Majority vs. 51%

[Louise]

Our organization has had a recommendation to have our bylaws require a "51% majority" by using this wording:

"Unless otherwise required under these Bylaws, any vote or resolution shall be decided in favour of not less than a 51% majority of those members present in person and entitled to vote on such issue."

My questions:

1. Isn't this redundant, since the Bylaws already state that RONR is our parliamentary authority and therefore ordinary resolutions will require a majority vote based on that fact?

2. I seem to recall the use of "51%" being a Bad Thing, but I don't recall why. Am I remembering this incorrectly?

3. Does the "of those members present in person and entitled to vote on such issue" muddy the waters at all? If we use the word "majority", wouldn't it be defined sufficiently in RONR?

[Gary c Tesser]

1. Yes, sMargaret, this looks like pompous pseudo-gibberish written by a lawyer manque (or a real one, practicing license without a law).

2. If 1,000 members vote, a majority is 501 votes, and 51% is 510. Which threshold do you want?

3. I think so; and, yes of course it is. And where have you been?

[Guest Edgar]

My questions:

Yes, sMargaret . . . And where have you been?

I'm not sure Louise and sMargaret are the same person (though I continue to have my doubts about Mr. Tesser and Nancy).

[Gary c Tesser]

I'm not sure Louise and sMargaret are the same person (though I continue to have my doubts about Mr. Tesser and Nancy).

O heavens. My apologies to Louise, though the mistake should be taken as a compliment. (And I was misled by the spelling "favour"... c'mon, it's six in the morning.)

[Louise]

1. Yes, sMargaret, this looks like pompous pseudo-gibberish written by a lawyer manque (or a real one, practicing license without a law).

2. If 1,000 members vote, a majority is 501 votes, and 51% is 510. Which threshold do you want?

3. I think so; and, yes of course it is. And where have you been?

1. No comment (but good call)

2. Right! Thank you - although we're lucky to get 50 people, so perhaps it's not a super-big deal...but it's the principle of the thing in my mind.

3. Duh! Yes, of course it's defined well in RONR - don't ask me why I even asked that. No, wait! It was a rhetorical question - it wasn't even supposed to be answered since everyone here KNOWS that it's been defined very well in RONR.

4. (New question, after all): I've been away from meeting-land for a bit, and even from bylaws-land. I've been enjoying Christmas baking, Christmas carols, Christmas decorating (well, no, not that, really), Christmas shopping, and working on various other volunteer and family commitments.

I'm not sure Louise and sMargaret are the same person (though I continue to have my doubts about Mr. Tesser and Nancy).

No, I don't believe we are. Not the last time I checked, anyway...

O heavens. My apologies to Louise, though the mistake should be taken as a compliment. (And I was misled by the spelling "favour"... c'mon, it's six in the morning.)

Oh, apology quite accepted. I understand the confusion that the correct spelling of words can create in those who insist on making such mistakes (in spelling, that is).

And the mistake is most definitely taken as a compliment. Made my day, that mistake.

[sMargaret]

I also believe that we're not the same person, but I am delighted to determine that another member know how to correctly spell honour.

Yours in peace, order and good governance...

[Shmuel Gerber]

Our organization has had a recommendation to have our bylaws require a "51% majority" by using this wording:

"Unless otherwise required under these Bylaws, any vote or resolution shall be decided in favour of not less than a 51% majority of those members present in person and entitled to vote on such issue."

My questions:

1. Isn't this redundant, since the Bylaws already state that RONR is our parliamentary authority and therefore ordinary resolutions will require a majority vote based on that fact?

2. I seem to recall the use of "51%" being a Bad Thing, but I don't recall why. Am I remembering this incorrectly?

3. Does the "of those members present in person and entitled to vote on such issue" muddy the waters at all? If we use the word "majority", wouldn't it be defined sufficiently in RONR?

I suppose nobody wants to bother with the fact that the provision quoted, with or without the "51%", would not be the same as "majority vote" in RONR, much less to mention that some motions require other than a majority vote.

As far as being a "Bad Thing", you probably had FAQ 4 in mind, although "51% majority" is not nearly as bad as "50% plus 1".

[Louise]

I also believe that we're not the same person, but I am delighted to determine that another member know how to correctly spell honour.

Whew! Well, if we're both agreed on that, then it must be true!

And I'd be willing to wager that there are a multitude of other words you know how to spell correctly as well (words like colour and cheque and disc and theatre and pyjamas and...)

I suppose nobody wants to bother with the fact that the provision quoted, with or without the "51%", would not be the same as "majority vote" in RONR, much less to mention that some motions require other than a majority vote.

Ah, good point. That thought actually had occurred to me (believe it or not...albeit briefly) before it disappeared again; the recommendation refers to other resolutions "in these bylaws" but completely ignores "other resolutions" in the parliamentary authority. A rather significant oversight, and I'm making a note of that now for our next meeting.

As far as being a "Bad Thing", you probably had FAQ 4 in mind, although "51% majority" is not nearly as bad as "50% plus 1".

Someday I will (truly I will...really...honest...) learn to peruse the FAQ *before* posting new topics. Yes, that was exactly what I had in mind, and you are right again. 50% + 1 is Way Worse than 51%. (I took a few moments to do a few math scenarios.)

Thanks again, all, for your time and expertise. I'm still learning...always learning.

[Gary c Tesser]

sMargaret, on 08 January 2013 - 08:44 PM, said:

I also believe that we're not the same person, but I am delighted to determine that another member know how to correctly spell honour.

Whew! Well, if we're both agreed on that, then it must be true!

And it's especially true since you both read it on the Intrenet, eh?

... I'm still learning...always learning.

Consider the alternative. Some of us are forgetting, always forgetting.

[Louise]

And it's especially true since you both read it on the Intrenet, eh?

That goes without saying.

(Especially since I wrote half of it. )

Consider the alternative. Some of us are forgetting, always forgetting.

On the bright side, the more we forget, the more there is for us to learn...(Oh, I'm such an optimist sometimes!)

[rthib]

If I read the rule correctly, it will also require a 51% vote of the total attendance, not just of the vote. So if you have 50 members and the vote is 25-1, it will still fail.

[Gary c Tesser]

If I read the rule correctly, it will also require a 51% vote of the total attendance, not just of the vote. So if you have 50 members and the vote is 25-1, it will still fail.

Don't you think that their "and entitled to vote on such issue" narrows it down to the voters?

[Guest Edgar]

Don't you think that their "and entitled to vote on such issue" narrows it down to the voters?

No, the number of those members present and entitled to vote (whether or not that's redundant) may be greater than the number of actual voters (i.e. those who cast a vote).

[David A Foulkes]

Don't you think that their "and entitled to vote on such issue" narrows it down to the voters?

I think the cited bylaw is so ambiguous, I could make an argument that as long as 25.5 members vote (51% of a 50 member meeting), a majority of those votes cast will adopt.

[Louise]

I'm gratified that I'm not the only one who found the wording...ambiguous.

It's enough to make one's eyes bleed, truly...(and weep...and blur...and...)

[Shmuel Gerber]

I think the cited bylaw is so ambiguous, I could make an argument that as long as 25.5 members vote (51% of a 50 member meeting), a majority of those votes cast will adopt.

I don't see even a hint of ambiguity in the phrase "51% majority of those members present in person and entitled to vote on such issue".

[David A Foulkes]

I don't see even a hint of ambiguity in the phrase "51% majority of those members present in person and entitled to vote on such issue".

I'm troubled rather by "decided in favour of not less than a".