Voting and Elections
Voting on motions
Putting the question
When the debate on a subject is ended, the chair takes the vote. This is called ‘putting the question’ because, in effect, the members are being asked to decide by their votes the question: ‘Are you in favour of this motion?’
Voting by show of hands
In putting the question, the chair should first read the motion loudly and distinctly to the meeting if it has not been circulated previously. They will then say: ‘All those in favour of this motion please show.’ Every member who is in favour will then vote by holding up one hand. Then the chair says: ‘All those against the motion please show.’ The members opposing then vote, and if there are more votes in favour of the motion than against it, the chair announces: ‘The motion is carried.’ If the majority are against it, the chair declares it lost.
Counting the votes
In conferences and large meetings it is usually necessary to appoint members – called ‘tellers’ – to count the votes. This is to ensure accuracy and to avoid any suggestions that the organisers of the meeting are not strictly impartial. At smaller meetings, the chair usually does the counting themselves with the assistance of the secretary as an extra precaution.
Voting by ‘Aye’ or ‘No’
Sometimes the vote is taken by voice. In this case the chair, after reading the motion, says: ‘All those in favour of the motion please say “Aye”.’ The supporters then shout ‘Aye’. The chair says: ‘All those against say “No”.’ The opposers respond. The chair then decides as to whether the ‘ayes’ or the ‘noes’ are in the majority. If the ‘ayes’ sounded the louder they say: ‘I think the “ayes” have it.’ They should then pause to allow anyone who thinks the ‘noes’ were in the majority to exercise their right to demand a vote by show of hands. The sound of ‘no’ carries much better than ‘aye’. The chair should make allowance for this and be wary of being taken in by those who may shout more loudly. If there is any doubt they should take a show of hands.
Card voting
At conferences where each delegate represents a defined number of members – for example the TUC and Annual Conference of the Labour Party – voting is frequently conducted by card. It is an elaborate procedure and takes about ten minutes to complete, even with really efficient tellers. Voting by card is frequently described as ‘block voting’ because the delegates cast their votes in blocks. Thus a delegate to the TUC representing 50,000 members would be given a card marked 50. Instructions about the method of voting are set out on the back of the card.
Recording votes
Very rarely there will be a vital issue on which it is absolutely essential to have a record of the votes cast – for example, where a meeting consists of delegates who have been sent with a definite mandate as to how they shall vote. To ensure that there is no doubt about how the delegates have voted, the roll call or record vote is used in which delegates shout ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ when their names are called. Very rarely, a vote may be taken which could lead to legal action against the body if the motion is carried. In such circumstances, those opposing the motion are entitled to insist on their names being recorded.
When voting is unnecessary
Sometimes a proposition may appear so acceptable that no voting seems necessary. If so, the chair asks: ‘Is it agreed that we adopt this motion?’ The members will then reply ‘Agreed’, but if there is any dissent, a vote will have to be taken. It is probably best to reserve this method for formal motions – such as votes of thanks.
Abstentions
Sometimes members may not wish to vote one way or another on the question before the meeting. There is no compulsion on a member to vote and occasionally, if it is obvious that a number of people have abstained, the chair may ask for abstentions to be recorded. This is particularly so when questions of religious principle may be involved, for example in a vote on abortion.
Mistakes in voting
If a member accidentally casts their vote in the opposite direction to which they intend – against a proposition they had intended to support or for one they had meant to oppose – they have no means of rectifying it. Once their vote has been given and counted, either by ballot or show of hands, it cannot be recalled.
But occasionally there may be a genuine misunderstanding by many people in the meeting about what is being voted upon. If this is the case, and the misapprehension appears to be fairly widespread, the chair should allow the vote to be taken again. The safest way of doing this is probably for the chair to have a motion that the vote be taken again formally moved and seconded. They should then put this to the vote without permitting any discussion, and if the decision is in favour of the vote being taken again they should proceed to do so.
Nem Con
It is frequently unnecessary to take a record of the voting at meetings and it usually sufficient to record the motions as ‘Carried by a large majority’ or ‘Defeated by general consent’. It is not always safe to suppose, because nobody votes against a motion, that it is carried unanimously. For a motion to be carried unanimously everybody present must vote in favour. It does not mean only that nobody must vote against it. It is not unanimous if some members abstain. The safest method if therefore to record the motion as carried or lost nem com (from the Latin nemine contradicente, which means no one contradiciting).
Voting on election of committees and officers
Nomination of candidates
The procedure for elections is the same in all cases where a member or a number of members is required to undertake certain duties. All candidates should be nominated by a member and seconded by another, neither of whom are candidates. Then they must be elected. In theory a candidate for office can nominate and vote for themselves, unless the rules or standing orders expressly state otherwise, although it would be unusual for an individual to nominate themselves. But there is nothing wrong in someone voting for themselves.
Electing a committee
The method of conducting an election can be illustrated by dealing with the appointment of a committee. For example, suppose it had been decided (by means of a motion moved and seconded in the usual way) to set up a committee of three members to be elected from the meeting. The chair will say, ‘There are three candidates required; I am ready to receive nominations.’ The members present are then free to make nominations. It would be unusual for a member nominating a candidate to speak in support of their nominee; custom and practice does not normally permit it. A member may propose or second more than one candidate, but this should not be encouraged if there are more candidates than vacancies. A member may not nominate an absent member unless they can satisfy the meeting that their nominee will stand.
Closing nominations
The number of candidates is not restricted to the actual number of places on the committee but generally, as soon as there seem to be sufficient candidates to give the meeting proper choice, some member will move ‘That nominations be closed.’ This motion cannot be moved by a candidate, or by a member who has proposed or seconded any of the candidates. The chair will then say: ‘Is it your wish that nominations be closed?’ The members then reply: ‘Agreed.’ If the response seems general, nominations are closed immediately. No discussion may be permitted on this formal motion. If the motion ‘That nominations be closed’ is lost, the chair allows further nominations until no more names are being put forward.
Election by ‘first past the post’
The chair then reads the names of the candidates. For example, they might say: ‘There are three members to be elected to the committee. The candidates nominate are (naming them). Five candidates for three positions. You each have three votes. I shall put the names in the order in which they were moved. All those in favour of John Smith?’ They then count the hands held up in favour of the candidate, and the secretary makes a note of the number. Then the next candidate is dealt with similarly. This process is continued until the list has been completed. The three candidates receiving the highest number of votes are then decalared elected.
Reading the list
When the list is a long one, the chair should read the names before taking the vote, and after the first candidate has been voted upon, they should read the names of the remaining candidates. They should repeat this process as often as seems necessary, so that members are fully aware of the names of the candidates still to be voted on.
Varying the order
The chair may vary the order of putting the names to the vote. They may select a name from the top of the list and after putting this take one from the bottom, alternately taking one from the top and one from the bottom until the list has been exhausted. As an alternative they may start from the bottom and take the names until they reach the top candidates. The chair should be extremely careful about this to avoid accusations of lack of impartiality. They should always announce to the meeting beforehand the procedure they are going to adopt, and if there is any objection the names should be put in the order in which they were nominated.
The exhaustive vote
There is another method, called the exhaustive vote, which is in effect voting by the process of elimination. The election is taken in rounds, and with five candidates and three seats, for example (the procedure can of course be used with any number of candidates and seats), each member in the room would have four votes on the first round. They would cast these four votes for the four candidates whom they desired to be elected out of the five nominated. The candidate securing the lowest number of votes on the first round would drop out, leaving four candidates only for the three positions. The next round the members would have three votes, with only four candidates. Again the candidate receiving the lowest number of votes in the second round would drop out. No further round would be necessary, and the remaining three candidates would be declared elected. This is a tedious procedure, but arguably the fairest.
An alternative but similar procedure (again assuming three seats) is for each member to be given only three votes. Thus, on the first and succeeding rounds, each member would have three votes. On each round, the candidate with the fewest votes would drop out, and voting would continue until only three candidates were left. Under both these alternatives, if voting for the bottom candidate is level, there must be a second vote to determine who drops out.
Electing officers
Similar methods are followed for electing individual officers such as chair, vice-chair, secretary and treasurer. For each of these posts, the chair should read the names of those proposed and announce that every member has one vote only. They should then put the names to the vote separately and the candidate with most votes will be declared the winner.
Voting for the top two candidates
But this can be unsatisfactory if there are several candidates, and no one of them has a clear majority over the rest. In such a case the names of the top two candidates might be put to a second vote, and the one who finally receives the highest number of votes will be declared elected. An alternative method is to use the exhaustive vote. Either method is probably fairer than the ‘first past the post’ system mentioned above. Whatever the system used, the chair should make sure before beginning the voting that everyone understands it. The system of voting should of course be fully set out in the standing orders.
Electing a new chair
In some organisations, the chair whose term of office is about to expire conducts the election of their successor, even if they themselves are standing for a further term, but the best method is for the secretary to take the chair and conduct the election, which should be the first item on the Agenda after ‘Apologies for Absence.’ The chair standing for re-election should seat themselves in the body of the meeting, not on the top table. Once the election of the chair is completed, the newly elected chair should conduct the election for the remaining positions.
As in voting by show of hands, voting by ballot may be on the basis of first past the post, the exhaustive vote, or voting for the top two candidates.
Election by ballot
Where elections are to be contested, there is a strong argument for using a secret ballot rather than a show of hands, because members will be much freer to vote for the person they regard as the best candidate without feeling that they are losing friends. If the election is to be by ballot, the names of the candidates (perhaps with a few relevant particulars) should be entered on the ballot paper in alphabetical order. The alphabetical method ensures that no one will accuse the officials of giving any candidate a better position on the ballot paper than another.
Scrutineers
In all cases where a ballot vote is taken, two or more members must be appointed by the meeting to supervise or scrutinise the taking and counting of votes. These members are called scrutineers and their appointment (from members independent of the platform) is intended to guarantee absolute impartiality. They should not be candidates themselves, nor (as far as possible) should they favour any particular candidate.
The practice of appointing independent members may be waived by consent of the meeting and the chair and secretary, or other officials, can be authoried by those present to act as scrutineers. However, where there is any possibility of high feelings being roused by the results, it is best for the scrutineers to be separately appointed by the meeting. The chair and officers generally should never be placed in a position where their fairness and integrity can be questioned. Certain trade unions have rules requiring the chair to scrutinise ballot papers and sign scrutineers’ sheets in addition to the scrutineers, but there is nothing in the duties of chairing, as such, which requires a chair to scrutinise ballot papers. However, it is a sound practice for completed ballot papers to be kept in a sealed envelope for a period after the election, just in case the results are challenged.
Preferential vote
There is another method which is used by some Constituency Labour Parties for the election of committees. Because of its complexity, it has to be conducted by ballot. It is known as the preferential vote, under which members have a list of candidates on a ballot sheet. If there are five candidates for three places, members will write ‘3’, ‘2’ and ‘1’ against the names of the candidates they support, in order of preference – that is, 3 for the most popular. The figures will then be added up and those with most votes declared the winners. An alternative is for each member to have five votes and write ‘5’, ‘4’, ‘3’, ‘2’ and ‘1’ against the names of the candidates in order of preference, even if there are only three places to be filled.
Voting under this system can be employed tactically – if Smith is popular and bound to be elected, Smith’s supporters may decide to give greater weight in their voting to Brown, who may be an ally of Smith’s but less popular. Under either variation, members may choose not to use all their votes, perhaps because they do not know the candidates or because they dislike them so much that they will not vote for them in any circumstances.
Casting Vote
Because the chair’s role is essentially an impartial one, they should not normally vote unless it is to exercise the casting vote, to which they are specially entitled and which may be used whether the vote in on a motion or for the election of a candidate. There are, in fact, two views as to the chair’s voting rights in the absence of express provision in the rules or standing orders.
The first is that the chair has a deciding vote only – that is, on any matter on which the members are equally divided for and against, they have the power to exercise a deciding vote.
The second view is more controversial, but is considered to be legally correct. This is that the chair has their own vote as an ordinary member and an additional casting vote as chair. They are thus entitled to use their member’s vote, even though it produces equality for and against the motion or candidate, and can then use their casting vote, as chair, whichever way they think best (or not at all). If the chair exercises their two votes, they should not cast them together. In other words, they should use their vote as an ordinary member at the same time as the other members vote and then, only if the voting is level, use their casting vote.
Apart from the thorny question as to whether they are entitled to use their member’s vote after others have cast theirs, it will appear undiplomatic (and to some undemocratic) for the chair to ‘swing’ the voting of a conference by registering together two votes in the same direction upon a highly controversial matter.
The rules of standing orders should always place difficult procedural matters beyond doubt and specify whether the chair has an additional casting vote and how it (and their own member’s vote) is to be exercised. But the chair should always think very carefully before using their casting vote; there may be occasions where, having voted as a member in favour of a motion, they may (on finding equality of voting) decide not to use their casting vote, or even to use it against the motion.
If, when the voting is equal, the chair declines to cast their vote, they will declare the motion ‘not carried’. This is entirely different from voting against the motion, and does not debar the motion from being brought forward at a later meeting. If they voted against it, it would have been lost and could not be brought forward again without a notice of motion.
On ballot votes, of course, the chair has the right to vote like any other member.
Recounts
Finally, if voting (whether conducted by show of hands or by ballot) is close, members have the right to demand a recount and the chair should always accede to this unless it is clear that the request is frivolous.