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

[Dave Ketchum]

Robert's Rules is now in its 10th (2000) edition.

DWK

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 21:55:22 -0500 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

> 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!"

-- 
 davek at clarityconnect.com    people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
 Dave Ketchum   108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY  13827-1708   607-687-5026
           Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
                 If you want peace, work for justice.



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com