[Board Election] Ballots Should Allow Voting FOR or AGAINST

[Nate Caine]

I am concerned that for the upcoming Board Election, that members are restricted to two options:  "approve" or "remain silent".
This is somewhat akin to social media's limited "thumbs up" mechanism that is missing the complementary, and useful, "thumbs down" choice.

Can anyone provide a coherent explanation from our Bylaws?
https://wiki.heatsynclabs.org/wiki/Bylaws

Specifically:   Bylaws -> Organization -> Section 5
"For elections pertaining to an office which allows the election of multiple officers in its office, an explicit “ABSTAIN” vote may be accounted as a vote of no confidence for any candidate, and shall be counted no differently than a vote for a candidate, which an election victory for abstain votes resulting in an office vacancy."

I'm not certain why, but this appears to apply only to positions allowing multiple officers (i.e. Champion and Treasurer).
Why does this not apply to (Secretary or Operations)?
This has that effect that a single "yes" vote prevails, even if a dozen folks were opposed, since there is no mechanism to count the opposition.

Further, what is the (explicit "ABSTAIN") that is poorly described in Section 5?
In voting, "abstain" means that a vote is NOT cast.  Abstentions are not counted for OR against a measure.
A measure passes if there are simply MORE "yes" votes than "no" votes.
The term (explicit "ABSTAIN") seems to redefine the meaning of "abstain".

In a simple contest we would see:

President:
Washington
Jefferson

If Washington received 6 votes, and Jefferson only 5, and then Washington is elected.


Dog Catcher:
Jones    (Y)  (N)

If 4 vote Y, but 6 vote N, then Jones is rejected, and the office remains vacant.

[Luis Montes]

Agree that this is a problem, but I don't really like the alternative of voting no.

If there's only one person running for a certain position, and you don't want them to get it, then you should be running against them instead of denying them the chance to volunteer for the board.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HeatSync Labs" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to heatsynclabs...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/7f3f40bd-cf45-4ae7-9338-94f18e239f81n%40googlegroups.com.

[Antonio Contrisciani]

I agree with Luis. Not only does this prevent the person an opportunity to serve the community, but we can't have critical board positions go unfilled either. I think the idea is that we can always have the operations or secretary person put on another hat and act as champion or treasurer. Arizona requires that a nonprofit corporation have a board of directors with at least one member, and the IRS requires three directors for a nonprofit to be eligible for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status. I believe the bylaws were written under the assumption that two or more candidates would always run for office, such that you would have

Washington

Jefferson

Abstain

As your possible choices on the vote. The idea being that either you support W, J, or neither. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CA%2B%3DVRdCuXOn5XBTr01ds6gDor5BiAC5-ihEmjsZ0ayjbwadTGA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sheldon McGee]

Hello!

I agree the language in the bylaws is confusing! The key seems to be how our bylaws treat an "ABSTAIN" vote. It looks like it's being redefined from the traditional meaning of 'not voting' into an active, countable vote for "No Confidence." So, I'm thinking of it as a 'None of the Above' option that gets tallied just like a candidate.

If that's the correct way to read it, then in a race with just one candidate, it would be a simple, two-way choice for voters:

1. Vote for the Candidate

2. Vote for Abstain (as a "No Confidence" vote)

This would mean that if "Abstain" gets more votes, the candidate isn't elected, and the position remains vacant.

To me, this feels like it gets to the core of what Nate was saying.  The purpose of such a rule is to prevent exactly what was described: winning by default. It establishes that a candidate must earn a mandate from the voters. They need to demonstrate that they have more support than the collective desire to have no one at all. It ensures that an unpopular or unqualified candidate can't take office simply because no one else ran against them.

Sheldon

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CALmAu85jv-7-wPyxBmEWf1gh35A0PFqgF%3DYjgGKkfowAza40ug%40mail.gmail.com.

[David Lang]

so for a position with multiple openings (like Champion) is it 'vote for one' or
'vote for two'?

David Lang

On Thu, 9 Oct 2025, Sheldon McGee wrote:

> Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2025 12:33:55 -0700
> From: Sheldon McGee <sheldo...@gmail.com>
> Reply-To: heatsy...@googlegroups.com
> To: heatsy...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [HSL] [Board Election] Ballots Should Allow Voting FOR or AGAINST

>
> Hello!
>
> I agree the language in the bylaws is confusing! The key seems to be how

> our bylaws treat an *"ABSTAIN"* vote. It looks like it's being redefined

> from the traditional meaning of 'not voting' into an active, countable vote

> for *"No Confidence."* So, I'm thinking of it as a 'None of the Above'

> option that gets tallied just like a candidate.
>
> If that's the correct way to read it, then in a race with just one
> candidate, it would be a simple, two-way choice for voters:
>

> 1.
>
> Vote for the *Candidate*
> 2.
>
> Vote for *Abstain* (as a "No Confidence" vote)

>>>> I am concerned that for the upcoming *Board Election*, that members are
>>>> restricted to two options: "*approve*" or "*remain silent*".
>>>> This is somewhat akin to social media's limited "*thumbs up*" mechanism
>>>> that is missing the complementary, and useful, "*thumbs down*" choice.

>>>>
>>>> Can anyone provide a coherent explanation from our Bylaws?

>>>> *https://wiki.heatsynclabs.org/wiki/Bylaws
>>>> <https://wiki.heatsynclabs.org/wiki/Bylaws>*
>>>>
>>>> *Specifically*: Bylaws -> Organization -> Section 5
>>>> *"For elections pertaining to an office which allows the election of

>>>> multiple officers in its office, an explicit “ABSTAIN” vote may be
>>>> accounted as a vote of no confidence for any candidate, and shall be
>>>> counted no differently than a vote for a candidate, which an election

>>>> victory for abstain votes resulting in an office vacancy."*

>>>>
>>>> I'm not certain why, but this appears to apply only to positions

>>>> allowing multiple officers (i.e. *Champion *and *Treasurer*).
>>>> Why does this not apply to (*Secretary *or *Operations*)?

>>>> This has that effect that a single "yes" vote prevails, even if a dozen
>>>> folks were opposed, since there is no mechanism to count the opposition.
>>>>

>>>> Further, what is the (*explicit "ABSTAIN"*) that is poorly described in *Section
>>>> 5*?

>>>> In voting, "abstain" means that a vote is NOT cast. Abstentions are not

>>>> counted *for *OR *against *a measure.
>>>> A measure passes if there are simply MORE "*yes*" votes than "*no*"
>>>> votes.
>>>> The term (*explicit "ABSTAIN"*) seems to redefine the meaning of

>>>> "abstain".
>>>>
>>>> In a simple contest we would see:
>>>>

>>>> *President*:

>>>> Washington
>>>> Jefferson
>>>>
>>>> If Washington received 6 votes, and Jefferson only 5, and then
>>>> Washington is elected.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>

>>>> *Dog Catcher:*Jones (Y) (N)

>>>>
>>>> If 4 vote Y, but 6 vote N, then Jones is rejected, and the office
>>>> remains vacant.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>> Groups "HeatSync Labs" group.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>>> an email to heatsynclabs...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> To view this discussion visit
>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/7f3f40bd-cf45-4ae7-9338-94f18e239f81n%40googlegroups.com

>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/7f3f40bd-cf45-4ae7-9338-94f18e239f81n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>>> .

>>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "HeatSync Labs" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>>> email to heatsynclabs...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To view this discussion visit

>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CA%2B%3DVRdCuXOn5XBTr01ds6gDor5BiAC5-ihEmjsZ0ayjbwadTGA%40mail.gmail.com
>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CA%2B%3DVRdCuXOn5XBTr01ds6gDor5BiAC5-ihEmjsZ0ayjbwadTGA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>> .

>>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "HeatSync Labs" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to heatsynclabs...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion visit

>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CALmAu85jv-7-wPyxBmEWf1gh35A0PFqgF%3DYjgGKkfowAza40ug%40mail.gmail.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CALmAu85jv-7-wPyxBmEWf1gh35A0PFqgF%3DYjgGKkfowAza40ug%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>
>