In our series on Practical Ideas to Increase Voter Turnout, one of the ways that organizations are making it easier for voters to vote is to build a single-sign-on system that connects your members-only website with your online ballot. A single-sign-on system streamlines the online voting process by allowing voters to use familiar logins and passwords without having to memorize new information or enter a completely different system.

This helps cut down on things a voter has to keep track of and takes away a potential barrier to voting. An advanced online voting software provider (like Votenet, if we may be honest) will integrate with your organization’s association management system (AMS), connecting the voting process with the database of members and potential voters. That way voters can login through a familiar system and immediately connect with the electronic ballot.

According to Wikipedia, benefits of using a single sign-on system include:

• Reducing opportunities for phishing because users are not trained to enter password everywhere without thinking
• Reducing password fatigue from different user name and password combinations
• Reducing time spent re-entering passwords for the same identity
• Reducing IT costs due to lower number of IT help desk calls about passwords
• Security on all levels of entry/exit/access to systems without the inconvenience of re-prompting users
• Centralized reporting for compliance adherence as well as website traffic monitoring

The bottom line is that organizations need to reduce as many barriers to voting as possible, including the hoops voters need to jump through before voting. How do you streamline the voting process for your voters?

Our Guest Blogger, Leah Cohen Chatinover, is of counsel at Stanger & Arnold, LLP in West Hartford, Connecticut.  She represents nonprofit organizations of all types and can be reached at lchatinover@stangerlaw.com or through her website ct-nonprofitlaw.com. This article is not a substitute for legal advice, and you should contact your attorney with specific questions.

Part Two of Two. Read Part One here.

Statutory Alternatives

In our example (see previous post), Playball’s attorney tired to implement the statutory exceptions to the requirement that directors meet in person. These exceptions can be easily adapted as modern technology progresses and should be incorporated into an organization’s bylaws.

Statutes typically allow meetings to be conducted by any means of communication as long as everyone may simultaneously hear each other.

Statutes typically also permit a board to act by unanimous written consent, if each director signs a consent describing the action to be taken. A director may compel a meeting to discuss an issue simply by withholding consent.

Combining the formality of a unanimous written consent with the simplicity of e-mail, an organization may circulate the proposed resolution as a formal consent attached to an e-mail. The organization must then collect all of the directors’ signatures. In many states, the consent may be signed electronically – \\John H. Smith\\ – for example, and delivered electronically – as a PDF attached to an e-mail.

The distinction between a formal consent attached to an e-mail, and an e-mailed poll of the board may seem inconsequential. But, note three important differences: (1) all directors must vote unanimously (2) the directors must receive a complete description of the proposed resolution and (3) they must “sign” the consent. Read the rest of this entry →

Our Guest Blogger, Leah Cohen Chatinover, is of counsel at Stanger & Arnold, LLP in West Hartford, Connecticut.  She represents nonprofit organizations of all types and can be reached at lchatinover@stangerlaw.com or through her website ct-nonprofitlaw.com. This article is not a substitute for legal advice, and you should contact your attorney with specific questions.

Part One of Two

E-mail, Facebook, Twitter . . .  the diverse modes of electronic communication have exploded over recent years. We are now able to communicate faster, cheaper and with more people simultaneously than ever before.

To busy nonprofit directors, whose schedules make board meetings seem like a luxury, a new trend in nonprofit governance has surfaced that may run afoul of the law – “voting” by e-mail.

This seems like the perfect solution. An issue or opportunity arises that calls for quick response. Directors are reluctant to attend extra meetings. Why not circulate an e-mail, ascertain that there is general agreement and take action?

The ease and speed of e-mail voting is seductively simple. But, this practice is a trap because a board that relies on e-mail voting fails to comply with legal requirements for a proper vote and exposes its decisions to attack. Nonprofit corporate statutes typically provide for board action to be taken either at a meeting (including a meeting by phone or video conference) or by unanimous written consent. Since an e-mail vote technically does not fit either category, a court could consider an e-mail vote nothing more than informal action, which is not legally valid. Even more likely, an attorney representing a nonprofit organization in a loan transaction might not be able to issue the “opinion of counsel” typically required by a lender. This could delay or derail an entire deal.

Let’s take an example. . . Read the rest of this entry →

A recent article in ASAE’s Associations Now magazine shared 33 Simple Ways to Build Member Loyalty. The list is well worth reading, and a few of their tips stand out in our world as great ways to engage members for the long haul. Here’s our take on a handful of tips:

• Tip #7: Ask Questions
  The authors advise associations to collect feedback from members on their needs, concerns, interests and views. Many associations with whom we work use online voting software to provide a secure, tamper-proof method for advisory voting and other polls. (Read “Online Voting Vs. Online Surveys: There Is a Difference“)
• Tip #19: Get Things Done Efficiently
  When it comes to voting for board elections, bylaw revisions and other propositions, members hate hassle. They want to be able to vote online with a seamless, integrated system that doesn’t involve multiple passwords and other roadblocks.
• Tip #20: Be Honest
  If an election or voting event has even a hint of scandal, you lose the trust of your voters. A verified, third-party online voting system can make your election tamper proof and scandal free.
• Tip #27: Personalize Your Communications
  Members don’t feel special when your invitation to participate in an election is addressed to “DEAR MEMBER.” Personalize your emails to make sure your members know the invitation is just for them, complete with their unique link for voting as well as username and password. In addition, you should make sure that your ballots can be customized to member types. (Read about the American Anthropological Association’s custom ballots here.)
• Tip #32: Acknowledge Achievements
  Your members work hard in their industries, and many associations offer awards for outstanding work. Simplify the process with an online contest/award management system that makes recognizing members easy.

What do you do to increase member loyalty? How has it affected your retention rate?

Does your organization provide a type of election guide to help voters determine which candidates are more closely aligned with their views?

In the U.S., voters in political elections have often relied on leaflets and online information from organizations such as the League of Women Voters that offer summaries of candidates’ stands on major issues as well as explanations of other important votes. Voters have to read through the information to determine which candidate best represents his or her viewpoints.

But in the United Kingdom, India, Peru, Greece and other countries, voting advice applications (VAAs) offer a much more guided path to helping voters choose the right candidates. The systems, like this one for an upcoming election in Kerala, ask voters to rate a series of statements that indicate their views on a variety of topics, such as “Seats should be reserved for women in the state legislative assembly” and “The government should impose more tax on high income earners to reduce the gap between rich and poor.” The application correlates the responses with information from the candidates and recommends the best matches.

Follow-up research regarding the 2007 Swiss federal elections revealed that VAAs have a positive impact on voter turnout overall, and people who took the quizzes were more motivated to vote, especially younger voters. But VAAs can present challenges as well. Read the rest of this entry →

When an active association in the health care industry assigned an inhouse IT director to build an online voting system for their 2,000 members a decade ago, the members embraced the change. But in the next few years, the association doubled in size and the IT director moved on, and the staff discovered they lacked the time and knowledge to maintain the system.

Losing key staff to manage an inhouse online voting system is just one challenge organizations face when they try to use internal resources for their system. In fact, organizations often don’t realize the risk they’re taking when they don’t outsource the project.

Here’s our list of the top four reasons your organization should find a reliable online voting vendor for their elections and other voting events: Read the rest of this entry →

Ordinarily here at Voting 2.0 we stay away from talking specifically about Votenet-specific features, but a recent event has organizations asking a critical question: “If hackers can penetrate a government online election, can Votenet keep our organization’s voting event secure?”

In late 2010, the District of Columbia rolled out a pilot project to allow overseas and military voters to download and return absentee ballots over the internet. Before they sent invitations to real voters, they put the system online to invite the public to evaluate the system’s security and usability.

Within 36 hours, a team of hackers from the University of Michigan exploited a vulnerability that gave the students the ability to change votes and reveal secret ballots. The hack made headlines around the country when the students left a “calling card” to show that they had control of the server: after 15 seconds, the page played the University of Michigan fight song.

So how is Votenet’s system more secure? The leading security expert at The Hyperion Group noted that the pilot voting program and Votenet’s certified system have little in common. Read the rest of this entry →