Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Unanimous if some abstain?


pdarrow@jollyfarmer.com

Recommended Posts

I'm wondering if anyone can tell me if I can say that a vote is unanimous if all votes cast were YES, but a few did not vote at all?  Is that considered unanimous?  So, a motion has 50 Yes vote, zero no votes, and 5 abstained.  Unanimous?

Thanks!

 

You could say it, without undue fear of contradiction, but if a motion passes unanimously, or passsd by a scant one-vote margin, the result is the same--it passes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks to those who replied.  I realize there is no question the item passed, but since it was an important issue to the participants, it was really nice to think it passed unanimously.  Later the chairman told me that some abstained, so I was trying to figure out if we could still say it was unanimous.  I gather yes.  Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And in case there may be any confusion caused by the last post, "unanimous consent" is not the same as a unanimous vote. 

 

Unanimous consent is used in cases of routine business or questions of little importance and is a procedure used instead of a vote (see RONR 11th ed., p. 54). 

 

RONR does not have any requirements for a unanimous vote, so the significance of such a vote is up to the members and the organization to interpret.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RONR does not have any requirements for a unanimous vote, so the significance of such a vote is up to the members and the organization to interpret.

 

Well, it does have one:  A motion to "make unanimous" the results of a vote taken by ballot must itself be voted on by ballot and must be unanimous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeez, I could have sworn I had read that recently in RONR. but now I can't find it.

 

In ROR (1915), it does say, on page 203:  

 

When the election is not by ballot and there are several candidates one of whom receives a majority vote, sometimes a motion is made to make the vote unanimous. It should never be made except by the candidate with the largest number of votes after the successful one, or his representative, and even then its propriety is doubtful. One negative vote defeats a motion to make a vote unanimous, as a single objection defeats a request for general consent.

 

Has that been rescinded?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A motion to make unanimous a ballot vote that was not unanimous is thus out of order, unless that motion is also voted on by ballot - since any member who openly votes against declaring the first vote unanimous will thereby reveal that he did not vote for the prevailing choice." (p.413, ll. 4-9).

 

Apparently a unanimous vote to make the first vote unanimous is not required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A motion to make unanimous a ballot vote that was not unanimous is thus out of order, unless that motion is also voted on by ballot - since any member who openly votes against declaring the first vote unanimous will thereby reveal that he did not vote for the prevailing choice." (p.413, ll. 4-9).

 

Apparently a unanimous vote to make the first vote unanimous is not required.

 

Of course a unanimous vote is required to make a vote unanimous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A motion to make unanimous a ballot vote that was not unanimous is thus out of order, unless that motion is also voted on by ballot - since any member who openly votes against declaring the first vote unanimous will thereby reveal that he did not vote for the prevailing choice." (p.413, ll. 4-9).

 

Apparently a unanimous vote to make the first vote unanimous is not required.

Bruce, that seems to defy logic.  You can't make something unanimous that isn't unanimous.  It seems to me that a single no vote would defeat it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it actually stated somewhere in RONR 11 that a vote to make unanimous a ballot vote that was not must be unanimous, as it was, according to Gary's post, in ROR of 1915?

If it is in the 11th edition, I have not found it. 

 

Gary's quote from page 203 of the 1915 edition of ROR (Robert's Rules  of Order Revised) is accurate. 

 

Making a vote unanimous is mentioned in at least three places in ROR.  The first (that I found) is on page 194 (in section 46) where it says:  "Thus, it is out of order to move that one person cast the ballot of the assembly for a certain person when the bylaws require the vote to be by ballot.  So, when the ballot is not unanimous, it is out of order to move to make the vote unanimous, unless the motion is voted on by ballot so as to allow members to vote against it in secrecy".  Note that the quoted provision says nothing about the vote to make the vote unanimous having to itself be unanimous.  However, common sense and the provision from page 203, even though referring to making a voice vote unanimous, both indicate to me that such a vote must be unanimous.

 

The second reference is on page 202 where it says, "Thus, when the rules require the vote to be by ballot, as is usual in elections to office or membership, this rule cannot be suspended even by general consent, because no one can object without exposing his vote, which he cannot be compelled to do.  When the election must be by ballot, a motion to have the ballot cast by one person is out of order.  So, when the rules require the vote to be by ballot, a motion to make unanimous a vote that was not unanimous, must be voted on by ballot, as otherwise the vote would not be secret".     Again, ROR does not say that such a vote must itself be unanimous, but the language on page 203 seems clearly to say so, even though it is referring to vote other than by ballot.

 

That provision Gary quoted from page 203 says:  "When the election is not by ballot and there are several candidates one of whom receives a majority vote, sometimes a motion is made to make the vote unanimous.  It should never be made except  by the candidate with the largest number of votes after the successful one, or his representative, and even then its propriety is doubtful.  One negative vote defeats a motion to make a vote unanimous, as a single objection defeats a request for general consent."   By the way, the heading of that paragraph is:  "General Consent or Unanimous Vote".  There is additional language discussing "general, or unanimous, or silent consent".   Note also that the paragraph is talking about an election other than one by ballot.

 

It seems to me that if a single objection can prevent a voice vote or roll call vote from being made unanimous, the same rule would apply to a ballot vote.   I'm surprised that the 11th edition of RONR isn't more explicit on that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that if a single objection can prevent a voice vote or roll call vote from being made unanimous, the same rule would apply to a ballot vote.   I'm surprised that the 11th edition of RONR isn't more explicit on that point.

 

I agree completely that if a single objection can prevent a voice vote or roll call vote from being made unanimous, the same rule would apply to a ballot vote, but I don't know why you say that you are surprised that the 11th edition of RONR isn't more explicit on this point. I find it to be every bit as explicit in stating that a single objection can prevent a ballot vote from being made unanimous as it is in stating that a single objection can prevent a voice vote or roll-call vote from being made unanimous.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It makes sense that a vote to "make" a ballot vote unanimous would have to be unanimous.

 

If it did not have to be unanimous, it wouldn't be a vote to "make a ballot vote unanimous" as much as it would be a vote to "assert something to be other than what it is."

To my simple mind, it is still a decision to assert something to be other than what it was, with the qualification that no one actively dissents to the assertion.

 

Although, as an alternative to redoing the election with the goal or hope of a unanimous outcome, I guess it's superior, that would make the first vote sort of a straw vote, etc., etc. if I'm making any sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, so there's one case where a unanimous vote is needed.  Am I correct in thinking that's the only one?

 

Well, I would think that in instances in which unanimous consent is required (a member's obtaining permission to change his vote after the result has been announced, for example), a unanimous vote would be required if the question is put to a vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 ...a member's obtaining permission to change his vote after the result has been announced...

 

It occurred to me that one way of looking at the vote to make a vote unanimous is as an en masse request to change votes after the result is announced.  Now that I think about it, I'm probably late to the game with the thought...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To my simple mind, it is still a decision to assert something to be other than what it was, with the qualification that no one actively dissents to the assertion..

I see it more as effecting something rather than affecting something. IOW it makes it unanimous by virtue of an actual unanimous vote, rather than just calling it unanimous when there was never a unanimous vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 ...a member's obtaining permission to change his vote after the result has been announced...

 

It occurred to me that one way of looking at the vote to make a vote unanimous is as an en masse request to change votes after the result is announced.  Now that I think about it, I'm probably late to the game with the thought...

 But with unanimous consent, you could still think it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I would think that in instances in which unanimous consent is required (a member's obtaining permission to change his vote after the result has been announced, for example), a unanimous vote would be required if the question is put to a vote.

 

Yes, if a unanimous consent request was put to a vote, but that would certainly be a rarity.

 

If a consent request is made on a question that does not require unanimous consent, and there is objection, then the vote occurs on the pending question, not on the request itself.

 

 

If a consent request is made on a question that requires unanimous consent, and someone objects, there's no longer anything to vote on.  And objecting would certainly be quicker and easier than moving for a ballot or other vote and going through the motions.

 

If a member favored the question, there would be no motivation to call for a vote, since remaining silent is the usual way to agree.

 

So calling for a vote rather than simply objecting would seem, on its face, dilatory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...