Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Vote of Members Present


Tim Wynn

Recommended Posts

Is the following statement accurate?

 

When putting a question based on the number of members present, after the chair has counted the affirmative vote and immediately counted the members present, he does not call for the negative vote if the affirmative is sufficient to adopt; but he does call for the negative vote if the affirmative is not sufficient to adopt, in order to allow members the opportunity to vote in the negative and thereby qualify to move to reconsider the vote should they so choose.  

 

See RONR (11th ed.), p. 45 and p. 403.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the following statement accurate?

 

When putting a question based on the number of members present, after the chair has counted the affirmative vote and immediately counted the members present, he does not call for the negative vote if the affirmative is sufficient to adopt; but he does call for the negative vote if the affirmative is not sufficient to adopt, in order to allow members the opportunity to vote in the negative and thereby qualify to move to reconsider the vote should they so choose.  

 

See RONR (11th ed.), p. 45 and p. 403.

 

This seems reasonable, assuming there was no other reason the negative vote would be counted, such as if the assembly had ordered a counted vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I thought that negative votes always had to be called for.  I asked this a little while ago, as I thought it could be deemed dilatory if it were obvious that the motion had sufficient votes to pass and was told that negative votes always had to be called for to allow for those who wish to vote in the negative to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I thought that negative votes always had to be called for.  I asked this a little while ago, as I thought it could be deemed dilatory if it were obvious that the motion had sufficient votes to pass and was told that negative votes always had to be called for to allow for those who wish to vote in the negative to do so.

 

There are two exceptions, both of which are explained on pg. 45.

 

  • Provided no member objects, the chair can dispense with calling for the negative vote on courtesy resolutions (such as a resolution thanking the outgoing officers for all their hard work).
  • The negative vote does not need to be called for if it is "intrinsically irrelevant." The example given is a motion which requires a vote of 1/5 of the members present for adoption (perhaps to order a roll call vote), when the number of members who have voted in the affirmative is clearly greater than 1/5 of the members present.

It has occasionally been argued on this forum that the negative vote is "intrinsically irrelevant" if the threshold is based on the number of members present, since the chair must determine whether a motion is adopted by comparing the number of votes in the affirmative with the number of members present, rather than with the number of members voting in the negative. I can see some basis for this argument, although as Tim notes, it would seem to be necessary to call for the negative vote if there were not enough affirmative votes to adopt the motion, so that members would have the opportunity to move to Reconsider the motion if they wished.

 

So to sum up, the fact that the vote in the affirmative is (or appears to be) overwhelming is not, in and of itself, sufficient reason to dispense with calling for the negative vote, but there are some circumstances where it would be appropriate to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are two exceptions, both of which are explained on pg. 45.

 

  • Provided no member objects, the chair can dispense with calling for the negative vote on courtesy resolutions (such as a resolution thanking the outgoing officers for all their hard work).
  • The negative vote does not need to be called for if it is "intrinsically irrelevant." The example given is a motion which requires a vote of 1/5 of the members present for adoption (perhaps to order a roll call vote), when the number of members who have voted in the affirmative is clearly greater than 1/5 of the members present.

It has occasionally been argued on this forum that the negative vote is "intrinsically irrelevant" if the threshold is based on the number of members present, since the chair must determine whether a motion is adopted by comparing the number of votes in the affirmative with the number of members present, rather than with the number of members voting in the negative. I can see some basis for this argument, although as Tim notes, it would seem to be necessary to call for the negative vote if there were not enough affirmative votes to adopt the motion, so that members would have the opportunity to move to Reconsider the motion if they wished.

 

So to sum up, the fact that the vote in the affirmative is (or appears to be) overwhelming is not, in and of itself, sufficient reason to dispense with calling for the negative vote, but there are some circumstances where it would be appropriate to do so.

 

Ok, but the statement Tim posted doesn't say all that.......I guess I just don't exactly care for how it's phrased.  The statement as written could lead one to conclude that if the affirmative is just a few votes over what's needed - "he does not call for the negative vote if the affirmative is sufficient to adopt" - you don't need to call for the negative vote, and I just don't think that's what's meant on p. 45. Someone will haunt me later for saying this, but the book says what is says for a reason. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, but the statement Tim posted doesn't say all that.......I guess I just don't exactly care for how it's phrased.  The statement as written could lead one to conclude that if the affirmative is just a few votes over what's needed - "he does not call for the negative vote if the affirmative is sufficient to adopt" - you don't need to call for the negative vote, and I just don't think that's what's meant on p. 45. Someone will haunt me later for saying this, but the book says what is says for a reason. 

George, are you suggesting that a few votes over what is necessary does not qualify as "clearly greater"?  :)

 

In any event, I'm not "clear" on why the book indicates it would have to be clearly greater than one fifth of those present, when clearly equal to one fifth would seem to do the trick.   ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, but the statement Tim posted doesn't say all that.......I guess I just don't exactly care for how it's phrased.  The statement as written could lead one to conclude that if the affirmative is just a few votes over what's needed - "he does not call for the negative vote if the affirmative is sufficient to adopt" - you don't need to call for the negative vote, and I just don't think that's what's meant on p. 45. Someone will haunt me later for saying this, but the book says what is says for a reason. 

 

I suspect the reason for the "clearly greater" wording in the rule on pg. 45 is because the rule is primarily written with uncounted votes in mind. If a rule required such a small vote as, for instance, "one-fifth of the voting members present," a voice vote or an uncounted rising vote would likely suffice in many circumstances. If a counted vote is taken, then even a small margin could be considered to be "clearly greater."

 

I think there may still be something to what you're saying, though.

 

George, are you suggesting that a few votes over what is necessary does not qualify as "clearly greater"?  :)

 

 

Actually, that may not be as silly as it sounds at first. Errors in counting are certainly possible, especially in a large assembly. Counting the negative vote as well could lend greater certainty to the count and potentially reveal those errors and suggest that a recount should be taken. For instance, if there are 100 members present and the count shows 52 votes in the affirmative and 50 in the negative, then there's clearly something wrong.

 

In any event, I'm not "clear" on why the book indicates it would have to be clearly greater than one fifth of those present, when clearly equal to one fifth would seem to do the trick.   ;)

 

I think it's primarily written with uncounted votes in mind, and in such cases, it would be very difficult to determine if it was clearly equal - and now that we take into account that humans do not always count perfectly, perhaps that may be difficult even with a counted vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would hope that not calling for negative votes would be a very rare occurrence as it deprives (or at least might deprive) some members of the opportunity (perhaps the right) to express their opinion by voting, which RONR says is their duty (p.407).

 

RONR's rules, properly followed, will ensure it's a very rare occurrence, and in real life situations, other than for courtesy resolutions, I would always advise the chair to take the negative vote since there is a perception that not doing so is depriving members of their right to vote, but we're digressing from Mr. Wynn's question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would instead argue that a member who is present for but abstains from a question which must be adopted by a certain number of members present is permitted to make a motion to Reconsider it.

You might argue it, but you would dind no supprt in RONR. "It can be made only by a member who voted with the prevailing side." RONR, p. 315, ll. 28-29 (emphasis added). An abstention is not a vote, even when it has the same effect as a negative vote.

 

(Edited to add italics to "voted.")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Josh Martin's response in post #2.

 

When the voting requirement is based on the number of members present, the negative vote is clearly irrelevant in determining the outcome of the vote, but if the motion is lost, under the rules in RONR, the negative vote does not appear to be irrelevant in determining who may move to order a reconsideration (except in committees, where it would be irrelevant). 

 

The example given on page 45, lines 9-14, is drawn from the procedure followed in Congress for ordering the yeas and nays (in other words, a roll-call vote), which, under Article I, Section 5, of the Constitution, requires only the affirmative vote of one fifth of the members present. (In this connection, note the suggestion in RONR on page 420, lines 10-15.) In the House, the chair does not call for the negative vote on a demand for the yeas and nays, even if the demand is rejected. Unlike the rule in RONR, in such a case any member may move to reconsider.

 

My own view of it is that it would be nice if, in instances where the voting requirement is based on the number of members present, and the motion is lost, any member who was present at the time and who did not vote in the affirmative could move to reconsider the vote (note the rule relating to reconsideration of a motion agreed to by unanimous consent on p. 316, ll. 2-6), but this does not now appear to be the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Kim Goldsworthy

My point of view:

• The text of RONR  (page 403) does not imply that

the right To Reconsider is lost to 100% of the membership wherever the treshold of adoption is based on "members present".

 

For indirect proof, consider the following.

 

Q. What is wrong with the folllowing statements (of an erroneous chair)?

*****

S1.) If the affirmative lost,  then those members are not on the prevailing side. Therefore they cannot move To Reconsider.

 

S2.) Per page 403, properly obeyed to the letter, no vote was taken for the negative side. Since no one  literally "voted in the negative", then those members cannot move To Reconsider.

 

S3.) Since the people of S1 cannot move To Reconsider, and since the people of S2 cannot move To Reconsider, then NO ONE MAY MOVE TO RECONSIDER.

*****

 

My conclusion:

• The chair's SUPPRESSION of the negative vote, when properly done per page 403, does NOT take away the rights of 100% of the prevailing side to move to Reconsider.

 

It would be silly:

(a.) to order a vote on an intrinsically irrelevant negative side,

FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF

(b.) establishing a list (of people who who would retain the right to move To Reconsider).

 

When the time comes To Reconsider, all the chair needs to ask is, "Where you on the prevailing side?"

And all the member needs to say is, "Yes, I was counted toward the prevailing side."

 

Why?

• "Because I was present when the chair took the affirmative vote, and I was not on the losing side, namely, the "affirmative" side."

• "Since I was not on the non-prevailing 'affirmative' side, and since there are only two sides when a vote is taken, then I must be on the 'other' side, i.e., the prevailing side, namely, the 'negative' side."

 

I doubt that RONR page 403 allows for three sides, with all three subsets of people having three different sets of rights.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point of view:

• The text of RONR  (page 403) does not imply that

the right To Reconsider is lost to 100% of the membership wherever the treshold of adoption is based on "members present".

 

No one is suggesting that this is the case.

 

It would be silly:

(a.) to order a vote on an intrinsically irrelevant negative side,

FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF

(b.) establishing a list (of people who who would retain the right to move To Reconsider).

 

It may be silly, but this nonetheless appears to be what RONR requires at this time.

 

I quite agree with Mr. Honemann's last paragraph in Post #14. Perhaps we can look forward to a change in the 12th edition. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The example given on page 45, lines 9-14, is drawn from the procedure followed in Congress for ordering the yeas and nays (in other words, a roll-call vote), which, under Article I, Section 5, of the Constitution, requires only the affirmative vote of one fifth of the members present. (In this connection, note the suggestion in RONR on page 420, lines 10-15.) In the House, the chair does not call for the negative vote on a demand for the yeas and nays, even if the demand is rejected. Unlike the rule in RONR, in such a case any member may move to reconsider.

 

In its current form, the actual rule in the House is,

"When a motion has been carried or lost, it shall be in order on the same or succeeding day for a Member on the prevailing side of the question to enter a motion for the reconsideration thereof."

 

So, I don't believe it is true that any member, including ones who were absent, may move to reconsider in this case, but only that if a member was present and the vote was not recorded, it is presumed that the member voted on the prevailing side and is eligible to make a motion to reconsider. (In other words, members who are on the record as having voted on the losing side or as having been absent when a vote was taken may not move to reconsider.)

 

But anyway, it seems to me that -- regardless of any customary exceptions to the letter of the House rule -- if a member was present when the vote on a demand for the yeas and nays was taken, and didn't vote in favor of it, and the demand was rejected, he is as much "on the prevailing side of the question" as it is possible for a member to be. So I agree that the rules in RONR should (if they don't already) allow reconsideration of a rejected motion such as the one in question even when the negative votes were not called for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might argue it, but you would dind no supprt in RONR. "It can be made only by a member who voted with the prevailing side." RONR, p. 315, ll. 28-29 (emphasis added). An abstention is not a vote, even when it has the same effect as a negative vote.

 

(Edited to add italics to "voted.")

 

I think, it looking at this answer, and the possibility that members may wish to change their votes prior to the announcement (at least on a voice or standing vote), it would not be likely to be "intrinsically irrelevant" to skip the negative votes. 

 

If I attempted to do that, I think that I would find a timely point of order that I should call for the negative vote well taken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be silly:

(a.) to order a vote on an intrinsically irrelevant negative side,

FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF

(b.) establishing a list (of people who who would retain the right to move To Reconsider).

 

How about for the sole purpose of allowing members to discharge their duty (and, I would suggest, their right) to express their opinion by voting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be silly:

(a.) to order a vote on an intrinsically irrelevant negative side,

FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF

(b.) establishing a list (of people who who would retain the right to move To Reconsider).

 

How about for the sole purpose of allowing members to discharge their duty (and, I would suggest, their right) to express their opinion by voting?

 

It's too late for that. By not voting in the affirmative, the members present have already indicated how they want the motion to be decided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In its current form, the actual rule in the House is,

"When a motion has been carried or lost, it shall be in order on the same or succeeding day for a Member on the prevailing side of the question to enter a motion for the reconsideration thereof."

 

So, I don't believe it is true that any member, including ones who were absent, may move to reconsider in this case, but only that if a member was present and the vote was not recorded, it is presumed that the member voted on the prevailing side and is eligible to make a motion to reconsider. (In other words, members who are on the record as having voted on the losing side or as having been absent when a vote was taken may not move to reconsider.)

 

But anyway, it seems to me that -- regardless of any customary exceptions to the letter of the House rule -- if a member was present when the vote on a demand for the yeas and nays was taken, and didn't vote in favor of it, and the demand was rejected, he is as much "on the prevailing side of the question" as it is possible for a member to be. So I agree that the rules in RONR should (if they don't already) allow reconsideration of a rejected motion such as the one in question even when the negative votes were not called for.

 

Yes, the rule (and practice) in the House is as you state it, and I should have been more precise in what I posted. The point is that, under the practice in the House, in passing on a demand for the yeas and nays the Speaker does not call for the negative vote (and a request that he do so apparently is not in order). In such a case, if the demand is rejected, any member who was present at the time may make a motion to reconsider the vote, even although he did not vote at all. He was, as you say, "as much 'on the prevailing side of the question' as it is possible for a member to be."

 

As far as the rules in RONR are concerned, however, I do not think that a member who casts no vote at all can be said to meet the requirement set forth on page 315, lines 28-31.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread provides additional evidence for the soundness of the statement in RONR (11th ed.), p. 403, ll. 13-1, that "Voting requirements based on the number of members present . . . while possible, are generally undesirable."

 

It is perhaps worth observing that the "intrinsically irrelevant" exception on page 45 is an exception to the rule that "The chair must always call for the negative vote . . . ."(emphasis added).  If the chair chooses to call for the negative vote in such a circumstance, I doubt that a point of order against calling for the negative vote would be well taken. (On the other hand, it is certainly true that if the chair does not call for the negative vote when the voting requirement is based on the number of members present, a point of order that the chair should do so to preserve the possibility of reconsideration would also not be well taken.  In context, what the "negative vote is intrinsically irrelevant" to is determining whether the motion in question is or is not adopted.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's too late for that. By not voting in the affirmative, the members present have already indicated how they want the motion to be decided.

 

Huh?

 

Some of the members present may have indicated how they want the motion to be decided but shouldn't all the members present be given that opportunity?

 

I find it hard to believe that RONR would sacrifice the right to vote on the altar of expediency so I have to think I'm missing something here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's too late for that. By not voting in the affirmative, the members present have already indicated how they want the motion to be decided.

 

Huh?

 

Some of the members present may have indicated how they want the motion to be decided but shouldn't all the members present be given that opportunity?

 

I find it hard to believe that RONR would sacrifice the right to vote on the altar of expediency so I have to think I'm missing something here.

 

If the vote required for adoption is one fifth of the members present, then the outcome is determined by the ratio of affirmative votes cast to number of members present. Once the affirmative votes have been cast, casting a negative vote has no effect on the outcome, which has already been determined (pending declaration by the chair). If the motion is not adopted, any member who didn't vote in the affirmative has already contributed to that outcome, by being present and not voting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...