, a MAJORITY (1 more than half) would

mean that 76 votes would be needed to be elected.

State elections work the same way, and the number of

eligible voters doesn't come into play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...