Quorum and votes of "50% + 1"

[Shmuel Gerber]

If a new edition of RONR can do that why wait just adopt a special rule of order that does it now.

Because a special rule of order cannot define terms used in the bylaws, but a parliamentary authority, when adopted in the bylaws, can do that and does do that.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Because

a special rule of order cannot define terms used in the bylaws,

but

a parliamentary authority, when adopted in the bylaws, can do that and does do that.

Wait a minute.

It is not the case that a parliamentary authority's definition is above and beyond re-definition by the organization.

Since the term in question here (namely, "fifty percent plus one") is NOT lifted from RONR, then the organization will have to interpret that ambiguous term.

[Dan Honemann]

Because a special rule of order cannot define terms used in the bylaws, but a parliamentary authority, when adopted in the bylaws, can do that and does do that.

Wait a minute.

It is not the case that a parliamentary authority's definition is above and beyond re-definition by the organization.

No need to wait a minute, since Mr. Gerber did not say "that a parliamentary authority's definition is above and beyond re-definition by the organization."

What he did say is precisely correct, and deserves a much more careful reading.

[Josh Martin]

I suppose as a general question, is there a time when this sort of interpretive logic could be used - i.e. to prevent a harm or unintended consequence of a rule? Or is this a question better reserved for situations outside of parliamentary procedure?

Intent only plays a role when a rule is ambiguous. If a rule is clear, then the rule must be obeyed as it is written, no matter how harmful or idiotic the rule may be.

Since the term in question here (namely, "fifty percent plus one") is NOT lifted from RONR, then the organization will have to interpret that ambiguous term.

I'm still lost about what is so ambiguous about "50% + 1." The original poster's question was really about rounding, which I believe has been settled.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

I'm still lost about what is so ambiguous about "50% + 1."

The original poster's question was really about rounding, which I believe has been settled.

"Lost"?

Let me repeat the ambiguity.

(a.) one interpretation of that given phrase is "more than half", since it mentions "fifty percent" (which is taken to mean "half") and adds a number to whatever number fifty percent represents (which is taken to mean "more than half").

(b.) one interpretation of that phrase is "half plus one", which is silly, as the units do not match, and cannot be done under the rules of arithmetic, which disallow adding numbers where the units do not match in kind.

(e.g., you cannot add "2 foot-pounds + 2 pounds" just as you cannot add "2 foot-pounds + 2 feet". -- The bad formula would then require that you add an integer to a percentage.)

[Josh Martin]

(b.) one interpretation of that phrase is "half plus one", which is silly, as the units do not match, and cannot be done under the rules of arithmetic, which disallow adding numbers where the units do not match in kind.

(e.g., you cannot add "2 foot-pounds + 2 pounds" just as you cannot add "2 foot-pounds + 2 feet". -- The bad formula would then require that you add an integer to a percentage.)

It is entirely possible to take half of something and then add one.

[Dan Honemann]

I'm still lost about what is so ambiguous about "50% + 1."

Of course there is nothing inherently ambiguous about "fifty percent plus one." However, as I said, in this context, it may have come to be regarded as a code phrase meaning "more than half". In other words, I think it quite likely that most of those who use this phrase will say that a vote of 9 in favor and 8 opposed adopts the motion.

[Gary Novosielski]

Of course there is nothing inherently ambiguous about "fifty percent plus one." However, as I said, in this context, it may have come to be regarded as a code phrase meaning "more than half". In other words, I think it quite likely that most of those who use this phrase will say that a vote of 9 in favor and 8 opposed adopts the motion.

It would not be the first time that "most" of those are wrong about something everybody knows, sort-of.

I find it about as convincing as someone telling the judge, "Well, your honor, when she said 'No!', I regarded it, in that context, as a code phrase meaning 'Maybe.'"

Granted, if most people really think of the two as equivalent, it is unlikely that anyone would raise a point of order that the motion did not pass, but if someone chose to do so, there would certainly be grounds.

I'm sure you'd agree that, in the long run, the only real solution is to amend the bylaws to strike each instance of the Hideous Phrase and insert "a majority" instead.

[hmtcastle]

(b.) one interpretation of that phrase is "half plus one", which is silly, as the units do not match, and cannot be done under the rules of arithmetic, which disallow adding numbers where the units do not match in kind.

(e.g., you cannot add "2 foot-pounds + 2 pounds" just as you cannot add "2 foot-pounds + 2 feet". -- The bad formula would then require that you add an integer to a percentage.)

Next time you're at the pharmacy, tell the cashier that "the rules of arithmetic" do not allow you to add two quarters (0.50) to a dollar (1.00) as "the units do not match" and so you'll either have to pay her either too little or too much.

[Dan Honemann]

Next time you're at the pharmacy, tell the cashier that "the rules of arithmetic" do not allow you to add two quarters (0.50) to a dollar (1.00) as "the units do not match" and so you'll either have to pay her either too little or too much.

Mr. Mt., I'll bet you're waiting to see "more than half (50% + 1)" used in a sentence sometime soon.

[Gary Novosielski]

Mr. Mt., I'll bet you're waiting to see "more than half (50% + 1)" used in a sentence sometime soon.

I think his wait is over.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

...

you're waiting to see "more than half (50% + 1)" used in a sentence sometime soon.

I've seen it. -- That is, I"ve seen bylaws where the parenthetical formula mis-matches its preceeding English words.

So dozens of grown-ups don't have the sophistication to see a difference, year in, year out.

[hmtcastle]

Half the world thinks "fifty percent plus one" or "one more than half" is the same thing as a "majority."

Half the world is wrong.

So dozens of grown-ups don't have the sophistication to see a difference, year in, year out.

From "half the world" to "dozens of grown-ups". I think we're making progress.

[sfraser]

Just as an update: our governing documents actually say: ".. simple majority {50% + 1}" - are these phrases conflicting, if simple majority simply means more than half, and then attached is this defintion of 50% plus one?

Either way we're going to go through the long and arduous process of changing the documents.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Just as an update: our governing documents actually say: ".. simple majority {50% + 1}" -

are these phrases conflicting,

if simple majority simply means more than half, and then attached is this definition of 50% plus one?

Yes, the are conflicting.

And they both are ambiguous, too!

Q. Is a "simple majority" or "fifty percent plus one" based on ____:

(a.) those present?

(b.) those voting?

(c.) those present and voting?

(d.) the entirety of the membership?

Robert's Rules, for its use of "majority vote", refers to #c (present and voting).

I don't know the base of your rule's calculation.

Also:

There is no such term as "simple majority" within the 700+ pages of RONR Tenth Edition 2000.

Q. How is your "simple majority" different from "majority"?