Elections Structure

[pshsx1]

Just so we don't take over the thread about chapter meeting length, let's discuss elections here!!

I'm thinking maybe your structure, what positions you elect, and how long they go. Add more or less as you see fit.

We elect our Executive Board and our Standards Board all in one night. That lasts about 5-8 hours, depending on how many people are running. Total, that's 11 positions (President, VP of Finance, VP of Programming, VP of Recruitment, VP of Member Development, Chaplain, VP of Communications, Senior Marshall, Junior Marshall, Guide, Guard).

Also, after each round of speeches, we have an open discussion about the candidates, followed by voting. We use plurality to narrow the candidates down to two and offer a clear majority. In the case of a tie, the President decides, although the E-Board is allowed to offer their opinions.

[Senusret I]

My APO chapter is the same way. They definitely plan for a half-day meeting.

My Alpha chapter uses a nominating committee.

[Senusret I]

I want to add that I think open discussions are a terrible idea and I hate them.

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

I want to add that I think open discussions are a terrible idea and I hate them.

This. Unless it's an SEC redonkahuge chapter, you probably already have your opinions of the candidates formed, and nothing is really going to change that.

I'm a big fan of slating, and if the committe does their job right, it should be a one vote & done thing.

[Psi U MC Vito]

In my chapter we spread out the process. Two rounds of nomination, then on the third meeting we would have all the canidates make a speech and then vote. It could sometimes take a while because we have a trickle down system, and once a year we have the votes for the E-board which is six people in addition to the other 6? committee chairs.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

This. Unless it's an SEC redonkahuge chapter, you probably already have your opinions of the candidates formed, and nothing is really going to change that.

I'm a big fan of slating, and if the committe does their job right, it should be a one vote & done thing.

Slating can mean a lot of different things. I think that the kind where people can't run if they aren't slated is a terrible idea, and I've seen it misused more than once.

I agree, though, that nobody is changing their minds based on open discussion.

In my mind, it's more like: candidates give speeches, 3 questions MAX, vote, revote if necessary.

Also, the year I ran elections, I asked someone to move to white ballot for the uncontested positions. One of the women was angry that she didn't get to give her prepared speech.

[jazing]

We only elect E-Board, Social Chair, Pledgemaster, and Rush Chair. Otherwise you apply for a position, making elections much shorter. Still it takes over 2 hours when everything is up for election.

[Kevin]

Our undergraduate brothers are allowed to write their chapters' bylaws however they wish in order to hold elections in the best way for their own chapter. My chapters rules change several times a year. Some good ideas are incorporated, some bad. I can't complain about the results though. I don't think slating is a great idea. At least not for us. Democracy increases buy-in.

[IUHoosiergirl88]

My chapter personally slates, so elections taking awhile is merely to count votes.

My bf's fraternity, on the contrary, let's anyone who wants to run run and every candidate gives a speech, followed by discussion. This is for everything from President to tailgate chair (yes, tailgate chair). They're a very 'discussion happy' group.

[DubaiSis]

Unless it's changed, we do a slate, which can be contested (if that's the right word - you're welcome to run against the slated woman for any office). In my experience there were usually one or two positions that had an election. My opinion of slate has changed over the years. As long as the slate committee is after the best interests of the chapter I think it can minimize a lot of negativity and stress in the chapter. While in college I wished we would just be more up front about who was interested in what jobs and campaign directly as opposed to being sort of back-office politics.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by DubaiSis

My opinion of slate has changed over the years. As long as the slate committee is after the best interests of the chapter I think it can minimize a lot of negativity and stress in the chapter. While in college I wished we would just be more up front about who was interested in what jobs and campaign directly as opposed to being sort of back-office politics.

I think there are so many variables in slating:

1) Do women formally express interest, or does the slating committee just pick people?

2) Does the slating committee pick only one per office?

3) Can a woman run against the slated candidate?

4) How is the slating committee picked?

These are all things that can make it good or bad, so I'm curious what people mean when they say "slating".

[Gusteau]

If you're meetings are crazy long (and boy have I been there) a good practice is to limit discussion to two pros and two cons about each person running. If people have less to say that's fine, but having more than that is where you run into your 5+ hour meetings.

And for your politicians in the making, ensure they understand that a pro is, "Joe is qualified for treasurer because he has interned with an accounting firm for the past two years" not, "Joe is qualified because...[ten minute speech]"

[Titchou]

We only elect 10 officers. The rest are appointed. For the 10 ( Chapter Management Team or CMT) we slate. Certain officers are autonmatically on the Nom Comm. The slate must be approved by the chapter adviser and anyone running from the floor (write in candidate) must also have her approval ( to make sure they meet certain Fraternity directed requirements). The it's a simple vote by the chapter - no speeches. So elections only last a few minutes.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Gusteau

If you're meetings are crazy long (and boy have I been there) a good practice is to limit discussion to two pros and two cons about each person running. If people have less to say that's fine, but having more than that is where you run into your 5+ hour meetings.

And for your politicians in the making, ensure they understand that a pro is, "Joe is qualified for treasurer because he has interned with an accounting firm for the past two years" not, "Joe is qualified because...[ten minute speech]"

Right now, we have a nomination speech, (short) and then a max 5 minute speech by the candidate. Motions for extension of time are recognized by the chair and strict Robert's Rules are enforced. When the candidates leave, we have discussion, limited to a certain amount of time. Members are allowed equal time to speak on behalf of each candidate and are recognized by order of initiation (lowest badge first). Motions to extend time are recognized by the chair as are motions to close discussion (for each candidate).

You stick to strict Parliamentary Procedure and with 5-6 offices to fill, you're out of there in under 2 hours. Typically, the President will pass off the gavel to an alumnus to run the election meeting and to assist in counting the ballots. For the last few years, that's been the chapter adviser. This is so the outgoing President doesn't have to be impartial in discussions as this is somewhere his impartiality is invaluable.

That system is subject to change though as our brothers see fit. Our HQ doesn't impose any sort of system on us.

[AGDee]

Interesting stuff. Without too much detail, we have up to 26 elected positions (which can be collapsed if chapters are small), no campaigning, no discussion, ballot votes- one office at a time. For large chapters, I'm sure this is really time consuming. For small chapters, it's pretty quick (because they might only have 6 -10 officers and there are fewer ballots to count for each office). We have a very, very detailed process that starts several weeks before the actual election during which time sisters can express interest, nominate each other and a ballot is created.