Majority Vote v. Vote of the Majority

[Guest Coleman]

RONR clearly defines the term "majority vote" and explains its different meanings when used without qualification and when used with qualification such as " . . . of those present" and ". . . of the total membership," etc.

 

But is there a difference between the terms "majority vote" and "vote of the majority?" RONR doesn't use the latter term, but it shows up in many by-laws and there are those who argue that the term "majority vote" conveys a different meaning than "vote of the majority."

 

Thanks.

[jstackpo]

Since RONR (our Gospel in this context) doesn't define the term "vote of the majority", you (and all those poor misguided bylaws writers) are on your (and their) own in defining what it does mean.

Also be careful: the phrase "majority vote of those present" is NOT defined. It can mean either "majority vote" or "a majority of the members present" -- the later two phrases are defined, and are differing requirements for adoption.

One can easily make arguments in favor of each option, which I shall refrain from doing here (aren't you glad!).

[Edgar Guest]

But is there a difference between the terms "majority vote" and "vote of the majority?

 

You may want to review this recent (and lengthy) discussion.

[Guest Coleman]

JDStackpole,

 

All points well taken.

 

But, my query was not clearly stated so I'll try again.

 

My post should have been:

 

"RONR clearly defines the term "majority vote" and explains its different meanings when used without qualification and when used with qualification such as "....the number of members present" or ". . . . of the total membership" or  some other grouping.

 

"So, in the RONR context, would a by-laws requirement for "majority vote of the total Board of Directors" mean an affirmative vote cast by more than half the society's total number of Directors by whatever venue for Director voting is permitted in the by-laws, regardless of whether such venue is email, telephone conference or face-to-face meeting?

 

 "If the foregoing is a correct application of the RONR rule, may I infer from your previous response that a phrase like "vote of the majority of the total Board of Directors" may or may not have the same meaning as "majority vote of the total Board of Directors," depending on the society's own interpretation and without further reference to RONR?"

 

Thanks.

[jstackpo]

Responding by paragraph number (including the one line paragraphs)....

#5 ("RONR clearly...") NO -- it does not. It defines "a majority of the members present" - p. 403 - and NOT "majority vote [of] the number of members present." Go re-read p. 402 - 403 carefully and closely. Word order makes a difference.

#6: It might or it might not depending on how YOU define "majority vote of the total Board..."

#7: Yup. "The majority vote of..." phrasing means whatever you (collectively) want it to mean. But you are sure to have an argument with someone else who has an alternate meaning.

[Josh Martin]

"So, in the RONR context, would a by-laws requirement for "majority vote of the total Board of Directors" mean an affirmative vote cast by more than half the society's total number of Directors by whatever venue for Director voting is permitted in the by-laws, regardless of whether such venue is email, telephone conference or face-to-face meeting?

 

The phrase "majority vote of the total Board of Directors" is not defined in RONR. It will be up to the society to interpret it. See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 588-591 for some Principles of Interpretation.

 

"If the foregoing is a correct application of the RONR rule, may I infer from your previous response that a phrase like "vote of the majority of the total Board of Directors" may or may not have the same meaning as "majority vote of the total Board of Directors," depending on the society's own interpretation and without further reference to RONR?"

 

It might. Neither phrase is defined in RONR. The only phrases that RONR defines are those used in RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 400-405.

 

I strongly advise societies to avoid tacking on things like "of the total Board of Directors" to the end, since it is ambiguous whether the phrasing is meant to modify the voting threshold or just to explain that it is the Board, not the general membership, which votes on the motion in question (or both). If it is desired to clarify which assembly is voting, I'd put that at the beginning. So you might say "The Board of Directors may XYZ by majority vote" or "The Board of Directors may XYZ by a vote of a majority of the entire membership" or "The Society may XYZ by a vote of a majority of the members present," and so on.

[Guest Coleman]

Thank you everyone for your responses.

 

RONR (11th ed.) page 402, ll. 21-31 reaffirm that the unqualified term majority vote always means the same thing as the qualified term majority vote of members present and voting.

 

The same lines provide a way for societies to modify the concept of majority vote by creating society rules that replace the default, unstated qualifier ". . . of members present and voting" with a stated qualifier like ". . . of members present," or ". . . of the total membership" or some other grouping.

 

The logical extension of this provision would seem to be a society rule like: "The Board of Directors may XYZ by a majority vote of Q," where Q is the desired qualifier (e.g. "The BOD may XYZ by a majority vote of the Board's total membership.")

 

So, what is the logic that would support a society rule like "The Board of Directors may XYZ by a vote of the majority of Q," rather than "The Board of Directors may XYZ by a majority vote of Q?" Especially when the term vote of the majority is not defined in RONR and adding a qualifier like "...of Q" to the defined term majority vote is the logical extension of the cited RONR rule? 

[Edgar Guest]

RONR (11th ed.) page 402, ll. 21-31 reaffirm that the unqualified term majority vote always means the same thing as the qualified term majority vote of members present and voting.

 

The same lines provide a way for societies to modify the concept of majority vote by creating society rules that replace the default, unstated qualifier ". . . of members present and voting" with a stated qualifier like ". . . of members present," or ". . . of the total membership" or some other grouping.

 

The logical extension of this provision would seem to be a society rule like: "The Board of Directors may XYZ by a majority vote of Q," where Q is the desired qualifier (e.g. "The BOD may XYZ by a majority vote of the Board's total membership.")

 

So, what is the logic that would support a society rule like "The Board of Directors may XYZ by a vote of the majority of Q," rather than "The Board of Directors may XYZ by a majority vote of Q?" Especially when the term vote of the majority is not defined in RONR and adding a qualifier like "...of Q" to the defined term majority vote is the logical extension of the cited RONR ruleIt affirms no such thing.

 

I'm afraid your logical extensions are flawed. A majority vote (as defined in RONR) is not the same as a vote of the majority. If you want to define something other than a plain-vanilla majority vote, don't use the term "majority vote". In other words, instead of saying "The BOD may adopt a motion by a majority vote of the Board's total membership", say "The BOD may adopt a motion by the affirmative vote of a majority of the Board's total membership."

 

In still other words, don't try to modify "majority vote"; it is what it is. Rather define the vote you want required (i.e. start from scratch).

[DrEntropy]

Thank you everyone for your responses.

 

RONR (11th ed.) page 402, ll. 21-31 reaffirm that the unqualified term majority vote always means the same thing as the qualified term majority vote of members present and voting.

 

 

I disagree... the unqualified "Majority vote" is short hand for  "more than half of the votes cast by persons entitled to vote, excluding blanks or abstentions, at a regular or properly called meeting.".(RONR pg 400 ll. 5-12).

 

Even though Robert's calls this "unqualified" Majority vote, you will be hard pressed to find a way to qualify the phrase (keeping the words "Majority vote" together) that is not ambiguous.  I checked all 121 uses of the phrase in RONR, and in each case it is never qualified, except for requiring notice: "Majority vote with previous notice".  Examples of qualified usage always split the words, and  are of the form "vote of a majority of the entire membership".   The only case i could find where a specific body is referred to was pg 36 ll.19 and used this language "majority vote within the board or committee", but I agree with Josh that it is clearer to put the body up front before the voting requirement.

 

 

Note also that "Vote of a majority" is always qualified in RONR: "vote of a majority of the entire membership"  or "vote of a majority of the delegates".  There is one odd case: p. 527 l. 32. "vote of a majority in the committee", which could be ambiguous except for the context.

[Josh Martin]

So, what is the logic that would support a society rule like "The Board of Directors may XYZ by a vote of the majority of Q," rather than "The Board of Directors may XYZ by a majority vote of Q?" Especially when the term vote of the majority is not defined in RONR and adding a qualifier like "...of Q" to the defined term majority vote is the logical extension of the cited RONR rule? 

 

There is no logic to support a society rule like "by a vote of the majority of the Board of Directors." As I have noted, such a rule is ambiguous, and it is unclear what the society's intent was when drafting the rule. There is no possible reason I can see to use that wording after the society has been educated about the proper wording.

 

The only case i could find where a specific body is referred to was pg 36 ll.19 and used this language "majority vote within the board or committee", but I agree with Josh that it is clearer to put the body up front before the voting requirement.

 

I'm fine with that wording too. Societies should avoid, however, the wording "majority vote of the board," or worse still, "a vote of the majority of the board."

[Guest Coleman]

Am I getting closer?

 

1. Majority Vote is a "term of art" - a piece of technical jargon in the field of Roberts Rules that has a meaning specific to that field that may not be obvious to outsiders.

 

2. When communicating about Roberts Rules, use the term majority vote  exclusively in conjunction with the situation where members of a society adopt a motion by the affirmative vote of more than half the members present and voting.

 

3. In discussions about Roberts Rules, never try to qualify the term of art majority vote to mean anything but the meaning given in the previous sentence.

 

4. When specifying a society rule to establish a basis for determining a voting result in situations other than covered by the term of art majority vote, it is advisable to use the following template: "(The voting body) may (do XYZ) by the affirmative vote of more than half of (the members present or the total membership or some other group within the voting body).

 

[Edgar Guest]

Am I getting closer?

 

I think so. If the desired voting requirement is not a majority vote, don't use that term (however modified or "extended").

 

Although I'm not sure I'd denigrate the term by referring to it as a "term of art". RONR has enough of those already.

[Josh Martin]

1. Majority Vote is a "term of art" - a piece of technical jargon in the field of Roberts Rules that has a meaning specific to that field that may not be obvious to outsiders.

 

The phrase "majority vote" is a phrase with a very specific meaning in RONR.

 

This is not to suggest, however, that you should avoid using the word "majority." It is a perfectly ordinary word used in its ordinary meaning of "more than half."

 

4. When specifying a society rule to establish a basis for determining a voting result in situations other than covered by the term of art majority vote, it is advisable to use the following template: "(The voting body) may (do XYZ) by the affirmative vote of more than half of (the members present or the total membership or some other group within the voting body).

 

Wording such as "a vote of a majority of the entire membership" is perfectly acceptable and is exactly what RONR recommends.

 

I think what Dr. Entropy was getting at with qualifying majority vote is that it would not be advisable to say, for instance, "a majority vote of the entire membership," or something of that nature. That is, you should not qualify the exact phrase "majority vote."

[Guest Coleman]

Thanks, again. This dialog has been very helpful.

 

I've always considered the phrase "term of art" a positive descriptor. No denigration intended. The fact remains; "majority vote" is a phrase with a special meaning in RONR that may not be obvious to outsiders.  

[DrEntropy]

Thanks, again. This dialog has been very helpful.

 

I've always considered the phrase "term of art" a positive descriptor. No denigration intended. The fact remains; "majority vote" is a phrase with a special meaning in RONR that may not be obvious to outsiders.  

 

I would say "specific meaning", echoing Josh.  And it's not meant to be opaque... Majority means "a number that is greater than half of a total" (webster) and so majority vote (perhaps an abbreviation of "a majority of the vote") must  mean you need more then half the total number of votes. I think this is exactly what most people think a majority vote is!  It only get's confusing when you want to start counting 'non voters', for example for a vote of a majority of the members present, you are including non-voters in the 'total', so it is no longer a 'majority (of the) vote'.  

 

Hmm... I feel i only made things worse with that paragraph, but I am going to hit the 'Post button' anyway. Blame it on my head cold.  

 

PS: I can't really find any support for the "abbreviation" argument, but I like it as a mnemonic to keep me out of trouble.

[Edgar Guest]

I've always considered the phrase "term of art" a positive descriptor. No denigration intended. 

 

My use of the word "denigrate" was meant to be "tongue-in-cheek" (at least that's my story now and I'm stickin' with it). When used on this forum it seems to always be applied to a term that is not only "specialized" but means the exact opposite of what it appears to mean ("expunge" comes quickly to mind but I think there's at least one other). A cynic might say it's a term of artifice.

[Josh Martin]

I've always considered the phrase "term of art" a positive descriptor. No denigration intended. The fact remains; "majority vote" is a phrase with a special meaning in RONR that may not be obvious to outsiders.  

 

As Edgar notes, we tend to reserve "term of art" for terms which are confusing even to those familiar with parliamentary procedure.

 

My use of the word "denigrate" was meant to be "tongue-in-cheek" (at least that's my story now and I'm stickin' with it). When used on this forum it seems to always be applied to a term that is not only "specialized" but means the exact opposite of what it appears to mean ("expunge" comes quickly to mind but I think there's at least one other). A cynic might say it's a term of artifice.

 

"Dispense with the reading of the minutes" may be the other term of art you're thinking of. That's the one I have trouble with when I'm not careful.

[Edgar Guest]

"Dispense with the reading of the minutes" may be the other term of art you're thinking of. That's the one I have trouble with when I'm not careful.

 

Yes, that's the one. Thanks.

 

One could easily get a headache strolling through the RONR Terms of Art Gallery.

[Shmuel Gerber]

My use of the word "denigrate" was meant to be "tongue-in-cheek" (at least that's my story now and I'm stickin' with it). When used on this forum it seems to always be applied to a term that is not only "specialized" but means the exact opposite of what it appears to mean ("expunge" comes quickly to mind but I think there's at least one other). A cynic might say it's a term of artifice.

 

I think "to rescind and expunge from the minutes" means exactly what it says. The offending words are literally struck out and marked for deletion, and so they are omitted from any published record of the proceedings, but they are not blotted out from the original.

If anything, perhaps you ought to be complaining that when a motion "to strike out" words from previously adopted minutes is adopted, nothing is actually struck out from the minute book.

[Edgar Guest]

The offending words are literally struck out and marked for deletion, and so they are omitted from any published record of the proceedings, but they are not blotted out from the original.

I may be quibbling by suggesting that they are not "literally struck out", they are only "struck through".

 

If anything, perhaps you ought to be complaining that when a motion "to strike out" words from previously adopted minutes is adopted, nothing is actually struck out from the minute book.

I'm struggling to see the difference.

[Shmuel Gerber]

I may be quibbling by suggesting that they are not "literally struck out", they are only "struck through".

 

But it's a good quibble. You're right -- they are struck out by being struck through. :-)

 

 

I'm struggling to see the difference.

 

When a motion is rescinded and expunged from the minutes, the original record of the motion's adoption is altered by marking the words for deletion (i.e., those words are expunged).

In contrast, when minutes that have been approved and entered in the minute book are later corrected, no alteration is made in them, even though the motion to correct may have been adopted in the form "to strike out" or "to strike out and insert". The words are struck out without being struck through.