“On the second ballot, Steve Gaines received 2,410 votes (49.96 percent) and J.D. Greear received 2,306 (47.80 percent). Some 108 illegal ballots were disallowed and prevented either candidate from receiving a majority.”
The way I calculate it three more votes for Gaines and he wins. Never seen this before…although there are always some goofballs who can’t get a ballot right.
I bet three Trads were gabbing in the bookstore and blew the election (but they would have had to drag a likeminded friend in to the hall to vote making four to get the majority).
For the record: here is the Tellers’ Report for #SBC16‘s 2nd Presidential ballot: pic.twitter.com/coJ2LrzBHO
— Barry McCarty (@barrymccarty) June 15, 2016
Is it unethical if I sit outside the convention tomorrow and offer Golden Corral gift cards to those willing to switch their vote to JDGreear ?
You think there is division now, if Greear gets more votes tomorrow, it will become a canyon. Honestly, he should concede for the sake of the convention.
Why?
What?? He was the leading vote getter on the first ballot. Why in the world should he resign?
With 2 in the race, unless you believe basically every miscast ballot goes to Greear, then Gaines had a majority. You think he had 106 of the 108 miscast ballots? Now a whole new electorate due to departures out decides it?
You don’t see how that will be an issue if he wins?
I am confused why the illegal votes count toward the majority. If that is in our constitution it should be changed. If JD Greear were to stand tomorrow and say it is obvious I lost the runoff (unless he believes 106 out of 108 of the illegal ballots were for Greear) and concede. He would be a hero to all and in 2 years could run unopposed.
You must get a majority of the total votes cast so they count them in that number. Since they were improperly marked, etc they can not count for a candidate.
I do not think that those who have found error with J.D. Greear or just do not like him will change their tune.
Louis, who has said anything about not liking JD? That is ridiculous comment. It is our policy but why do illegal votes count in a vote total?
Steve Gaines needed 3 votes to get a majority. Do you have any doubt that 3 out 106 were cast for Gaines?
I checked Robert’s rules of order last night.
Messed up ballots (called illegal ballots) are counted in the total for determining the needed count for a “majority”, but they don’t count toward any candidate.
If the SBC bylaws provided otherwise, the bylaws would govern.
But since the bylaws are silent, Roberts Rules govern.
That would be a worthy bylaw, IMO. Ballots too spoiled for the numerator should be too spoiled for the denominator.
I just do not get the hostility some people aim at Greear.
I agree.
You said that if Greear would not stand for tomorrow’s third ballot then he would be a hero. As I said there are some, how many I do not know, who will never see Greear as a hero. If in St Louis, I would have voted for him twice by now.
He had the most votes on the first ballot but not the second. Tomorrow is the rubber match. Hoepfully one of them can get the win.
I’d say the same thing if Gaines were in Greear’s position that Gaines should concede
That’s easy to say, now.
Tarheel, you doubt my sincerity? I’d have preferred Crosby over both. Anytime we’re talking about the details of RRO settling something, statesmanship is required. Technicalities in rules are not things that bring unity.
That we have a system that cannot produce a simple majority between two candidates is pretty flawed. Unless it’s a tie, which it was not
I’m not doubting your sincerity I’m just stating the obvious – it’s easy to say that.
No one likes rules – we never do – but rules are absolutely essential when dealing with depraved human beings. Correctly and consistently enforced rules – balance the playing field – even when it doesn’t seem like it.
The rules were applied correctly and consistently in this matter.
Neither candidate is under any compulsion moral or procedurally to withdraw – under the rules no one has won the election and there is still one ongoing.
Rules, when they get down to this sort of detail, I’ve found tend to bring out strong emotion and IMO will see stronger division. It’s why I feel statesmanship is required. For either, is it really that important to win?
Ok Louis, I thought you were putting me in that group. I apologize. I believe that both JD and Steve G have both been honored by the SBC and it is clear our convention had confidence in both.
Good. We have to meet one day. I think this is the second time we had a misunderstanding on this board.
It was a momentous day for the SBC today. Sure hope that the messenger leave unified tomorrow.
I won’t call Greear a hero, but it would not bother me one bit if he ran unopposed in 2018. The humble act of someone clearly looking to serve the greater good is something that should be noted and respected
I would like to know what the issue was with the illegal ballots. We were instructed to use ballot 15. I bet some used ballot 10 (the second ballot in the book).
So if the instruction tomorrow is to use ballot #10, will the illegals be out of luck? That is presuming that they used #10 today.
The ballot counters should know that ballot 10 was used by a lot of messengers and choose a different ballot.
Maybe we could print the ballots in different colors. 🙂
They could copy some airport parking garages and have a unique number, color, name and picture.
“Use ballot #15, colored blue, named Criswell and showing a pair of cowboy boots.”
I think the different colored ballots is a workable idea. Why not? Use the lime
green ballot.
I don’t dispute the ruling, just the rule, and I know my quarrel here is with Roberts Rules, but I just don’t get it. If the ballot is too spoiled to be counted among either of the two numerators, then why is it not too spoiled to be counted in the denominator?
If JD were 3 votes from winning, I suspect you’d be championing ol’ Bob and his rules with gusto. Barry can’t chose side and apply the rules that way. He just has to follow the rules.
I agree with you that Barry is just following the rules, Mr. President. (Congrats again!)
Out of properly cast ballots, the vote was 2,410 > 2,306 for Gaines over Greear. Gaines was only three votes short—even with this rule.
And you’re right. I’m partisan, just like I was during Bush-Gore Chadgate in 2000. But I still think the rule should be changed, just like I want the NFL to say that Dez caught that ball against the Packers. A catch should be a catch even if my opponent benefits.
Maube people should’ve started arguing yesterday:
“Under the first Ballot Greear won – it’s a bad rule to require 50% plus one – he had the majority he should be president!!! Free Scott from the green room! “
TOTALLY different issue, Tarheel. By Roberts Rules, a runoff was required after the first ballot. I am not at all disputing the 50% plus one rule for either of the two ballots.
I believe Gaines may have achieved 50% plus one in the runoff, IF we make the appropriate classification distinguishing BLANK ballots from ILLEGAL ones. The time to correct that ruling, if necessary, is now, BEFORE we conduct a third vote.
No it’s not different – in the hypothetical argument that I posted – that would people be people “howling about the stupidity of the road and saying look he had a majority of the votes cast therefore he should be president – we should do away with the 50% plus one rule because it’s stupid.”
What many have done is argue that game should be declared the winner apart from the existing rules.
If gaines wins on the third ballot he will be our president we will move on …. there will not be any handwringing that will not be any accusations of tricky play there will not be anything like that – will you make the same promise if Greear wins?
*of the rule (not road) ….
I fully support the 50% plus one rule and believe it should be applied properly according to Roberts Rules. *Improper* ballots are not *illegal* ballots, by rule.
People have always complained about the instructions that require non-sequential ballots to be used. I suppose the reasoning is that this reduces errors. I recall that at my state convention the ballots were used according to their normal sequence.
No need for anyone to concede. Gaines didn’t get a majority according to the rules. You guys vote again. Pay attention and follow the clear directions this time and don’t mess it up.
It would be disappointing if the supporters of either candidate were so heavily invested in the outcome that they were poor losers. I like Greear but Gaines should be fine if the messengers choose him.
The use of non-sequential ballots and the use of non-sequential numbers on the ballot are important requirements for many reasons. One of them is that it completely prevents people from marking ballots ahead of time. Our rules require that messengers be present to vote.
I am now hearing that there may be a challenge to yesterday’s results. The issue, as I understand it, involves a distinction between a “Blank” ballot and an “Illegal” ballot.
The latter is a proper ballot in which it is impossible to determine which way the person voted—they partially marked two boxes, for example.
The former would be the case where the wrong ballot number was used in the first place—making the ballot ITSELF disqualified, before the intent of the voter could ever be determined one way or the other.
Under Roberts Rules, I understand *blank* ballots are indeed thrown out and not counted in the total. Only *Illegal* ballots (properly used ballots for which the voter intent cannot be determined) are supposed to count in the total.
It may be ruled out of order or dismissed or whatever, but an argument is going to be made that we do not need to conduct a third vote today—IF throwing out the wrong numbered ballots provides a 50% plus one margin for Gaines.
Now that would set the place on fire. Here is your headline:
“Gaines declared winner on controversial ruling.”
There would never be a time when his election would not be remembered as the direct result of a challenge and a controversial ruling. I’ve said all along, any of the three would be fine. If it comes this way it would be less than fine.
Gaines should put a stop to any challenge that would have messengers showing up expecting to vote and Being told they can’t vote.
Believe me, if Gaines does not win today, the 2,410 will always consider the 2,306 to have stolen the election like Al Gore tried to do in 2000. So that controversial ruling idea will exist in one direction or the other, William.
There is still time to render a ruling on yesterday’s runoff that is correct according to Roberts Rules. IF a significant portion of the ballots classified as ILLEGAL and counted toward the total *should have been* classified as BLANK and discounted toward the total, by virtue of the fact that the wrong numbered ballot was used and not the right ballot indeterminately marked, then Steve Gaines won the election yesterday, according to the rules.
It all hinges on those 108 ballots and whether they are to be considered BLANK or ILLEGAL.
Thankfully, JD had more class than those you mentioned.
I just hope that the next nonsequential ballot used is not the one that most of the 108 people incorrectly used resulting in disqualification.
Hahaha.
I just read a stat on Jared Wilson’s twitter that Gaines’ church has 29,936 members w/ 6801 Wkly Attendance whereas the Summit (Greear) 5315 Members w/ 7186 Wkly Attendance. Assuming this is true, I think those are very important stats to consider.
Why are they important stats to consider?
Rick, if those 2,306 assume a “stolen election” it will be a commentary on them and not the process. We are all Southern Baptists and not hostile parties.
So true, scotty
JD Greear withdraws! Class act by JD.
Anyone who thinks the young reformed guys are dividing the convention…please go see what J.D. Greear just did. Amazing.
I think both Steve Gaines and JD were a class act. I was very moved. This has been an emotional convention!
Praise God for Greear’s humble act. It was a very honorable thing for him to do and will bring unity rather than division.
You saw the contrast between those of goodwill like JD and the conspiracy theory types who throw tantrums and hold grudges – those Rick referenced above.
Thankfully, those of goodwill prevailed
Greear showed himself a true leader today
Yes
By the way, I believe, and others can tell you I stated this on message boards, that Gaines would have been gracious had he lost.
I’m sorry Rick identified a group planning NOT to be gracious, but I’m confident that Gaines would have been so.
To clarify, I believe those people would have been gracious if Gaines had actually lost according to the rules.
They would only have felt cheated if Gaines had actually won but was instead declared to be the loser erroneously due to a misapplication of Roberts Rules.
In other words had there been no need to be gracious and assume the best of their brothers in Christ then this group would have been happy to be gracious.
No, that’s not it at all, Mike. I assume the best of our brothers, goodness. I am saying Gaines’ supporters would have been gracious losers IF he had lost.
But at least some of us think he actually won, and they screwed up the ruling by inappropriately classifying some of the ballots as ILLEGAL when in fact they were merely IMPROPER and should have been thrown out as BLANKS. If Greear had then won in the subsequent vote, there would then have been challenges, I believe, and a sense of injustice…not toward anyone personally, as in anger, bad attitudes, poor sportsmanship, etc., directed at Greear or other brothers in Christ, but just the sense that the proper procedures were not followed…a sense of unfairness in the ruling.
I’ve looked at several summaries of Roberts Rules today. There are several examples of ILLEGAL ballots, which are proper ballots for which the voter intent was ambiguous. NONE of these examples mention the use of the wrong ballot to begin with, which should arguably be viewed as a BLANK ballot or an IMPROPER ballot. These are treated differently. They are, in fact, thrown out.
As a matter of fact, not rule, I do not know how many of the 108 ballots were the wrong number and how many were merely marked unclearly. But since Gaines only needed to pick up 3 more votes for the win, it is entirely feasible that the proper application of Roberts Rules would have given Gaines the victory outright.
Again, now the point is moot. But my argument is not at all against Greear or his supporters, but rather it regards a possible parliamentary rule misapplication.
The point is moot now. Greear has been gracious. I am thankful the convention was spared such a difficult controversy. I thank God for JD Greear.
Amen, Mr. president Miller.
I gotta say – my respect for both Steve gaines and JD Greear has been elevated.
Dr. Greer while under no requirement to do so conceded – and Dr. Gaines under no requirement to do so was also considering doing the same thing.
As I’ve said I do not think either was under moral or procedural compulsion to do so – it would not have been wrong or sinful or conspiratorial to go ahead with a third ballot – but I’m glad they did what they did.
I hope the spirit of unity That was so evident and genuine on that stage continues.
I for one pledge my prayer support for Dr. Gaines as he leads the convention for the next year.
To God alone be the glory.
Dave, I love you, brother, but it is not at all a tantrum to raise a point of parliamentary order. IF, and this is a big IF, but IF there is indeed a true Roberts Rules distinction between *improper* ballots and *illegal* ballots, then it is *possible* Gaines should have been declared the winner yesterday, all completely according to the rules.
It’s a moot point now, thanks to Greear’s graceful withdrawal. But please don’t attribute “tantrum” attitudes to those of us who believe the election may have been legitimately won by Gaines yesterday.
Blessings upon you as you get that Pastors Conference ready fir Phoenix.
JD’s grace and statesmanship should put to bed all the T fears of a C takeover.
It won’t, but it should.
RIck!
Dr. Floyd clearly and unequivocally said that the 108 ballots were invalid and explained why they were counted in the whole – but not credited to either candidate. He made no mention of blank ballots.
I doubt very seriously there were any “blank ballots” at all but if there were they were not counted in the tally from which a majority was required to win. People often mark the wrong box – or use the wrong numbered ballot – or perhaps otherwise not follow instructions given REPEATEDLY from the dais.
I frankly am not sure how 108 people screwed up and submitted invalid ballots anyway….I honestly get tired of hearing the secretary of the convention and the President repeat the same thing 15 times.
Not sure Dr. Floyd could have possibly been more clear as to how to fill out the ballot and he could not have been more clear as to why a winner COULD NOT be declared on the second ballot.
You and whomever your cohorts are were clearly planning to play parliamentary games and essentially stage a whinefest if your candidate lost on the a third ballot had there been one.
I agree with Miller and others, I think Dr. Gaines would have demonstrated grace had he lost on ballot three – shown by the fact that he himself was willing concede to Greear after ballot 2. My respect for Steve Gaines and JD Greear has multiplied exponentially many times over because of the grace they have shown.
I am beyond pleased to see that Gaines and Greear unified for the good of the convention and our mission – and in an added benefit that I also thank them both for they short circuited your whinefest.
Greear is a clear winner in this and it surprises no one that Gaines won the election. Pretty good result, all in all.
I’m afraid, though, that it took only about 12 hours to expose Rick and cohorts with the potential challenge which would have been disastrous. My conjecture is that this kind of tactic would wear very thin very quickly.
Best I can see, Gaines doesn’t have a stealth agenda. Greear didn’t have one. But it is all too clear that the anti-cals have one.
I personally am not a fan of Dr. Gaines. So I don’t have a dog in this hunt. Having said that I really think that the derogatory comments directed at Rick are ridiculous. Why should ballots that are not counted as votes be counted toward the total? The right of challenge is a parliamentary right and there is nothing underhanded about it. So please quit accusing people of having no class or trying to cause trouble. Perhaps some of you should actually demonstrate some of that grace that both Greear and Gaines have displayed.
John,
I would have voted for Crosby on the first ballot and Greear on the second/third had I been able to make it to the convention…Rick knows what the rules are and the parliamentarian is man of integrity and has been doing it for many years and I am pretty sure is NOT A CAL.
Rick is intimating not so subtly that there was “allegedly” a conspiracy afoot and the counters counted some mysterious alleged “blank ballots” in the total.
Yet another divisive propagation of a non existent conspiracy theory from Rick and the gang – it is getting old.
Rick: You do get that Gaines was thinking of withdrawing as well don’t you? Come on. Thankfully you did not get the chance for your display. Between the one the scene that Pressler presented and the one you guys were getting ready to do, the spirit of the convention would have been tainted. Fortunately God is in control. Still. 🙂
Debbie, yes, I heard that Steve was also considering this gracious gesture. Both of these men desired us to leave St. Louis without discord. I thank God for both of them.
Regarding, “the one you guys were getting ready to do,” I had absolutely no plans to go to a microphone and raise the parliamentary question. I did, however, hear people discussing it, and I think it is a point that deserved consideration.
As things turned out, such was not necessary. Praise God. Blessings upon all.
Tarheel: “…not so subtly that there was ‘allegedly’ a conspiracy afoot…”
No, I am talking about what I consider MIGHT have been a simple *parliamentary error.* No intent was implied. There is a categorical difference between a conspiracy and a simple error.
Tarheel said “Yet another divisive propagation…”
Really seems the unsupported assumptions being hurled at Rick Patrick fit the term “divisive” a lot more than any parliamentary challenge.
“Assumptions” are supported by repeated history and consistent predictability.
I missed David Platts and Ezell’s presentation. Can someone give me the highlights?
William: “Best I can see, Gaines doesn’t have a stealth agenda. Greear didn’t have one. But it is all too clear that the anti-cals have one.”
William, I have an agenda, but it is not stealth. I have published it. It is called “The Transparency Agenda.” You are free to charge me with having an agenda. You are not correct to say that it is a stealth agenda.
http://sbctoday.com/unity-through-transparency-agenda/
Baptist 21 interview with J.D. Greear
https://vimeo.com/170857520