Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'majority'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • RONR Message Board – Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised
    • General Discussion
    • Advanced Discussion
    • The Robert’s Rules Website
  • About the Message Board
    • Questions or Comments about the Message Board
  • Archive
    • Archived Discussions (2010)

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Location:


Interests

Found 4 results

  1. The charters of student councils and the constitution of the Central Student Government both have provisions similar to "...approved by a simple majority vote of the assembly sitting en banc." There are no other modifiers other than "simple" and "en banc." Does "the majority sitting en banc" mean the majority of the entire membership, of those present, or of those voting?
  2. Our homeowners association uses cumulative voting and also allows for voting by proxy. For the election of board members, an association meeting is required. Quorum is a majority of owners by percentage of common interests. Every year at least three seats on the board are open; there are a total of nine seats. To be elected, a board member must have the majority of votes. This year, we have three open seats and six candidates. If 51% of owners are present in person or by proxy and satisfy the quorum requirements, then is 3 (seats) x 51 (percent present) equal to the number of total possible votes? What is the threshold that a candidate must meet to be seated? More than (3 x 51) divided by 2, or more than 76.5? If not, what is your calculation please? Since only one candidate can have the majority of votes, does this process then require at least two more re-votes to fill the remaining two seats, assuming that a candidate was seated in the first vote?
  3. The term "majority of a quorum" baffles me. It seems (1) redundant and (2) ambiguous. Redundant because a vote cannot be taken without a quorum present so why specify "majority of a quorum?" Ambiguous because it would seem to be subject to interpretation. Suppose an organization has 24 member and the bylaws state that 25% of the membership constitutes a quorum. Then 6 members would make up a quorum and 4 would be a majority of a quorum. Then suppose 20 members are present for the vote. A majority of those present would now be 11. Now 16 people vote in favor of the motion and 4 oppose. A majority of a quorum opposed. Does the motion fail? That's silly, of course, but in a world where millions of dollars can rest on the presence or absence of an "Oxford comma," it seems strange to use an ambiguous and redundant phrase. Any comments?
  4. We are to elect 3 members at large. 6 candidates are running. Our bylaws require that all positions must be won by a majority of votes cast. Because there are three positions, each member may cast three votes. Let's say 1 of the 6 achieves a majority in the first round of voting: do we have another roun with all 5 who did not make the threshold, or is the lowest vote-getter eliminated? Is the answer different if 2 of the six achieves majority the first time through? There is a clause in our bylaws that states that if no one receives a majority, then the top two candidates go to a second round, but that presumes three or more people vying for a single position instead of three slots, which is what we have here.
×
×
  • Create New...