2/3 Vote

[Guest Y. Wood]

An organization I am involved in is having a discussion on the 2/3 vote.  One member has argued that "an amendment’s passage would require two-thirds of the membership to vote in the affirmative."  Which to him means that 2/3 of the membership must vote in the affirmative.  In the extreme he may hold that of the 1800 members, 1200 must vote yes.  And if 1200 of the 1800 vote and 1199 vote affirmative that might not be enough.    My thought is that all (or at least a high reasonable effort) of members must be given a ballot/opportunity to vote and that of those who vote 2/3 must vote in the affirmative.  A member has found a reference below and it seems to agree.  Are we correct?

 

Another has found

Page 592, paragraph 1) does state the requirements should include notice and a two-thirds vote, with an allowable alterative of  a majority of the entire membership, but also refers or directs readers to - 

 

Pages 580-582, where on page 582, lines 15 -20, RROA clearly states that the expression "a vote of two-thirds of the members" should never be used because two thirds of the entire membership would rarely, if ever, be present or available, and it is more reasonable to require (the term we have all been quoting and using, of) "a two-thirds vote" and directs the reader to -

 

Pages 401-402, where under the major heading of Two-Thirds Vote, it is defined as "at least two-thirds of the votes cast by persons entitled to vote, excluding blanks and abstentions..." with examples to illustrate the two-thirds ratio results of votes cast.

 

However, the first is still questioning the interpretation to forestall a possible change in the bylaws.   

[Joshua Katz]

The rules for amending the bylaws in RONR calls for a 2/3 vote (and previous notice), not a vote of 2/3 of the membership.  It requires that, of the votes cast, twice as many be in the affirmative as in the negative.  If your organization has its own rules for amending your bylaws, and they word the requirement differently, then that is what would apply within your organization, and it may differ from RONR.

Edited to make explicit that previous notice and a 2/3 vote is required.

[Y. Wood]

thanks, are bylaws state that we use RONR in this case

[Kim Goldsworthy]

1 hour ago, Guest Y. Wood said:

An organization I am involved in is having a discussion on the 2/3 vote.  

...

Are we correct?

...

However, the first is still questioning the interpretation to forestall a possible change in the bylaws.   

Instead of giving other people's arguments, why didn't you just post the actual language of your rule?

The wording of your rule may or may not be worded consistently with the language of Robert's Rules of Order (the recommended wording given in The Book on the page which describes the various vote percentages).

Paraphrases won't do. -- I doubt that your original language says this:

>> "an amendment’s passage would require two-thirds of the membership to vote in the affirmative."

(No bylaw would have its method of amendment with the auxiliary verb "would".)