Voting on a teller count

[Guest kiltronix]

A constitutional change, requiring a supermajority, is voted on and appears close.  Division is called for and the yeas and nays stand and sit as directed.  Still appears close.  President declares the yeas have it.  Member wants to close the hall and have a teller count. President directs a vote on the teller count and it is defeated by a simple majority.  It seems a simple majority should not be able to shut down a teller count on a 2/3 vote required constitutional change!  What prevents the prevailing side to shut down a teller count every time?  Is this correct according to RROR?

[Steven Britton]

A count on a rising vote is at the discretion of the chair, unless ordered by a majority vote of the assembly. See p. 410, ll, 13 - 35.

[Rev Ed]

And while we are at it, for something as important as an amendment to the Constitution, a ballot vote should be taken.

 

Edited to correct typo.

[Edgar Guest]

Member wants to close the hall and have a teller count. 

 

I'm afraid such terms as "close the hall" and "teller count" are foreign to RONR.

[Edgar Guest]

And why we are at it, for something as important as an amendment to the Constitution, a ballot vote should be taken.

 

Oh my.

[Rev Ed]

Oh my.

 

The advantage of a ballot vote is that you know if there are sufficient yes votes to pass the amendment to the Constitution.  This is an obvious example of why you need to be sure about the vote.

[Edgar Guest]

The advantage of a ballot vote is that you know if there are sufficient yes votes to pass the amendment to the Constitution.

 

The advantage of a ballot vote is that members might be more willing to express their true opinions when their vote is secret. A ballot vote is overkill if all you're concerned about is the accuracy of the count.

[Guest kiltronix]

We had an 1800 delegate convention.  When a "teller count" is conducted, the President announces such and 8 minutes are given for all to use the restroom or what else they may need to do.  Then the Sergeant at Arms lock the doors.  The yeas stand and are individually counted by tellers.  The nays stand and the same ensues. The teller count never happened because a simple majority ( mostly consisting of those who were on the "prevailing" side of the constitutional amendment ) voted against the motion for a count.  So there was no count and we will never know if a 2/3 majority was actually achieved on the Constitutional amendment.

[Josh Martin]

A constitutional change, requiring a supermajority, is voted on and appears close.  Division is called for and the yeas and nays stand and sit as directed.  Still appears close.  President declares the yeas have it.  Member wants to close the hall and have a teller count. President directs a vote on the teller count and it is defeated by a simple majority.  It seems a simple majority should not be able to shut down a teller count on a 2/3 vote required constitutional change!  What prevents the prevailing side to shut down a teller count every time?  Is this correct according to RROR?

 

There was no need for the President to take a vote on ordering a counted vote in this instance. The President may order that a vote be counted on his own initiative. RONR strongly suggests that the President always order a counted vote on a motion to amend the Constitution, unless the vote is nearly unanimous. If the President does not do so, then a majority vote would be required to order a counted vote.

 

As you suggest, this can be problematic in some cases. Most members will vote in favor of a motion for a counted vote as a matter of courtesy (or the chair will order a count on his own initiative), but in a large and contentious assembly, it may be wise to adopt a rule permitting a smaller number to order a counted vote for a motion requiring a 2/3 vote.

 

And while we are at it, for something as important as an amendment to the Constitution, a ballot vote should be taken.

The advantage of a ballot vote is that you know if there are sufficient yes votes to pass the amendment to the Constitution.  This is an obvious example of why you need to be sure about the vote.

 

A counted vote should always be taken on a motion to amend the Constitution unless the vote is nearly unanimous. The assembly may take a ballot vote if it wishes, but this is not the only way to count the vote.

 

We had an 1800 delegate convention.  When a "teller count" is conducted, the President announces such and 8 minutes are given for all to use the restroom or what else they may need to do.  Then the Sergeant at Arms lock the doors.  The yeas stand and are individually counted by tellers.  The nays stand and the same ensues. The teller count never happened because a simple majority ( mostly consisting of those who were on the "prevailing" side of the constitutional amendment ) voted against the motion for a count.  So there was no count and we will never know if a 2/3 majority was actually achieved on the Constitutional amendment.

 

As noted, the President could have (and should have) ordered a count on his own initiative. Additionally, it may be prudent for your assembly to adopt a rule in the future which permits a smaller number to order a counted vote.

[Timothy]

We had an 1800 delegate convention.  When a "teller count" is conducted, the President announces such and 8 minutes are given for all to use the restroom or what else they may need to do.  Then the Sergeant at Arms lock the doors.  The yeas stand and are individually counted by tellers.  The nays stand and the same ensues. The teller count never happened because a simple majority ( mostly consisting of those who were on the "prevailing" side of the constitutional amendment ) voted against the motion for a count.  So there was no count and we will never know if a 2/3 majority was actually achieved on the Constitutional amendment.

 

Apparently, most of the delegates didn't agree that was a problem. Ideally, majority rule would work for everything, but because some members can't be at every meeting and such, a requirement for 2/3 vote protects against  the minority finding a time when several of the majority are missing and changing stuff. If the vote was near 2/3 and a majority was willing to say that was good enough then I don't see the problem. Now, if it wasn't clear which side of a majority it was on, that would be another issue.

[Josh Martin]

Apparently, most of the delegates didn't agree that was a problem. Ideally, majority rule would work for everything, but because some members can't be at every meeting and such, a requirement for 2/3 vote protects against  the minority finding a time when several of the majority are missing and changing stuff. If the vote was near 2/3 and a majority was willing to say that was good enough then I don't see the problem. Now, if it wasn't clear which side of a majority it was on, that would be another issue.

 

I quite disagree with this. I think the OP has a perfectly valid complaint, and if the majority is willing to "look the other way" in order to adopt amendments to the constitution with less than a 2/3 vote, this is a serious problem.

 

While there are certainly some cases when a 2/3 vote has the intent you suggest, in other cases the intent of such a requirement is to protect the minority from the majority.

[Timothy]

I quite disagree with this. I think the OP has a perfectly valid complaint, and if the majority is willing to "look the other way" in order to adopt amendments to the constitution with less than a 2/3 vote, this is a serious problem.

 

While there are certainly some cases when a 2/3 vote has the intent you suggest, in other cases the intent of such a requirement is to protect the minority from the majority.

 

Yeah, I'm not very committed to it myself.

[Guest md]

After a two-thirds vote by ballot reaches an approval, does a unit owner have the right to see the actual ballots?

[Chris Harrison]

After a two-thirds vote by ballot reaches an approval, does a unit owner have the right to see the actual ballots?

I would say no.  Although the ballots and tally sheets are put into the custody of the Secretary and one of the duties of the Secretary is "to make the minutes and records available to members upon request" (RONR p. 459 ll. 4-5), RONR p. 418 ll. 32-35 states the ballots and tally sheets are to be kept "under seal".   I suppose if there were a way to keep them secure so there was no chance they could be altered a member may have a right at that point to see them.  However, if that wasn't possible I would argue that the risk of the ballots being tainted (by a member with the intent to add or remove ballots in order to alter the results of the vote and then getting a recount ordered) outweighs the right of a single member to inspect records.  But stay tuned for other thoughts.

[Edgar Guest]

I would say no. 

 

I would agree, though I also think that the secretary's obligation to "make the minutes and records available to members upon request" is not as expansive as some here do. For example, I don't think a member has a right to access the addresses and phone numbers of members (or at least not without some sort of "opt in" process whereby the members grant that access). But I digress.

 

The assembly could order the ballots to be made available to a member but, absent that, an individual member would not have a right to access. Quite the contrary. As Mr. Harrison suggest, the secretary would have an obligation to deny such a request.

 

If a member thinks the tellers' report is inaccurate he could make a motion ordering a re-count (with different tellers if appropriate).

 

And this is where we suggest to Guest_md that, for future reference, this forum works best if new questions are posted as a new topic, even if an existing topic seems similar.

[Dan Honemann]

After a two-thirds vote by ballot reaches an approval, does a unit owner have the right to see the actual ballots?

 

No.