NSW/ACT by-election

[kgwilson]

Could someone enlighten me why there has to be a by-election 2 weeks out from the AGM. I imagine it is enshrined in the constitution or legislation but it seems crazy to me that the position could not be left vacant for that time. There is the cost of printing details in the magazine, forms, envelopes, administration etc & 2 of the 3 candidates are the same as for the main election anyway.

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

As per the Rules of Association, a vacancy that occurs within 6 months of the relevant Group Election (performed at the AGM) is classed as a casual vacancy and "may" not be filled. (Item 16 and sub-parts).Remember that half the positions are up for election at an AGM and have a term of two years.

 

If Cazza was in the Group that isn't elected this AGM, then a By-Election is applicable, and as NSW has two positions, both would be elected at the same time and all candidates probably nominated for both positions.

 

Note that it may have also have occurred if the six months was timed from receipt of the resignation, rather than its effective date, at which time the position became vacant (25-Apr-2011). AGM is scheduled for 24-September-2011, being 5 months, however if a month's notice was given then someone may have used the wrong date even if Cazza was in the group to be elected this time around. I seem to recall that Cazza gave plenty of notice, but wanted to support NatFly, so made that her effective date of resignation.

 

IMHO, the former explanation is more likely.

 

 

[Powerin]

Got my August mag today (yay...nice surprise...well done to the publishers!) and with it the ballot paper for the NSW by-election.

 

I note that two of the three candidates are the same as for the main election (Don and Col). I'm wondering what happens if the same candidate wins both the main election and the by-election? Or will we know the results of the main election before we need to cast a by-election vote?

 

If so, how are members notified of an election result? If it's in the Sept magazine that will be too late to be able to vote in the by-election.

 

 

[coljones]

Got my August mag today (yay...nice surprise...well done to the publishers!) and with it the ballot paper for the NSW by-election.I note that two of the three candidates are the same as for the main election (Don and Col). I'm wondering what happens if the same candidate wins both the main election and the by-election? Or will we know the results of the main election before we need to cast a by-election vote?

Yes, this thought has crossed my mind as I am not sure that the rules prohibit any one person occupying two positions.

 

The most logical position would be to exclude the person elected in the previous election and distribute their votes according to the preferences marked on each ballot paper made to the exclued candidate, if any, to the remaining candidates.

 

I am sure there will be a scrutineer to protect the rights of the continuing candidates and the members who may have voted.

 

If so, how are members notified of an election result? If it's in the Sept magazine that will be too late to be able to vote in the by-election.

You don't need to know who WON the 1st election. You should vote as if it is a fresh election. The preferences will allow you to cast a vote for most favoured and second most favoured etc. then if one of the candidates is no longer in the running other prefs will still count.

 

Don't forget to vote!!!!

 

Cheers

 

Col

 

And, as in all things, Vote Col 1 and Don 2 for both elections

 

 

[Powerin]

The most logical position would be to exclude the person elected in the previous election and distribute their votes according to the preferences marked on each ballot paper made to the exclued candidate, if any, to the remaining candidates.

That seems the most likely to me too....but I wonder is this procedure documented anywhere.

 

You don't need to know who WON the 1st election. You should vote as if it is a fresh election. The preferences will allow you to cast a vote for most favoured and second most favoured etc. then if one of the candidates is no longer in the running other prefs will still count.

Yes, not a problem for me because I'll cast preferences. But it is optional preferential, voters only need to mark one box in both elections. So it is conceivable that many votes in the by-election might be discarded if one of the candidates won the main election. I don't think it will be an issue, but I'm curious to know how it will work.

Peter

 

 

[kgwilson]

Thanks for the explanation David. I figured it was because this was the other 50% so the person who is elected will only get 1 year plus a few days.

 

I am also curious because there may be votes for 1 candidate only & if they are discarded they are wasted. I don't think anyone who votes would by happy that their valid vote is discarded. I can't imagine that the rules would allow 1 person to occupy both positions.

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

As has been pointed out, there are no rules governing standing for more than one position, because generally there is no difference between two positions that come up for election together (normally this only happens in a state with 3 positions). If there were two positions up for election, normally the candidate with the most votes, followed by the candidate with the second greatest number of votes would be allocated the two positions and there is no delineation between the two positions.

 

In this case, it is special because the two positions are for different terms, caused by the by-election, mid term for one position. Under these circumstances there is a delineation between the positions and thus separate ballot papers. It is, however an election for two positions in NSW.

 

Thus, there is an opportunity to waste a vote if you don't follow the voting directions provided, as these did cover the situation... I draw your attention to the qualifying phrase in bold (my emphasis) in the voting instructions, quoted in part, below.

 

"for the vote to be formal, the voter shall mark the candidates in order of preference of the voter, starting with the number 1 for the candidate of first choice and then numbering consecutively from 2 onwards for as many candidates as the voter may wish to state their preferences,

 

saving that the voter shall mark at least the number of candidates as there are vacancies in the ballot.

 

If the voter wishes to mark only one candidate, that candidate may be marked with a tick."

 

Edit{This is one possible interpretation, likely if the ballot papers were delivered together. Also see my post below after Wayne indicated the ballot papers were delivered a month apart.}

 

Thus, in NSW, the by-election and normal election must be taken to be an election of two positions and thus it is a requirement for a formal vote to mark at least two preferences on each ballot paper. The option to mark only one candidate on each ballot paper is not available under this scenario. It is my belief that voting papers with only one preference marked, in NSW, could be ruled informal. There is however a possibility of misunderstanding this intention and believing that marking only one preference on each ballot paper is compliant, and thus formal.

 

Possibly, there is a task here for scrutineers to observe what decision is made by the Returning Officer and the significance of the votes wasted or determined to be informal due to possible misunderstanding. If it could have changed the election outcome, there may be room for a challenge.

 

It just goes to show that marking all candidates on all ballot papers in order of preference is the wise thing to do and that by allowing emotion to rule logic, you have the possibility of providing advantage to a candidate, not of your choosing.

 

* Edit at 11:01 after some further thought; and 11:47 after Wayne's input below.

 

 

[Wayne T Mathews]

As has been pointed out, there are no rules governing standing for more than one position, because generally there is no difference between two positions that come up for election together (normally this only happens in a state with 3 positions). If there were two positions up for election, normally the candidate with the most votes, followed by the candidate with the second greatest number of votes would be allocated the two positions and there is no delineation between the two positions.In this case, it is special because the two positions are for different terms, caused by the by-election, mid term for one position. Under these circumstances there is a delineation between the positions and thus separate ballot papers. It is, however an election for two positions in NSW.

 

Thus, there is an opportunity to waste a vote if you don't follow the voting directions provided, as these did cover the situation... I draw your attention to the qualifying phrase in bold (my emphasis), below.

 

"for the vote to be formal, the voter shall mark the candidates in order of preference of the voter, starting with the number 1 for the candidate of first choice and then numbering consecutively from 2 onwards for as many candidates as the voter may wish to state their preferences,

 

saving that the voter shall mark at least the number of candidates as there are as there are vacancies in the ballot.

 

If the voter wishes to mark only one candidate, that candidate may be marked with a tick."

 

Thus, in NSW, the by-election and normal election must be taken to be an election of two positions and thus it is a requirement for a formal vote to mark at least two preferences on each ballot paper. The option to mark only one candidate on each ballot paper is not available under this scenario. It is my belief that voting papers with only one preference marked, in NSW, would be ruled informal.

We I have a problem Houston!

 

I can see the point you're making David, and I can see how the arguement may be valid. But geez, I hope you're wrong.

 

I filled out two ballots, as I hope everyone else did. There was only one vacancy on each of the ballots, therfore only one box needed to be ticked for each ballot to be formal, as per the instructions that came with each of the ballot papers, which were delivered to the members one month apart, by the way. I'm going to be really peed off if any ballot is assessed informal/invalid because the voter only put 1, or a tick, in the box beside the name the voter chose in that ballot. I'd also like to point out again, the two ballot papers were delivered to the members a month apart. Surely that implies/proves they're seperate elections?

 

Helup, helup,,,, Is there a lawyer in the house????

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

...I can see the point you're making David, and I can see how the arguement may be valid. But geez, I hope you're wrong.

 

...

 

There was only one vacancy on each of the ballots, therfore only one box needed to be ticked for each ballot to be formal, as per the instructions that came with each of the ballot papers, which were delivered to the members one month apart, by the way. ...

Good point Wayne.

 

As I'm not in NSW, I had not realised the ballots were delivered a month apart. That would rule out the interpretation I gave above, requiring two preferences per ballot paper to be formal. The fact that the ballot papers were delivered a month apart makes it impossible for anyone who votes in the first election before receiving the second ballot to realise the situation.

 

It does not however change the situation where voters who returned the first ballot paper before receiving the second one, could not know that some candidates had nominated for both positions. Performing a full preference vote on the second ballot paper would prevent it being potentially wasted (exhausted#), if the preferred candidate in the first ballot is actually elected.

 

If ballots are wasted in the second election due to marking only the successful candidate in the first election, that could give cause for a challenge, however it is not clear cut, as it was the elector's choice not to express all preferences. This is, I suspect, an unforeseen consequence of having the two elections overlap, where the result of the first ballot is not known before nominations opened for the second ballot.

 

I would urge members to cast a full preferential vote. ie. mark all candidates with a preference, as per the instructions. The system works! Expressing only a partial preference can back-fire under these circumstances.

 

____

 

# A ballot paper is exhausted when it cannot be counted in preference counting, due to no preference marked at that level of preference. ie. When counting second preferences, all papers with no second preference are put aside as "exhausted" and play no further part in the counts. As a fuller explanation, this occurs at the first unexpressed preference, so for example, voting 1, 3, 4 and omitting 2, causes the vote to be read as not having any preferences because there is no second preference. The vote has the same effect as just ticking the 1st preference and leaving all others blank.

 

 

[Wayne T Mathews]

It does not however change the situation where voters who returned the first ballot paper before receiving the second one, could not know that some candidates had nominated for both positions. Performing a full preference vote on the second ballot paper would prevent it being potentially wasted (exhausted#), if the preferred candidate in the first ballot is actually elected.

 

I would urge members to cast a full preferential vote. ie. mark all candidates with a preference, as per the instructions. The system works! Expressing only a partial preference can back-fire under these circumstances.

 

Thanks David,

 

That makes it clearer for me.

 

Here's another question I'd like to bounce into the ring. Is it possible, given the way we have been given two 'elections' one month apart, for two different positions, that the members in NSW may vote one person into two positions on our board? Therefore giving that one person two votes on the board? I accept it's not probable, but is it possible?

 

 

[Wayne T Mathews]

I don't see any confusion here. If either Don Ramsay or Col Jones are elected at close of ballot this Friday, the "winner" is not eligible to have their votes counted in the bi-election & the subsequent bi-election will find its result from the remaining 2 candidates via the preferential voting sytem in place. Whilst there are no obvious by-laws covering this (unusual) situation, then common law/parliamentary rules should be applied. IMHO.Dexter

OK. That makes sense, and I've no doubt it's the way it should, and hopefully will, work. But is it written in our constitution? What if the majority of NSW members want either Don or Col to fill both the vacant positions on the board? Is there anything in the constitution that prevents one person from having two votes on the board?

 

 

[Wayne T Mathews]

Can't happen. Constitution states there shall be, in the case of NSW/ACT, 3 representatives. Doesn't matter how anyone could try to suggest that one person can be 2 representatives just will not wash under common law. The Constitution I believe covers it clearly by stating that NSW will have 3 reps, 1 elected in Group A & 2 in Group B. Clearly 3 Individuals.Cheers

Dexter

Fair enough.

 

Thanks again Dexter.

 

So the fix should be that if either Don or Col wins this Friday, that person withdraws from the by-election, which then proceeds with only 2 candidates, true?

 

 

[Wayne T Mathews]

That would be my take on it. Anyone who had already sent in their vote for the By-election would need to have recorded a second preference for their vote to have a value.I guess you are right Dex, logically, one person can't fill two vacancies.

 

It is almost impossible to have the rules cover every weird possibility without them becoming utterly incomprehensible. The last thing we want is a Constitution that's harder to read than the current one.

Hear, hear,,,

 

It's awful when I find myself repeating what I've already said. Be kind to me Don. Say something I don't agree with.

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

They can't withdraw from the Bi-election Ballot. The Ballot has been set in motion. I believe if either one is elected on Friday, the returning officer would declare their status as null & void in the subsequent Bi-election & the remaining 2 candidates in the Bi-election be the only valid contestants.

I agree.

 

 

[Bryon]

But, if one person were to win both ballots, would they not be in a position to choose which position they accepted?Even if they had won the Main election, they would still be eligible for the By-Election because they don't become a Board Member (from winning the Main election) until 24 Sep 2011. Until then they are just an ordinary member.

 

Theoretically, they could take up the By-election position as soon as the By-election was declared on 9 Sep 2011. They could then resign that on 23 Sep and take up the Main election (2 year term) and thereby create the need for another By-election. Or they could remain in that and resign the 2 year term before it starts.

 

What a mess. Good thing we are all reasonable people.

 

It would have been a lot neater if the By-election had been held well before the Main election. They had enough notice of Carol's departure to have had the By-election out of the way before the main election process commenced. And we would have had a full complement of Board Members instead of an empty seat for the best part of four months.

Don,

 

do not bring logic or common sense into this thread

 

Just remember that this is RAA and confusion and secrecy is the business of the day :peepwall:

 

 

[kgwilson]

It would have been a lot neater if the By-election had been held well before the Main election. They had enough notice of Carol's departure to have had the By-election out of the way before the main election process commenced. And we would have had a full complement of Board Members instead of an empty seat for the best part of four months.

And that is precisely why I started this thread

 

 

[coljones]

The position in the past has been for the board to refuse to permit the withdrawal of resignations once they have been received by the Secretary. If this is the process then an election should have been set in train immediately and for the successful candidate to immediately take over from the departing member but no sooner than the date of effect of the departure (resignation, death, bankruptcy etc).

 

The overlapping election conundrum. AHHH!! My bitter twisted mind has dealt me a range of unclean scenarios. There needs to be a protocol about what happens when someone resigns (etc) and its proximity to an annual election. There also needs to be a review of the election by-law as preferential elections don't handle "one vote - one value" issues when there is more than 1 vacancy.

 

I hope this is not the issue that tears the board apart. It needs to be fixed but so do many other things about RAA (the main game)

 

If you value your vote I recommend you vote for at least 4 in the main election and for at least 2 in the bye-election. The other issues may need to be sorted out between the board and the successful candidates in due course.

 

Cheers

 

Col:outback:

 

Vote Col 1, Vote Don 2

 

 

[Powerin]

I'm with you Col...unclean scenarios are what I'm coming up with too. Let's hope they don't come to pass.