A *proxy* is a person authorised to vote on behalf of another person (the *principal*) at a meeting.
Voting by proxy is only permitted if the rules of the body allow it. In such a case, the rules will generally specify how proxies must be appointed.\ [#fn2]_
As described in :mref:`‘Voting on motions’ <voting-on-motions>`, the common law method of voting at meetings is by show of hands. See that previous section for a description of the general process.
When voting by show of hands, each person personally present and entitled to vote has one, and only one, vote.\ [#fn1]_
In other words, if proxy voting is permitted, proxies are not counted in a show of hands, unless the rules otherwise provide. Even if the rules do so provide, each member who holds proxies will have only one vote, regardless of how many proxies they hold.\ [#fn1]_
In Parliament, it is required that, on a division (poll, etc.) members must vote the same way as they did in a show of hands. In meetings generally, unless the rules specifically require it, there is no such requirement.
..index:: vote; on the voices, vote; viva voce, voice vote
Voice vote
^^^^^^^^^^
In Parliament, and in some organisations, voting is performed ‘on the voices’ (‘*viva voce*’).
In a voice vote, the Chair directs those in favour of the question to say ‘Aye’, then those against to say ‘No’.\ [#fn3]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn4]_ The Chair then announces the result according to which side they believe had greater numbers.
..index:: vote; by division, vote; by roll call, division, roll call
Division, roll call, etc.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This section describes voting methods which allow the names of voters to be recorded alongside their vote.
If the meeting is small, this could be accomplished on a show of hands, with members keeping their hands raised long enough for votes to be counted and names to be noted.\ [#fn5]_
..index:: vote; by division, division
In a *division*, members physically move and separate according to their voting intentions. For example, the Chair may direct that ‘*the Ayes will pass to the right of the chair and the Noes to the left*’. The numbers on each side may then be counted, and the names recorded.\ [#fn5]_ This is the method used in Parliament when the result of a voice vote is unclear or contested.
..index:: vote; by roll call, roll call
In a *roll call*, the name of every member is read out, one by one, by the Chair or Secretary, and that member says ‘Yes’ (or ‘Aye’), ‘No’ or ‘Abstain’ (or ‘Present’). The numbers and names are thereby recorded.\ [#fn6]_
As these methods allow for the names of members to be recorded along with their votes, they do not allow for a secret ballot. They may therefore be appropriate for a representative body (whose members are accountable to their constituents), but would generally be inappropriate for most other bodies.
* by absent members presenting later where the poll is to be held at a later date\ [#fn7]_
At common law, unless the rules provide otherwise, immediately once the Chair declares the result of a show of hands, or before the show of hands is taken, any member may demand that a poll be taken.\ [#fn12]_
Once a demand is validly made, the result of the show of hands is set aside and is no longer of any effect.\ [#fn13]_
If a poll is demanded on the election of Chair or on a motion for adjournment, the poll must be taken immediately.\ [#fn16]_ Otherwise, unless the rules provide otherwise, a poll may be conducted immediately, later during that meeting, or on a later date, at the direction of the Chair,\ [#fn14]_ and the Chair may adjourn the meeting for the purpose of taking the poll.\ [#fn15]_
Unless the rules otherwise provide, the poll may be taken in any written form decided by the Chair. This may be using individual voting papers, or ticks and crosses on a voting list, or some other method.\ [#fn17]_ In this way, a poll is different to a :ref:`secret ballot <secret-ballot>`.\ [#fn7]_
..index:: vote; by secret ballot, secret ballot, ballot
.._secret-ballot:
Secret ballot
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
A *secret ballot* is similar to a poll in that votes are cast in writing, but with the additional requirement that voting papers issued, and the method of voting, do not reveal the identity of voters.\ [#fn8]_ Secret ballots are typically called for by the rules in connection with the election of offices.
..index:: vote; by acclamation, acclamation
Acclamation
^^^^^^^^^^^
Votes of thanks, appreciation, congratulation, and others which are typically carried unanimously, are often carried by *acclamation* (applause). When the question is put, the Chair invites those present to show their appreciation by applause. The minutes record that the motion was ‘carried by acclamation’.\ [#fn9]_
..index:: vote; by silence
Silence
^^^^^^^
Motions of condolence are usually carried in silence, with members standing in their places.\ [#fn10]_
The term ‘unanimous’ (as in, ‘carried unanimously’) strictly means that every person present and entitled to vote voted in favour, i.e. there were no abstentions or votes against.\ [#fn11]_
..index:: nem con, nem dis, motion; carried nem con/nem dis, motion; carried without dissent
In contrast, the terms ‘carried without dissent’, ‘carried *nem con*’ (*nemine contradicente*, ‘no one saying otherwise’) and ‘carried *nem dis*’ (*nemine dissentiente*, ‘no one dissenting’) are appropriate when no votes were cast against, even though some may have abstained.\ [#fn11]_
As noted in :mref:`‘Chair’ <chair>`, if the rules do not specify, the Chair of a meeting is to be elected by the meeting. The rules of organisations also typically create other offices to be filled by election. In this section, we discuss how to conduct such an election.
We focus primarily on elections conducted in person at meetings, but the general principles will be applicable to other forms of election, such as postal or online ballots.
An election should be presided over by a *returning officer*, who oversees the election. The returning officer counts the votes, determines the validity of votes cast, rules on disputes, and determines and declares the result.\ [#fn20]_
At a meeting, the returning officer is often the Chair of the meeting.
..index:: Chair; temporary
If the election is to elect the Chair of the meeting, some other person (e.g. the Secretary) should take the initiative to temporarily take the chair to conduct the election.\ [#fn23]_
A candidate may not preside (as returning officer or temporary Chair) over their own election; if a candidate did so preside and were elected, the election would be invalid.\ [#fn24]_
..index:: elections; nominations
Call for nominations
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Oral nominations
****************
At the time for the election, the returning officer should call for nominations by saying, for example, ‘*I now call for nominations for [position]*’. Members would then seek the call, and propose their nominee.\ [#fn25]_ Seconders are not required at common law, but this is customary, and some rules require it.\ [#fn26]_
A member is permitted to propose or second their own nomination.\ [#fn27]_ The nomination of a person who is absent should not be accepted, unless the returning officer is satisfied the nominee has consented to be nominated.\ [#fn25]_
..index:: motion; close nominations, That; nominations be now closed
Once the returning officer confirms that no further nominations are forthcoming, they should declare the nominations closed. Members may also move the procedural motion ‘*That nominations be now closed*’ to close nominations early.\ [#fn25]_
Written nominations
*******************
Alternatively, the rules may prescribe that nominations must be made in writing, to reach the returning officer (or Secretary, etc.) a specified time before the election. In this case, the rules could allow candidates to supply documents (for example, a personal statement or CV) to be circulated.\ [#fn29]_
It is preferable that nominations be kept confidential until nominations close.\ [#fn29]_
Nominations committee
*********************
If it is desired to further structure the process of nominations, the rules could provide for the establishment of a nominations committee with the power to nominate candidates – though this method might be seen to be less democratic than accepting direct nominations.\ [#fn30]_
..index:: elections; by default
Election by default
*******************
..index:: That; [name] be elected [position]
If the number of nominations is less than or equal to the number of vacancies (e.g. for the election of Chair, if there is only 1 nomination), the returning offer should declare elected all nominees, and the election is complete. Any remaining vacancies should be treated as casual vacancies.\ [#fn28]_ Alternatively, the question may be put to a vote ‘*That [name] be elected [position]*’.\ [#fn26]_
Election required
*****************
If, on the other hand, there are more nominations than the number of vacancies, an election will be required.
If there are only 2 candidates, a show of hands or (preferably) secret ballot should be held to choose between the 2 candidates.\ [#fn31]_
If there are more candidates, a more sophisticated voting system will need to be used. Several of these are detailed in the following section.
..index:: voting systems
Voting systems
--------------
In this section, we describe a number of voting systems in current use. Of these, both the author and :ref:`Renton (2005b) <renton1>`\ [#fn34]_ recommend IRV and STV as the most preferable.
*Instant runoff voting (IRV)* is a voting system for a single winner. It is also known as *preferential voting* (though there are other preference-based voting systems), *majority-preferential voting*, the *alternative vote (AV)* or, particularly in America, *ranked choice voting (RCV)*. IRV is the method used to elect members of the Australian House of Representatives.
In IRV, a voter places the number ‘1’ next to their most-preferred candidate, a ‘2’ next to their 2nd preference, and so on until they have numbered as many candidates as they wish.
To count the votes, the first-preference votes are counted initially. If any candidate has a majority (>50%) of the votes, they are declared elected. Otherwise, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and each of their votes transferred to its next available preference. The process is repeated until one candidate has a majority.
IRV ensures that the winning candidate is supported by a majority of the votes. It also means that voters are able to express their genuine preference for an unpopular candidate, while still being able to express further preferences between the other candidates.
..index:: elections; single transferable vote, elections; quota-preferential voting, elections; proportional representation through the single transferable vote
Single transferable vote
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The *single transferable vote (STV)* is an extension of IRV to multiple-winner elections. It is also known as *quota-preferential voting*, or *proportional representation through the single transferable vote (PR-STV)*. STV is the method used to elect members of the Australian Senate.
..index:: elections; proportional representation
A description of STV is beyond the scope of this book, but at a high level, it involves also transferring some votes from elected candidates, in order to achieve *proportional representation*.
Proportional representation means that the composition of the winners is roughly proportional to the composition of the votes. If *x*\ % of the votes prefer one faction over the others, then roughly *x*\ % of the winners should be from that faction.\ [#fn39]_ If *x*\ % of the votes prefer the women over the men, then roughly *x*\ % of the winners should be women. The beauty of the STV algorithm ensures this is true for any feature the voters consider important.
Common rules for STV elections to be counted by hand are the `Proportional Representation Society of Australia (PRSA)'s 1977 rules <https://www.prsa.org.au/rule1977.htm>`_ and the `Electoral Reform Society (UK)'s 1997 rules <https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/latest-news-and-research/publications/how-to-conduct-an-election-by-the-single-transferable-vote-3rd-edition/>`_.
In STV elections to be counted by computer, the author and the PRSA's Victoria–Tasmania branch endorse the *Meek method*.\ [#fn21]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn22]_
More details on the single transferable vote are available from the `PRSA <https://prsa.org.au>`_ and the `Electoral Reform Society <https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk>`_ (UK).
FPTP, cumulative voting, etc.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Despite the clear advantages of IRV and STV, *first past the post* and related systems remain common methods of election used in organisations.
..index:: elections; first past the post
In *first past the post (FPTP/FPP, plurality voting)*, each voter is able to vote for 1 candidate, and the candidate with the most votes (regardless of how many that is) is declared elected.
There are a number of ways of extending FPTP to multiple-winner elections. In the *multiple non-transferable vote (MNTV, plurality-at-large voting, block voting)*, each voter is able to vote for as many candidates as there are vacancies, and the candidates with the most votes are declared elected, up to the number of vacancies.
..index:: elections; limited voting
In *limited voting*, the process is the same as MNTV, except that each voter is able to vote for fewer candidates than there are vacancies. If each voter is able to vote for only 1 candidate, this is called the *single non-transferable vote (SNTV)*.
..index:: elections; cumulative voting
*Cumulative voting* is a variation where each voter has a certain number of votes, and is able to cast those votes in any combination for any candidates (i.e. can cast multiple votes for the same candidate). This is commonly seen in the company context, where each voter has one vote per share.
An in-depth discussion of the disadvantages of these systems is beyond the scope of this book, but we note that:
* in single-winner elections, a candidate can be elected even if they would have lost in a head-to-head election against every other candidate\ [#fn32]_
..
.. comment * in multiple-winner elections, a group supported by a majority of votes (no matter how slim the majority) can typically win every single seat, even if voters would have been better represented by a more proportional distribution of the seats\ [#fn33]_
* in multiple-winner elections, these systems do not guarantee proportional representation, even if a proportional distribution of the seats would have better represented the voters\ [#fn33]_
Other systems
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Other voting systems attested to in the authorities consulted include:
**Borda count*: Voters rank each of the candidates. If there are, say, 5 candidates, the most-preferred candidate receives 5 points, the next 4 points, and so on. All the points are tallied, and the candidate(s) with the most points is elected.\ [#fn35]_
..
**Coombs' method*: As per IRV, except that, in each stage, if no candidate has a majority, the candidate ranked last by the largest number of voters is eliminated.\ [#fn36]_
..
**preferential block voting*: Similar to block voting, but the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and further preferences examined, until only as many candidates remain as vacancies to fill.\ [#fn37]_ This was the method used in the Australian Senate from 1919 to 1948, before it was replaced by STV out of a desire for proportional representation.\ [#fn38]_
Again, an in-depth discussion of these systems is beyond the scope of this book. These systems suffer from similar faults to those of the FPTP family, and in some cases other, different, faults. The author again recommends the use of IRV and STV.
..[#fn4] The correct terms on a voice vote are ‘Aye’ and ‘No’. In North America, during a roll call, the terms ‘Yea’ and ‘Nay’ are sometimes used. :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, ¶45:47. The combination of ‘Aye’ with ‘Nay’ is not attested to anywhere internationally.
..[#fn6]:ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, ¶¶45:47–54. The roll call is not attested to in any Australian authority consulted, but has been experienced by the author and is presented here for completeness.
..[#fn24]:ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶6.4; *R v Owens* (1850) 28 LJQB 316; *Fanagan v Kernan* (1881) 8 LR Ir 44; *National Australia Bank Ltd v Market Holdings Pty Ltd (in liq)* (2001) 161 FLR 1
..[#fn25]:ref:`Renton 2005b <renton1>`, ¶11.3
..[#fn26]:ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶6.4
..[#fn27]:ref:`Renton 2005b <renton1>`, ¶11.8; :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶6.4; *National Australia Bank Ltd v Market Holdings Pty Ltd (in liq)* (2001) 161 FLR 1
..[#fn29]:ref:`Renton 2005b <renton1>`, ¶11.4
..[#fn30]:ref:`Renton 2005b <renton1>`, ¶11.14
..[#fn28]:ref:`Renton 2005b <renton1>`, ¶11.10
..[#fn31]:ref:`Renton 2005b <renton1>`, ¶11.15
..[#fn34]:ref:`Renton 2005b <renton1>`, ¶11.73
..[#fn39] More specifically, STV satisfies the *Droop proportionality criterion*: If there are *V* votes and *S* seats, let the *Droop quota* be *V*/(*S*\ +1). If *k* Droop quotas worth of votes prefer one group of candidates over the others, that group must win at least *k* seats. Woodall DR. ‘Properties of preferential election rules’. *Voting Matters*. 1994 Dec; (3): 8–15. http://www.votingmatters.org.uk/ISSUE3/P5.HTM
..[#fn21] Hill ID, Wichmann BA, Woodall DR. ‘Algorithm 123: single transferable vote by Meek's method’. *The Computer Journal*. 1987 Jun; **30**: 277–281. https://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.NSF/Files/meekm/%24file/meekm.pdf
..[#fn22] *Proportional Representation Society of Australia*. Canberra: Proportional Representation Society of Australia; 2020 [cited 2021 Feb 11]. ‘Meek system of single transferable vote (STV) counting’. https://www.prsa.org.au/meek_stv.htm
..[#fn32] More technically, we say that first past the post fails the *Condorcet loser criterion*.
..[#fn33] Cumulative voting can conditionally provide proportionality *if* the minority allocates their votes optimally, whereas this is cleanly and automatically handled in STV.
..[#fn35]:ref:`Renton 2005b <renton1>`, ¶¶11.60–63; :ref:`Citrine 1982 <citrine>`, p. 61, which confusingly refers to it as the ‘preferential vote’ system.
..[#fn36]:ref:`Citrine 1982 <citrine>`, pp. 58–59, referred to in a stepwise process, using show-of-hands, as the ‘exhaustive vote’
..[#fn37]:ref:`Citrine 1982 <citrine>`, pp. 58–59, described as a variant of the ‘exhaustive vote’
..[#fn38] Farrell DM, McAllister I. ‘1902 and the origins of preferential electoral systems in Australia’. *Australian Journal of Politics and History*. 2005; **51**\ (2): 155–167. doi: `10.1111/j.1467-8497.2005.00368.x <https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8497.2005.00368.x>`_
