aaurgh you're right.

because it's "least number of votes" it means that in a 30-30-20-20 tie the 2 20's would drop, and in a 30-30-20-10-10 we'd drop the two 10's but not the 20.

re-reverting. i was pretty sure we'd gotten that right.

- ok for clarity changing it to "the candidate(s)" that way 30-30-30-10 or 20-20-20-20-10-10 we cut the tens either way.

Sounds good to me. So in the case of 40-30-20-10, only the 10 would get cut on that round, right?

correct. "the candidate(s) with the least votes" so if there is only one person with the fewest votes, they are cut, but if there are several who tie for the least they're all cut.

the only problem we could run into is a 20-20-20-20-20 tie, or a 40-20-20-20-20 tie, but that could result in a no confidence...

hmmm

proposed edit for clarification. i'll add this into the official draft after we get (4) folks saying yes to it.
>>>
In any round of voting where no member gains a majority of votes, the candidate(s) with the least number of votes shall be dropped, and the election run again. This shall be repeated until a majority is achieved or only two candidates remain. If at any point this elimination would result in only one candidate remaining without a majority, that round of balloting would be repeated as a tie.

Looks good.
I say "yes"

-mark-

Here is my proposed edit (italics = strike through/delete):
>>>
In any round of voting where no member gains a majority of votes, the candidate(s) with the least number of votes shall be dropped, and the election run again. This shall be repeated until a majority is achieved. or only two candidates remain. However, in no case will this drop off rule be used to reduce the number of candidates remaining on the next ballot to less than two.

that does not explain what to do if that situation occurs as the above does, and is less clear and concise than the above in terms of clear intent.

I think there is a miscommunication of some sort. I am having some difficulty understanding exactly what would occur with your amendment in the given example situations of 20-20-20-20-20 tie, or a 40-20-20-20-20. My confusion pertains to how one candidate could remain without a majority when the elimination process isn't used once only two candidates remain ("This shall be repeated until a majority is achieved or only two candidates remain.")?

I'm suggesting that in the example cases that no one be eliminated and the vote be retaken on a new ballot, which is exactly what my suggestion would cause to occur. In any case, if the drop off rule is applied to an election, a new vote will need to be taken.

Maybe this would be better discussed in person tonight?

Or maybe we're chasing our tails to avoid an extremely hypothetical & unlikely situation? Remember, at least this time around, all 5 nominees are unopposed.

I'm a firm believer in crossing bridges when we come to them.

then we won't have anyone able to have anyone absentee vote, we need to get this sussed fast so folks can email in.

my change would result in exactly what you suggest, that if all but one person had the "least" number of votes that ballot would be repeated as a tie. below is the entire section as proposed:

4. Election shall be by simple majority of the Balloting Members of each round of balloting. In any round of voting where no member gains a majority of votes, the candidate(s) with the least number of votes shall be dropped, and the election run again. This shall be repeated until a majority is achieved or only two candidates remain. If at any point this elimination would result in only one candidate remaining without a majority, that round of balloting would be repeated as a tie. If the election results in a tie, discussions will be reopened. If three rounds yield the same results, the election of this officer only shall be tabled, nominations reopened, and election held again at the next regular meeting.

under that if at any point elimination would drop us to one candidate without a majority, that exact election would be repeated (after a discussion) up to three times or until one candidate receives fewer votes. the one or more with the least would drop and we'd repeat until we got to two, or one got a majority.

-theo, yes but we do want to have to revise this as little as possible in the future, and build it correctly as a foundation.

Lemme give you another "yes but"... these are the bylaws, not the Constitution.