Guest Kathryn Posted January 9, 2020 at 11:50 PM Report Share Posted January 9, 2020 at 11:50 PM If a vote requires two-thirds of those present and entitled to vote, and there are 17 eligible voters present, 2/3 of 17 is 11.33. If the vote passes 11-4, has the two-thirds requirement been met? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D J Smith Posted January 10, 2020 at 12:35 AM Report Share Posted January 10, 2020 at 12:35 AM No. Two-thirds means at least two-thirds. 11 is not at least 11.33. See FAQ # 5. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted January 10, 2020 at 02:54 AM Report Share Posted January 10, 2020 at 02:54 AM 3 hours ago, Guest Kathryn said: If a vote requires two-thirds of those present and entitled to vote... What requires it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted January 10, 2020 at 03:37 AM Report Share Posted January 10, 2020 at 03:37 AM 3 hours ago, Guest Kathryn said: If a vote requires two-thirds of those present and entitled to vote, and there are 17 eligible voters present, 2/3 of 17 is 11.33. If the vote passes 11-4, has the two-thirds requirement been met? No. 11 is not greater than or equal to 11.33... Twelve votes would be required. It would meet the requirement if the threshold were the standard 2/3 vote as defined in RONR, which is: 2/3 of those present and voting (not merely eligible to vote, but actually voting). In that case it would suffice, since 11 is at least twice as much as 4. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted January 10, 2020 at 05:31 AM Report Share Posted January 10, 2020 at 05:31 AM I strongly disfavor any rule requiring a motion to be adopted by two-thirds of those persons who are "present and entitled to vote", since the net effect of abstention by those who are unable to form an opinion about the question is the same as a negative vote. This is not fair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Goodwiller, PRP Posted January 10, 2020 at 12:14 PM Report Share Posted January 10, 2020 at 12:14 PM Rob: you are correct about the effect. But I would argue that there are times when such a standard is appropriate. For example, it is the standard for a finding of guilt in our denomination’s constitution - which can result in the removal of ordination and/or church membership. Our belief is that if two thirds of the members of the court that tried the case are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the minister’s guilt, then the verdict must be “not guilty.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted January 10, 2020 at 11:39 PM Report Share Posted January 10, 2020 at 11:39 PM 18 hours ago, Rob Elsman said: I strongly disfavor any rule requiring a motion to be adopted by two-thirds of those persons who are "present and entitled to vote", since the net effect of abstention by those who are unable to form an opinion about the question is the same as a negative vote. This is not fair. 11 hours ago, Greg Goodwiller said: Rob: you are correct about the effect. But I would argue that there are times when such a standard is appropriate. For example, it is the standard for a finding of guilt in our denomination’s constitution - which can result in the removal of ordination and/or church membership. Our belief is that if two thirds of the members of the court that tried the case are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the minister’s guilt, then the verdict must be “not guilty.” Although I understand Mr. Elsman's point and agree that as a general rule requiring a vote of "two thirds of members present" (or two thirds of those persons present and entitled to vote) is not usually a good idea, I agree with Dr. Goodwiller that there are indeed situations where it is an appropriate threshold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts