Abstain votes and a quorum

[grayduck]

I have seen Point http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#6 but am still confused.

 

Our Bylaws state that:

"Bylaws may be amended by a simple majority vote of the members by online voting ... Ten percent (10%) of the total membership shall be required to vote on the proposed amendments before they can be accepted as amended."

 

We just had a vote, there were 66 online votes (a quorum of our membership - 454) and a number of abstain votes.

 

Amendment to Motion 2015/24 was

For 32 (48.48%)

Against 27 (40.91%)

Abstain 7 (10.61%)

 

Did the motion pass?

 

 

 

                                                              

[Hieu H. Huynh]

Ultimately, it is up to your organization to interpret your bylaws. Then the bylaws should be amended to remove the ambiguity.

[grayduck]

We're trying, but no one can understand Point 6. It seems contradictory.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Here is the text of FAQ 6.

Quote

 

S1.) The phrase “abstention votes” is an oxymoron, an abstention being a refusal to vote.

S2.) To abstain means to refrain from voting, and, as a consequence, there can be no such thing as an “abstention vote.”

S3.) In the usual situation, where either a majority vote or a two-thirds vote is required, abstentions have absolutely no effect on the outcome of the vote since what is required is either a majority or two thirds of the votes cast.

S4.) On the other hand, if the vote required is a majority or two thirds of the members present, or a majority or two thirds of the entire membership, an abstention will have the same effect as a “no” vote.

S5.) Even in such a case, however, an abstention is not a vote and is not counted as a vote.
***
[RONR (11th ed.), p. 400, ll. 7-12; p. 401, ll. 8-11; p. 403, ll. 13-24; see also p. 66 of RONRIB.]

 

Q. Which sentence of FAQ 6 do you find confusing?

***

Your vote was 32 affirmative, 27 negative.

If you have no customized rule to interfere with the plain application of Robert's Rules of Order, then the motion passes, because you have a majority in the affirmative.

Q. What is your logical argument that the vote fell short of the required threshold? (Why isn't it clear to you that 32 is greater than 27?)

[Richard Brown]

52 minutes ago, potzbie said:

Here is the text of FAQ 6.

Q. Which sentence of FAQ 6 do you find confusing?

***

Your vote was 32 affirmative, 27 negative.

If you have no customized rule to interfere with the plain application of Robert's Rules of Order, then the motion passes, because you have a majority in the affirmative.

Q. What is your logical argument that the vote fell short of the required threshold? (Why isn't it clear to you that 32 is greater than 27?)

And 59 (votes) is greater than 46 (ten percent of your membership).

[Gary Novosielski]

2 hours ago, shlinder said:

I have seen Point http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#6 but am still confused.

 

 

 

Our Bylaws state that:

 

"Bylaws may be amended by a simple majority vote of the members by online voting ... Ten percent (10%) of the total membership shall be required to vote on the proposed amendments before they can be accepted as amended."

We just had a vote, there were 66 online votes (a quorum of our membership - 454) and a number of abstain votes.

Amendment to Motion 2015/24 was

For 32 (48.48%)

Against 27 (40.91%)

Abstain 7 (10.61%)

Did the motion pass?

I can't comment on your customized quorum and electronic voting.  You've said there were a number, apparently seven, "abstain votes", but as FAQ#6 points out, there's no such thing.  Those were abstentions, not votes.  So there were not 66 votes, there were 59 votes.  That's still apparently a quorum, but that's your rule, not RONR's.

So, presuming the vote was valid, the answer is easy:  32-27 is a majority.

Did it pass?  Well, it should have.  What did the chair actually announce?

[grayduck]

That it passed. We just had some people wondering how to count the abstain votes, because those votes counted towards the quorum, but not the winning "for".

 

[Thomas Ralph]

Voting to abstain is not different to not voting at all.

[Dan Honemann]

32 minutes ago, shlinder said:

We just had some people wondering how to count the abstain votes, because those votes counted towards the quorum, but not the winning "for".

It's been said a number of times before, but apparently it bears repeating. There is no such thing as an "abstain vote".

You may have someone respond in your email voting process (however that process is supposed to operate) by saying that he abstains, and although that is a response, it is not a vote. The small portion of your bylaws which you have quoted refers to "votes", and to nothing else. Maybe something somewhere else in your bylaws or customized rules indicates that you are to count, for some purpose or another, responses saying that a member abstains, but what you have quoted certainly does not.   

 

[Gary Novosielski]

2 hours ago, shlinder said:

That it passed. We just had some people wondering how to count the abstain votes, because those votes counted towards the quorum, but not the winning "for".

 

There are no such things as "abstain votes".  Abstaining from voting is, by definition, not voting.  Abstentions should not be counted for either side.  Your rules may say that they count towards achieving a quorum.