Election By Silent Consent

[trixilator]

If articles require annual election of member to a Committee and existing Comm members
express their willingness for re-election, is a "silent approval" vote acceptable - meaning voters
ONLY vote for an alternative candidate. The "silence" indicates approval en bloc ?

[Jackdaw33]

I don't understand this. If a candidate in any election is unopposed he is automatically elected. If he is opposed then the electors can vote either for him or his opponent.

[New Judge]

If there are ten places on the committee and ten or fewer people stand then they are elected unopposed. If eleven or more put their names forward then an election is held. All eleven (or more) must stand for election and voters choose ten of their choice. Existing committee members get no preferential treatment in that election (unless the organisation's rules say otherwise).

[trixilator]

Thanks for the response. This annual election process is usually
conducted at an AGM attended by the Membership - Covid has put an end to this so in the absence of a gathering, given a virtual zoom/skype meeting is not practical we thought email/phone voting
should be reserved for a "No" vote and accept the silent remainder
voted "Yes" in bloc. No alternative candidates are standing....

[Jackdaw33]

As previously stated, if the number of candidates does not exceed the number of vacancies then no election is necessary.

[THECORBYLOON]

Would there not need to be a motion to confirm each position even if there were no other candidates?

Another member might not be happy with the way a committee member carried out his/her duties and believe someone else should do them.

[Jonathan-Joe]

// Another member might not be happy with the way a committee member carried out his/her duties and believe someone else should do them. //
They should have nominated their preferred candidate.

[ToraToraTora]

The absence of a vote should never be taken as a vote one way or another. Sounds very dodgy to me, possibly illegal, or at least against club law.

I was secretary to a conservative club for many years, annually we had N committee to elect, if N or less put their names up (proposed and seconded of course) then they were all elected unopposed and we would seek to co opt for any spare places. if there were more than N there was a vote with the top N winning, each member could vote for N different people.

[ToraToraTora]

For one tghing the very term: "Election By Silent Consent" - assumes that anyone not turning up to vote intended the default, there are 101 reasons why someone may not turn up to vote. The more I think about this the more dodgy it seems. Would you say that all those that do not vote in a general election should be deemed to have voted for the incumbent government? Of course you wouldn't.

[Jackdaw33]

Nothing dodgy about it. You only have elections if the contenders outnumber the vacancies. Silence implies consent is a well-established legal maxim.

[bednobs]

what happens if everyone actively does not want the 1 person, but there is no alternative?

[jim360]

In some elections, they have a RON option, for "reopen nominations", which presumably addresses that concern.

[Jackdaw33]

//what happens if everyone actively does not want the 1 person, but there is no alternative?\\

Tough titty! Put up or shut up.

[trixilator]

Thanks for all the input. Been holding these elections annually for years. Just want to ensure nothing illegal or inappropriate happens in the absence of the voters.

[THECORBYLOON]

A member might have a valid objection but that does not mean that member has to nominate an alternative candidate.

Another member of the committee could take on the extra duties if need be.

[THECORBYLOON]

If you're worried about absent voters, what do you intend to do to ensure that those who might want to vote but not attend, can do so?

[ToraToraTora]

JD: "Nothing dodgy about it. You only have elections if the contenders outnumber the vacancies. Silence implies consent is a well-established legal maxim. " - Agreed but that is not what the OP said, that's what happens in my example. The OP appears to say that incumbent members are deemed to have been voted for by all members other than those that voted directly for another candidate.

[Jackdaw33]

I think I begin to see. If that is the case it is definitely out of order. Only votes cast can count. I am a bit vague as to what the problem really is.

[Atheist]

I'm confused. What kind of outfit is this? Surely they have a set of rules? How can people here decide how some unknown gang should run their outfit?

[THECORBYLOON]

"we thought email/phone voting
should be reserved for a "No" vote and accept the silent remainder
voted "Yes" in bloc."

Clearly they have no rules for the current situation, hence the question.