Announcement of tie-vote with one vote remaining to be cast.

[Guest Audrey Rogers]

I recently encountered a situation whereby the Chair of a meeting inadvertently disclosed that there was a tie vote, with one vote remaining to be cast.  I guess I should also make note that we utilize electronic voting, as opposed to show of hands or ballot or a standing vote.  That one remaining vote ultimately would determine whether or not a motion passed or failed, and the Chair specifically stated that we were waiting on what would essentially be a "tie-breaking vote".  Although not challenged at the time, a member is now inferring that this may have influenced the vote of the one remaining member who had not voted.  

 

Recognizing that this sort of announcement is certainly not ideal, does it in any way invalidate the motion or compromise the integrity of the vote?  If members had voted by a show of hands, all members would have seen that only 5 had voted for the item and had an opportunity to potentially change their minds prior to the nay votes being cast.  I've researched RONR, but have not been able to find any reference to this type of scenario, so I'm hoping for some clarity, and welcome all responses!

[George Mervosh]

I recently encountered a situation whereby the Chair of a meeting inadvertently disclosed that there was a tie vote, with one vote remaining to be cast.  I guess I should also make note that we utilize electronic voting, as opposed to show of hands or ballot or a standing vote.  That one remaining vote ultimately would determine whether or not a motion passed or failed, and the Chair specifically stated that we were waiting on what would essentially be a "tie-breaking vote".  Although not challenged at the time, a member is now inferring that this may have influenced the vote of the one remaining member who had not voted.  

 

Recognizing that this sort of announcement is certainly not ideal, does it in any way invalidate the motion or compromise the integrity of the vote?  If members had voted by a show of hands, all members would have seen that only 5 had voted for the item and had an opportunity to potentially change their minds prior to the nay votes being cast.  I've researched RONR, but have not been able to find any reference to this type of scenario, so I'm hoping for some clarity, and welcome all responses!

 

No, the vote stands.  But she needs to stop doing that. The chair should be aware that members have a right to abstain.  A tie vote is a legitimate result and it defeats the pending motion.

[Guest Audrey Rogers]

Thank you George.  In this instance, legislation prohibits members from abstaining, so the member was required to vote on the matter. 

[Gödel Fan]

I see nothing to dispute in the answer given, but I do find it interesting.  Setting aside the rules, persay, I would ask - would you vote differently (assuming that you are required to vote aye or nay) knowing that your vote is going to determine the outcome?  I don't see why that would change my vote if the alternative is a complete lack of knowledge.  On the other hand, if we assume that I will know how the vote is going, and will always base my vote on those already case, I can imagine it changing my vote.

But wait - are the votes recorded and/or made available to the member or the public?  If not, then I still don't see how my vote would the impacted.  If so, the overall effect of telling me that my vote will be decisive would be, ironically, to force me to vote more honestly.  Maybe it would be good to somehow make everyone think, every time, that their vote will be decisive.

 

In reality, there's usually a mix in this sort of instance.  It seems the record of votes is not available to the voting members, but of course, people will talk to their friends, and their enemies, give some people a false impression of how they're voting, etc.  I find this interesting from a game theoretic point of view.

 

Back on the original question - it seems worth asking how the rules for electronic voting treat the chair, and if the chair had voted.  In one organization on whose board I serve, we have email voting (we wouldn't if I had my way, of course) with the provision that ballots close in 10 days, or when all or all but the chair have voted, whichever comes first.  If the vote closes because all but the chair have voted, the chair then has one day to cast a vote.  I kind of like that (once we're admitting this email voting in the first place).