Results of the NSW/ACT Board Election (RAAus)

[turboplanner]

It wouldn't be the first time officials had simply applied the system they were familiar with in politics or corporate without checking, and legal opinion is only as good as the breadth of what is provided to the lawyer.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

I must really be missing something here, When we talk of preferences within RAA they are the voters preference not the potential candidates preferences. Its not like I can vote for A, dont want a bar of B and yet B ends up winning because A having insufficient votes in his own right suddenly passes his votes(which includes mine) to A. To me that is a preference system that we would not want a bar of for RAA. This type of voting system is why we in Australia have the "Basket weavers party" and the "Left handed peoples party" and the"I just want to fish party" all of which know they havent got a hope in hell of getting across the finish line but all knowing they can have a disproportionate impact on the final results through preference allocation. It should be called the voting system that favours the squeaking wheel...

 

Within RAA for a 3 candidate election as a member I can choose whether I want A, or I want A and failing that B or I want A Then B then C. We are all entitled to choose to do one of those 3 things and our choice is entirely in the hands of the member not the candidate. As a voting member I will personally always choose the last way because in that way I control as much as possible the outcome I want where its my view that if I vote the first way Im saying I want A and failing that I dont care.

 

But at the end of the day I still only get one vote that counts. In the third voting scenario I voted for A but he didnt get up I tehn voted for B but he didnt get up and finally I voted for C and he did. I didnt get 3 seperate votes, and I didnt get what I wanted so how exactly did I somehow have more power or control, where it wasnt my choice to have that aditional control, than a person who simply voted I want A, except that I played the full game rather than round 1 only?

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

 

[turboplanner]

Andy, can you check what I found in the Constitution; if correct we don't have to worry about any version of preferences.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

TP I understand your point and agree that we may have a disconnect between what is written and what is happening. If we do have a hole then in the event that we had a stoush brought on over it, I cant help but think that what we have now, if not complying with the consititution is still inherantly fair?

 

Is it fair? or have I missed something? (and I ask not to take away from your point, its still potentially valid and if it is, needs to be addressed...at present the earliest opportunity would be 13 months hence) By-Law#1 is titled "Elections" but I dont think provides any further clarity in my reading of it. It could be changed to give clarity, but I think a By-Law that contradicts, or seemingly contradicts a constitution is probably not a good look

 

Andy

 

 

[turboplanner]

By-law 1 RA-Aus Elections – no mention of preferences

 

By-Law 4 Election Nomination Forms – no mention of preferences

 

By-Law 8 System of voting and counting of votes says:

 

The method known as the Optional Preferential System shall be used as the method of electing Board Members of RA-Aus Inc. And;

 

Votes shall be counted in the following manner:

 

1 For each vacancy, votes shall be counted for each candidate. If no candidate has

 

an absolute majority, the candidate with the least number of votes shall be

 

excluded and their votes distributed according to any preferences. If preferences

 

are not indicated, those votes shall not be distributed but kept separate.

 

2 If after the first distribution of preferences, no candidate has an absolute majority,

 

again the candidate with the least number of votes (including first preferences) shall

 

be excluded and their votes (including first preferences) shall be distributed

 

according to any second preferences. This procedure shall continue until one

 

candidate has an absolute majority.

 

If there is more than one vacancy for a Board Member in a Region, following the election

 

of a candidate in accordance with Para (2) above, that candidate shall be excluded from

 

further voting and their votes distributed according to first preferences (if any). The

 

counting of votes for the second vacancy shall proceed in the same manner described

 

above.

 

On the basis of the above it appears that the recent election may be invalid, along with any others using the same method because:

 

(a)The preferences were distributed from the top down and not from the bottom up as required

 

(b)By-Law 8 contravenes the intent of Constitution Item Clause 13 (i) which says:

 

The Board shall be elected by the membership on a one Member – one vote system

 

If there was a requirement to change something as fundamental as the voting system as laid down in the Constitution, then the Constitution should have been changed.

 

This is not a legal opinion.

 

You’d have to wonder what prompted the By-Law, but one example might be if I was a board member and wanted to stay there, but was only likely to poll around the same numbers as two others, I could hold onto my position by introducing preferential voting, which sounds fair, then getting my mate to preference me thereby giving me a comfortable majority. (This is an example only - I'm not suggesting this has been done)

 

Wayne, you are correct; top down preferencing gives the strong guy a second benefit, and Don can’t make up- voting methods as he goes along.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Hmmm that'll teach me to look at By-Laws, see number 1 called elections and then think no point in looking further.....

 

TP you say " top down preferencing gives the strong guy a second benefit" maybe Im having a stupid day, but can you show me how this gives the"strong guy" anything, he's already been voted in. The fact that members who chose to vote for a 2 or 3, why should they be excluded when they knew there were multiple positions to fill?

 

Keep it simple cause clearly Im way behind you guys today.....

 

Andy

 

 

[Powerin]

Then Don Ramsay responded by saying:

Wayne,

 

Probably easier to think of it as two elections for two positions. Each member should effectively get two votes - one vote for each position on the Board.

 

Regards

 

Don

 

My thanks go to Don. Looking at it that way makes it work for me.

 

.

That's what I was trying to say back in post #18, but Don made it so much simpler

 

 

[Powerin]

The Board shall be elected by the membership on a one Member – one vote system

This is exactly what happened! We each got 2 votes, one for each position available. As Don said, it was two elections in one.

I'll try again....IF Middo had not come out as a clear winner (over 50%), THEN the lowest candidate's (Col in this case) preferences would have been distributed and the winner of the FIRST election is decided. In this case Middo did win a majority so distributing of preferences was not necessary. Either way, Middo is in... he is out of the picture, now we forget about him.

 

It is now a two horse race between the two remaining candidates for the other position. So we start again, have a second election, and count ALL the votes again. We ignore Middo....on the ballots papers that have him as number one we cross his name out and see who out of the other two candidates the voters wanted.

 

When Middo's votes were counted again and distributed between Mick and Col it was NOT a distribution of preferences, it was the start of counting for the second election for the other position.

 

 

[turboplanner]

This is exactly what happened! We each got 2 votes, one for each position available. As Don said, it was two elections in one.I'll try again....IF Middo had not come out as a clear winner (over 50%), THEN the lowest candidate's (Col in this case) preferences would have been distributed and the winner of the FIRST election is decided. In this case Middo did win a majority so distributing of preferences was not necessary. Either way, Middo is in... he is out of the picture, now we forget about him.

 

It is now a two horse race between the two remaining candidates for the other position. So we start again, have a second election, and count ALL the votes again. We ignore Middo....on the ballots papers that have him as number one we cross his name out and see who out of the other two candidates the voters wanted.

 

When Middo's votes were counted again and distributed between Mick and Col it was NOT a distribution of preferences, it was the start of counting for the second election for the other position.

You can't make things up.

 

What the constitution requires is that if Tom gets 180 votes, Dick gets 130 votes and Harry gets 37 votes, then the two people elected are Tom and Dick - very simple and not subject to fiddling.

 

Even if you accepted the By-Law 8 was legal, Harry is first out so his preferences are distributed to the other two. - equally simple.

 

There is no provision in either the Constitution or the By-laws for a winner to distribute his preferences - he's IN, not out.

 

 

[facthunter]

I'm a little amazed by this. I have only ever seen preferences of "Failed " candidates distibuted to the others. They drop out from the bottom. Your candidate is therefore eliminated, if you voted for the one with least votes. But then you still get a say with the remaining candidates, so your vote still counts. This works no matter how many positions are selected from any number of candidates. You only get credited with one effective vote this way. It works if you optionally vote preferentially this would be the best system because you might not wish to vote for more than one person. If your choice doesn't get in you don't want to give it to any of the others. That should be available as a choice.. No one should get two votes. That is the principle.. I have never seen a ballot done this way... How would it work if there was only one position? Nev

 

s

 

 

[dodo]

If there was only one position, only one vote. Two positions, two elections, one vote per member for each elections/position.

 

Or put it another way, consider if because we have two positions, everyone filled in two ballot papers, one for each position. Now assume you like candidate A more than B, and B more than C. The sensible way to fill in your ballot paper would be to vote A, B, C on both papers.

 

So candidate A then gets elected to both positions. At this point, the counters say candidate A can fill only one position, so we give him the first position, and recount the second position election, ignoring votes for candidate A as he can't have both positions. You get exactly the same effect as if a single ballot is sent, and counted once per position. This is how it has been counted in this election, and sounds normal. I can't see any sensible way of doing it otherwise under the current constitution - except to complicate the hell out of the process by issuing each member with one ballot paper per position, then check that the ballot papers per member matched, then you still get exactly the same result.

 

I would have preferred to be represented by Col Jones, but I can't find anything to criticise in the counting process,

 

dodo

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Organisations start with a contitution and then evolve, often ending up quite different from what was originally indended.

 

Australia's constitution stipulates that representatives shall be "directly elected by the people".

 

How then, did we get to the situation with the Senate ballot paper (the tablecloth) where most of us simply tick one box above the thick black line?

 

In effect we are delegating our party of choice to select candidates for us.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Organisations start with a contitution and then evolve, often ending up quite different from what was originally indended.Australia's constitution stipulates that representatives shall be "directly elected by the people".

How than, did we get to the situation with the Senate ballot paper (the tablecloth) where most of us simply tick one box above the thick black line?

 

In effect we are delegating our party of choice to select candidates for us.

In that case when I tick one box on the senate paper I am directly electing the party to make the decision for me; we are inherently lazy when it comes to voting for the Senate. I never tick the one box, I always fill out the table cloth

 

 

[coljones]

To review your understanding of elections and their perceived fairness hop onto the www.aec.gov.au website

 

http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/AEC_Services/Industrial_Elections/voting.htm#333

 

To those who voted for me, thanks. To those who voted for others - you did vote and that is very important. To those who didn't vote - by not voting you are allowing others, who might not be fighting your fight, to determine who runs the organisation.

 

I suggest everyone show a bit more greed and self interest and make sure you vote for the people who, in your opinion, will do the best for your organisation and wisely spend your $200 a year

 

Col

 

 

[Powerin]

Thanks Col. Commiserations to yourself and congratulations to those elected.

 

I know I should let this go but:

 

Turbo, (1) In what way do you see Bylaw 8 as being invalid?

 

(2) The vote counting, as far as I can tell, was carried out in accordance with Bylaw 8,which you quoted above, AND also in accordance with the optional preferential voting system for more than one position in the document Col linked to above.

 

I wasn't making it up....post 33 was just my clumsy attempt to make the process easier to understand.

 

 

[facthunter]

The system used is one of the options the AEC list (above) In that list the multiple preferential system is the one I recommend as it works for all situations and no ones vote COUNTS twice. As has been pointed out the result wouldn't change in the election we are discussing. I would like to see the one I have explained used because it is the fairest but there should be an opportunity for members to decide ( as in all things). Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Pow,

 

The main reason I see By-Law 8 as being invalid is (b)

 

The main reason I see the last election as invalid is (a)

 

You may wish to run an election based on members sending in photos of pussy cats with names on them, then counting the paws, but what matters is that if By-Law 8 was found to be lawful, then you must preference from the first loser, Col, not the winner, Middo.

 

The (a) and (b) are as follows:

 

(a)The preferences were distributed from the top down and not from the bottom up as required

 

(b)By-Law 8 contravenes the intent of Constitution Item Clause 13 (i) which says:

 

The Board shall be elected by the membership on a one Member – one vote system

 

Pow (a) is straightforward Middo's preferences are reported as being distributed instead of Col's

 

That in itself would make the election invalid

 

Remember, nothing happens unless an election is challenged, and I couldn't see anyone challenging this one, but it's something for the organiser to remember for next time.

 

Every election has rules and they need to be followed meticuluously or you lose the challenge, By-Law 8 makes no reference at all to the AEC which in any case was set up for the election of the Commonwealth Government and not RAA or the Western Buckjumping Association, so is irrelevant. Again, if na challenge occurs evefry word counts.

 

If there was a serious challenge, then (b) becomes a debate because the intent of the Constitution for for first past the post voting, which also is the most common for Incorporated Associations and Corporations.

 

The intent of The Constitution would usually win.

 

They are the two most obvious issues, and there may be more because of the ad hoc insertion of By-Law 8, for example who inserted it and how it got in. Normal procedure is to change the Constitution.

 

Edited, deleted the following

 

[A second reason is that By-Law 8 is owned by a different Association, RA-Aus Inc.

 

The Association the members and electees belong to is Recreational Aviation Australia Inc. which has no abbreviated format.] Reason there is a debate over whether this is too minor, or the failure to link Incorpoated is significant.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Pow,The main reason I see By-Law 8 as being invalid is (b)

 

A second reason is that By-Law 8 is owned by a different Asscoiation, RA-Aus Inc.

 

The Association the members and electees belong to is Recreational Aviation Australia Inc. which has no abbreviated format.

 

The main reason I see the last election as invalid is (a)

 

You may wish to run an election based on members sending in photos of pussy cats with names on them, then counting the paws, but what matters is that if By-Law 8 was found to be lawful, then you must preference from the first loser, Col, not the winner, Middo.

 

The (a) and (b) are as follows:

 

(a)The preferences were distributed from the top down and not from the bottom up as required

 

(b)By-Law 8 contravenes the intent of Constitution Item Clause 13 (i) which says:

 

The Board shall be elected by the membership on a one Member – one vote system

 

Pow (a) is straightforward Middo's preferences are reported as being distributed instead of Col's

 

That in itself would make the election invalid

 

Remember, nothing happens unless an election is challenged, and I couldn't see anyone challenging this one, but it's something for the organiser to remember for next time.

 

Every election has rules and they need to be followed meticuluously or you lose the challenge, By-Law 8 makes no reference at all to the AEC which in any case was set up for the election of the Commonwealth Government and not RAA or the Western Buckjumping Association, so is irrelevant. Again, if na challenge occurs evefry word counts.

 

If there was a serious challenge, then (b) becomes a debate because the intent of the Constitution for for first past the post voting, which also is the most common for Incorporated Associations and Corporations.

 

The intent of The Constitution would usually win.

 

They are the two most obvious issues, and there may be more because of the ad hoc insertion of By-Law 8, for example who inserted it and how it got in. Normal procedure is to change the Constitution.

[Powerin]

The main reason I see the last election as invalid is (a)

(a)The preferences were distributed from the top down and not from the bottom up as required

OK, look at Bylaw 8 again.

Middo won the first position outright so there was no need to distribute preferences from Col. We have now satisfied paragraph 1 & 2 of the bylaw. Now the final part comes into play:

 

If there is more than one vacancy for a Board Member in a Region, following the election of a candidate in accordance with para (2) above, that candidate shall be excluded from further voting and their votes distributed according to first preferences (if any). The counting of votes for the second vacancy shall proceed in the same manner described above. (emphasis mine).

 

Middo's votes were distributed in accordance with the bold text above.

 

A second reason is that By-Law 8 is owned by a different Asscoiation, RA-Aus Inc.

The Association the members and electees belong to is Recreational Aviation Australia Inc. which has no abbreviated format.

From the constitution:

Part I - Preliminary

 

1. Interpretation

 

Throughout this Constitution and By-laws, unless the context requires otherwise, the following definitions and abbreviations will apply:

 

......

 

“RA-Aus” - Recreational Aviation Australia

 

......

 

(b)By-Law 8 contravenes the intent of Constitution Item Clause 13 (i) which says:

The Board shall be elected by the membership on a one Member – one vote system

Each member had one vote for each board member elected. That's what would have also happened if we had two separate elections. So I see the intent of the constitution as being satisfied. However if you interpret it differently then it must be ambiguous and perhaps it should be changed.

EDIT: Ah....I just got it. So Turbo, you are arguing that "one member - one vote" implies that there can only be a first past the post voting system and that any sort of preferential voting system involves more than one vote per member? Interesting.

 

What's the definition of one vote? One ballot paper with one name written on it? Can it be one ballot paper with several marks on it? Or is several marks on a ballot paper considered several votes?

 

I had always thought that filling in one ballot paper would be considered one vote, no matter how many names and preferences were on it.

 

 

[turboplanner]

OK, look at Bylaw 8 again.Middo won the first position outright so there was no need to distribute preferences from Col. We have now satisfied paragraph 1 & 2 of the bylaw. Now the final part comes into play:

If there is more than one vacancy for a Board Member in a Region, following the election of a candidate in accordance with para (2) above, that candidate shall be excluded from further voting and their votes distributed according to first preferences (if any). The counting of votes for the second vacancy shall proceed in the same manner described above. (emphasis mine).

 

Middo's votes were distributed in accordance with the bold text above.

 

Let's start with Step 1 rather than Step 2

 

Tom polls the most number of votes but doesn't have a clear majority - the words are "the candidate with the least number of votes shall be excluded and their votes distributed according to any preferences."

 

So, Harry has to drop out and HIS preferences are distributed, not Tom's

 

The By-Law requires preferencing from the bottom to9 the top, not from the winner down.

 

Step 2

 

Because there were only three candidates, and one has been elected in Step 1, and one has been eliminated in Step 1 there was no requirement for Step 2 preferencing, however, if there had been several more candidates, the lowest polling candidate would again have dropped out and his preferences would have gone to the pool.

 

AFTER Step 2 By-law 8 says:

 

"If there is more than one vacancy for a Board Member in a Region, following the election of a candidate in accordance with Para (2) above, that candidate shall be excluded from further voting and their votes distributed according to first preferences (if any)."

 

This paragraph is badly worded, but I take it to mean that we've elected the first candidate in step 1, we've elected the second candidate in step 2.

 

If there is just one candidate left, the loser of Step 2 takes that position

 

If after Step 2 there are two vacancies and several candidates left, then "the candidate" - the drop out from Step 2, the "lowest polling candidate" mentioned in Step 2 distributes his preferences to this group.

 

The principle of preferential voting is that your vote is never wasted. You vote for your first preference - if he loses you get a vote on his preference and so on.

 

HOWEVER, My original assessment was based on the fact that the winners preferences from Step 1 were distributed, and not the loser's preferences

 

From the constitution:

 

Part I - Preliminary

 

1. Interpretation

 

Throughout this Constitution and By-laws, unless the context requires otherwise, the following definitions and abbreviations will apply:

 

......

 

“RA-Aus” - Recreational Aviation Australia

 

......

 

A couple of us have been having a debate about this off air, and you'll notice I edited it out. It's a detailed argument, and only confuses the basic issue here. My argument is the link between the two Incorporated Associations is not made and the other argument is that this may not matter to a Judge.

 

Each member had one vote for each board member elected. That's what would have also happened if we had two separate elections. So I see the intent of the constitution as being satisfied. However if you interpret it differently then it must be ambiguous and perhaps it should be changed.

 

EDIT: Ah....I just got it. So Turbo, you are arguing that "one member - one vote" implies that there can only be a first past the post voting system and that any sort of preferential voting system involves more than one vote per member? Interesting.

 

Thomas 378

 

Richard 253

 

Harriet 96

 

Russell 42

 

Skye 17

 

In a record turn out, 786 people all cast one vote, none voted informally.

 

We'll make this one complicated - there were four positions open.

 

Not very hard to work out who were elected to the four positions.

 

What's the definition of one vote? One ballot paper with one name written on it? Can it be one ballot paper with several marks on it? Or is several marks on a ballot paper considered several votes?

 

I had always thought that filling in one ballot paper would be considered one vote, no matter how many names and preferences were on it.

In a preferential system, you vote for your preference. If he loses you get another vote via your preference. If that person loses you get another vote etc. so you are getting multiple votes.

 

It's worthwhile doing a Scrutineer's job because then you can see the bundles of paper getting bigger and bigger. Not a single fomal vote is lost, they keep moving up into bnigger and bigger bundles until you vote (through your preference trail) for the final winner or loser.

 

 

[Powerin]

My research indicates that the usage of the term "One member - one vote" does not refer to the method of voting but rather to the principle of every member having an equal vote. It is often used in the context of electoral boundaries and number of voters within electoral divisions. In the RAA constitution it is also used in this context as this section of the constitution goes on to describe how the regions vote.

 

 

[turboplanner]

If you're about to drop the hammer blow that "therefore one vote equals several votes", remember the debate would be on what the specific document says.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

In that case when I tick one box on the senate paper I am directly electing the party to make the decision for me; we are inherently lazy when it comes to voting for the Senate. I never tick the one box, I always fill out the table cloth

Welcome back David. Wheres ya bin?

 

 

[Powerin]

If you're about to drop the hammer blow that "therefore one vote equals several votes", remember the debate would be on what the specific document says.

Nah...no hammer blow...it's been an interesting debate.

My basic point is that I feel it was a fair election, run correctly according to the rules, and the rules outline a commonly used election method in Australia.

 

By-Law 12 has far worse consequences than By-Law 8.....

 

 

[turboplanner]

We better stay away from By-law 12.