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!" -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
