use of abstentions to determine the outcome of an election

[Guest David Critchett]

Suppose that two people are running for an office in an organization. A rule requires that a person be elected to that office by a "majority vote of those present," and fifty people are present. Now suppose that the outcome of the vote is 20 for candidate A and 17 for candidate B with 13 abstentions. Does A win the election or not?

[Chris Harrison]

Is this rule in the bylaws or constitution?

[Josh Martin]

Suppose that two people are running for an office in an organization. A rule requires that a person be elected to that office by a "majority vote of those present," and fifty people are present. Now suppose that the outcome of the vote is 20 for candidate A and 17 for candidate B with 13 abstentions. Does A win the election or not?

In the example provided, no candidate is elected, as the threshold for election would be 26. A second round of balloting would be held.

Keep in mind, however, that if this has already happened (rather than a hypothetical situation), it is too late to raise a Point of Order at this time. The declaration of the chair stands.

Is this rule in the bylaws or constitution?

Does it matter?

[Matt Schafer]

Is there a difference between "a majority vote of those present" and a "vote of a majority of those present"? The former may refer to a majority vote (as defined in RONR, 11th ed., pp. 4 and 400) with the qualification that that absentee votes are not acceptable, while the latter requires 26 affirmative votes when 50 members are present.

Unless the language is unambiguous, it seems like a matter of interpretation that would need to be resolved by the assembly.

[Chris Harrison]

A rule requires that a person be elected to that office by a "majority vote of those present,"

Is this rule in the bylaws or constitution?

Does it matter?

Yes. The OP said that "a rule requires" which makes it unclear if this is a rule that they adopted or if it was actually located in the bylaws or constitution. I don't believe that a Standing Rule or SRO would suffice to change the voting requirement to elect someone to office and I think the wording he gave us changes the voting requirement from a majority vote to a majority vote of those present (not just voting). If the rule was not in the bylaws or constitution then it is invalid and the officer was elected getting a majority of the 37 votes cast. However, if the rule was properly located in the constitution or bylaws then as you said it would take 26 votes to be elected.

[Josh Martin]

Is there a difference between "a majority vote of those present" and a "vote of a majority of those present"? The former may refer to a majority vote (as defined in RONR, 11th ed., pp. 4 and 400) with the qualification that that absentee votes are not acceptable, while the latter requires 26 affirmative votes when 50 members are present.

Unless the language is unambiguous, it seems like a matter of interpretation that would need to be resolved by the assembly.

Fair enough. If the language is interpreted to mean simply "majority vote," then Candidate A would win in the example provided.

Yes. The OP said that "a rule requires" which makes it unclear if this is a rule that they adopted or if it was actually located in the bylaws or constitution. I don't believe that a Standing Rule or SRO would suffice to change the voting requirement to elect someone to office and I think the wording he gave us changes the voting requirement from a majority vote to a majority vote of those present (not just voting). If the rule was not in the bylaws or constitution then it is invalid and the officer was elected getting a majority of the 37 votes cast. However, if the rule was properly located in the constitution or bylaws then as you said it would take 26 votes to be elected.

I disagree that a special rule of order would be insufficient. "Whenever it is desired that the basis for decision be other than a majority vote... the desired basis should be precisely defined in the bylaws or in a special rule of order." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 404, lines 20-24, emphasis added) While it is true that RONR requires a rule permitting a plurality to elect officers to be placed in the Bylaws (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 405, lines 2-6), that's the only exception regarding officer elections I am aware of. Therefore, it would seem to me that the rule on pg. 404 is controlling in other cases (such as this one).

I agree, of course, that a standing rule would be insufficient.

[Tim Wynn]

Is there a difference between "a majority vote of those present" and a "vote of a majority of those present"? The former may refer to a majority vote (as defined in RONR, 11th ed., pp. 4 and 400) with the qualification that that absentee votes are not acceptable, while the latter requires 26 affirmative votes when 50 members are present.

Unless the language is unambiguous, it seems like a matter of interpretation that would need to be resolved by the assembly.

This is correct and a reason why bylaws should be carefully written, using the terms defined in RONR, whenever applicable.