Responses to the lawyer's current bylaws draft
The lawyer's bylaws draft
Below are suggestions from Steve Chessin of Californians for Electoral Reform
From: Steve Chessin
Please share with the bylaws revision committee and/or the iPNB Board as appropriate.
I'm mainly restricting my comments to technical matters related to elections, plus one egregious language error (made more than once, I'm afraid).
Comments on the Lawyer's draft as posted at http://www.wbai.net/bylaws_revise/br_draft_and_letter1-17-03.html
1. Article Three, Section 8C, requires a vote of "51%" to approve a matter.
Better language would be "a majority". "Majority" means "more than half". Some people word this as "50% plus one vote", which some abbreviate to "50% plus one", which others misinterpret as "51%". This is wrong, and should just be "a majority", unless the intent is that you really want a super-majority of 51% required to approve an action.
[For bodies of 100 or fewer voters, "majority" and "51%" are the same, but once you have more than 100 voters they are different. For example, if 10000 Listener-Sponsor Members vote on an issue, 5001 would constitute a majority but 5100 would be needed to achieve a 51% threshold.]
I note that "51%" is also used in Article Four, Section 7, and in Article Six, Section 5, but since those contexts involve bodies much smaller than 100 people, the distinction is moot.
2. Article Three, Section 8E1 (description of Instant Runoff Voting).
The last sentence:
makes no sense. In IRV (and in STV; see (3) below), there are no ties in determining a winner. Ties can occur when determining which person has the fewest votes and must be eliminated before the next round of counting. But the above doesn't resolve such ties.
There are two ways to resolve the ties that can occur:
A. (The "electorally correct" method; used by Cambridge, Massachusetts.)
If, when a candidate is to be declared defeated, two or more candidates
are tied at the bottom of the poll, that one of the tied candidates
shall be declared defeated who was credited with fewest ballots
immediately prior to the last transfer of ballots. If two or more of
the tied candidates were tied at that stage of the count, also, the
second tie shall be decided by referring similarly to the standing of
candidates immediately prior to the last transfer of ballots before
that. This principle shall be applied successively as many times as may
be necessary, a tie shown at any stage of the count being decided by
referring to the standing of the tied candidates immediately prior to
the last preceding transfer of ballots. Any tie not otherwise provided
for shall be decided by lot.
B. (The simple method; used almost everywhere else for IRV):
In practice, most ties occur when there are several write-in candidates who each get just one vote. Language similar to the following resolves that situation simply, without requiring unnecessary coin flips :-) :
If the total number of votes of the two or more candidates credited with the lowest number of votes is less than the number of votes credited to the candidate with the next highest number of votes, those candidates with the lowest number of votes shall be eliminated simultaneously and their votes transferred to the next-ranked continuing candidate on each ballot in a single counting operation.
(Source: http://www.fairvote.org/library/statutes/sfleg.htm section 13.102(e).)
3. Article Three, Section 8E2 (description of Choice Voting, aka Single Transferable Vote). (Problem with ties and with transfers.)
This has a similar problem with ties as in (2). But before we address that, we have to address another problem, that with transfers.
The lawyer's draft states that transfers from eliminated candidates and transfers of the surplus from elected candidates are performed "At the same time". That doesn't work. One must first transfer the surplus votes from any elected candidates (one at a time or all at once; most systems do it one at a time, starting with whoever currently has the largest surplus, although order of election works, too). Since that transfer can cause more candidates to be elected, transfers of surplus votes continues until all seats have been filled or there are no more surpluses to transfer.
Only after all surpluses have been transferred, and there are still seats to be filled, does one start eliminating candidates.
I suggest you model your language after this:
It deals with both of these issues (as well as the issue of vacancy-filling, but see (5) below).
4. Article Four, Section 9(B), uses "i.e." where I think you want to use "e.g.". I.e. means "that is" and, in this context, implies that the only disqualifying act is appointment to elective office, when in fact there are a number of possible disqualifying acts. "E.g." means "for example", and would be more appropriate here. This same error occurs in Article Six, Section 6(B).
It may also occur in Article Five, Section 2B, unless you really mean to state the complete list of possible ethnic heritages and disallow someone from specifying something you didn't.
5. Article Four, Section 10. There are at least four possible ways to fill a vacancy, of which only two preserve the original proportional intent of the voters:
I personally prefer (c), although CVD's model language at http://www.fairvote.org/library/statutes/choice_voting.htm uses (d). I believe that Voting Solution's ChoicePlus software can handle either method.
6. Article Six, Section 4A. The last sentence says that the Board can't have "an equal number of Directors". Equal to what? I think the lawyer meant "even", but even that isn't necessary. See (7) below.
7. Article Four, Section 2, and Article Six, Section 1C. There is no need for an odd number of delegates/directors. If a majority is needed to pass a motion, and there is no method to break a tie, then a motion loses when there is a tie, since a majority isn't acheived. If the respective Board is electing someone, and their is a tie, then you flip a coin (or otherwise "choose by lot"). Both of these may even be specified by Roberts Rules of Order, and since the bylaws defers to Roberts for things otherwise unspecified, if Roberts says what you want you can leave it unspecified.
Comments on Carol Spooner's email of Sun Jan 26, 2003 2:20 am, as posted at http://www.wbai.net/bylaws_revise/br_draft_response_spooner1-26-03.html
Your (3) on numbers and ties; see (6) and (7) above.
Your (23) on STV. See my (2), (3), and (5), above. I again refer you to http://www.fairvote.org/library/statutes/choice_voting.htm
Your (27) on Elections Supervisor. See
I strongly recommend you consider contracting with the Center for Voting and Democracy as your Elections Supervisor. (Of course, that should not be written into the bylaws.)
Good luck, and I appreciate all your hard work on this.
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can
change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
"You know you're having an effect when your opposition organizes against
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you,
then you win!"
"You can accomplish almost anything if you don't care who gets the
The lawyer's bylaws draft | response index
bylaws revisions process info page | governance proposals | bylaws etc | home