[EM] election-methods Digest, Vol 19, Issue 4

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 09:28 PM 1/14/2006, PROUT - Progressive Utilisation wrote:
>The context is simply that there are say 60 people in a room - all present -
>and all entitled to vote. All are members of an organisation or association.
>
>30 abstain
>20 vote yes
>10 vote no
>
>I believe as they are all entitled to vote and the majority do not have the
>the yes votes, it means the motion/matter is not carried.

This would not ordinarily be the case, unless there were some special rule.

"When a quorum [<http://www.rulesonline.com/rror-11.htm#64>64] is 
present, a majority vote, that is a majority of the votes cast, 
ignoring blanks, is sufficient for the adoption of any motion that is 
in order, except those mentioned in 
<http://www.rulesonline.com/rror-08.htm#48>48, which require a 
two-thirds vote. A plurality never adopts a motion nor elects any one 
to office, unless by virtue of a special rule previously adopted." 
[Roberts Rules, 4th edition?]

"Majority" does mean "majority of votes cast," i.e., ignoring 
abstentions and absences, provided that a quorum has been met and 
that no other rule specially requires something different.

It should be noted that I can't recall, in all the votes I've seen in 
meetings using formal procedure, that high a level of abstention. 
There are a number of possibilities, but the most obvious would be 
that half the members really did not care which way the matter turned 
out. However, there are others. Perhaps half were distracted. In 
which case any one of them, disliking the declared outcome, could 
immediately request a division. (And, disliking the division, could 
request a count, which is technically an additional step.)

I see no hazard in this. I *do* prefer to see organizations, 
generally, take the trouble to find consensus, which apparently was 
not reached in the example given, but it may well be, with that high 
a level of abstention, that the matter simply was not important 
enough to merit. Certainly if the losing side were upset, they would 
ordinarily have recourse.

The matter of quorum is more serious and potentially more open to abuse.

Treating abstentions as "No" seems to me a limitation on the freedom 
of members. Indeed, if abstentions are "No," a member could use this 
to avoid responsibility; the member might be opposed to a motion but 
wishes to pretend neutrality, being able to later claim "I didn't 
vote against it!"