Vote of 2/3 of the membership

[Guest Puzzling]

What does a vote of 2/3 of the membership really mean?

In another post there seem to be some difference of opinion.

Suppose a membership of 100 members.

Is it a majority vote of at least 67 voting members? (So For example 34 y -33n)

Or 

At least 67y ?

Or something else all together?

[Dan Honemann]

If you will review what is said in RONR (12th ed.) 44:7-10, you will see that RONR very carefully tells you what is meant by the term "a vote of two-thirds of the entire membership".

As noted in 44:10, "Whenever it is desired that the basis for decision be other than a majority vote or (where the normal rules of parliamentary law require it) a two-thirds vote or a vote of a majority of the entire membership, the desired basis should be precisely defined in the bylaws or in a special rule of order" (emphasis supplied). Your use of the term "a vote of 2/3 of the membership" falls a bit short of a precise definition, but maybe it's close enough.

[Josh Martin]

58 minutes ago, Guest Puzzling said:

What does a vote of 2/3 of the membership really mean?

The phrase "vote of 2/3 of the membership" is vague and the meaning is unclear.

RONR uses the following language for defining a voting basis:

• If "two thirds vote" is used without qualification, this is understood to mean a vote of 2/3 of the members present and voting.
• A "vote of two thirds of the members present" means 2/3 of the members present.
• A "vote of two thirds of the entire membership" means 2/3 of the entire membership.

When a phrase like "vote of 2/3 of the membership" or "2/3 vote of the membership" is used, however, it is unclear whether this is intended to modify the basis for adoption or if it is simply intended to clarify that the vote is taken by the membership (as opposed to the board, for instance). As a result, the society will need to interpret the ambiguity, and it will be necessary to read the rule in its full context to do so.

58 minutes ago, Guest Puzzling said:

Is it a majority vote of at least 67 voting members? (So For example 34 y -33n)

As I have noted above, the meaning of this phrase is ambiguous, but I generally do not think this would be a reasonable interpretation. A rule of this nature generally refers, in some manner, to the number of members required to vote in the affirmative, not the number of members required to vote in total.

58 minutes ago, Guest Puzzling said:

At least 67y ?

That the phrase means a "vote of two thirds of the entire membership" is one possibility. In this event, yes, there would need to be at least 67 votes in the affirmative.

58 minutes ago, Guest Puzzling said:

Or something else all together?

As I have suggested above, it may well be that the intent of the "of the membership" language is simply to clarify which body is voting, and that the default "two thirds of the members present and voting" requirement is applicable.

Edited February 8, 2021 at 01:55 PM by Josh Martin

[Richard Brown]

2 hours ago, Guest Puzzling said:

What does a vote of 2/3 of the membership really mean?

In another post there seem to be some difference of opinion.

Suppose a membership of 100 members.

Is it a majority vote of at least 67 voting members? (So For example 34 y -33n)

Or 

At least 67y ?

Or something else all together?

To be precise, if it is desired that the vote threshold be based on the entire membership, then the words "entire  membership" should be used.  That eliminates confusion.

But, assuming that is what is intended by use of the phrase "of the membership" is  intended to mean, "a vote of 2/3 of the entire membership" means that  two thirds of the entire membership  must vote yes.  If you have 100 members, then 67 yes votes are required.  In this case, abstentions have the effect of a no vote simply because they aren't yes votes.  You need 67 yes votes, regardless of how many members are present and regardless of how many abstain.  Sections 44:3 - 44:10 explain it very well. 

Edited to add:  After reading the posts above by Dan Honemann and Josh Martin, both of whom posted as I was typing my post, I want to emphasize what they both said regarding the lack of clarity or specificity of the phrase "of the membership".  That term can well be used to define the voting body, as in "a vote of the membership" versus "a vote of the board".  That is why it is so important to use the words "of the  ENTIRE membership" if that is what is intended.

In the case of your example, it will likely be up  to the membership itself to determine  what is meant by the phrase.  My guess is that it is intended to mean "the entire membership", but that is only one possible interpretation. 

btw, please stop referring to a "two thirds majority vote" or to any variations of that.  A two thirds vote is a two thirds vote, not a "two thirds majority vote".  The  two terms are contradictory.  A majority means more than half.  Two thirds means two thirds.  RONR never once uses the term "two thirds majority vote" for a reason.  It can cause confusion as in causing people to wonder of it means something like "two thirds of a majority", which would be two thirds of more than half.... whatever on earth that means. By my calculation, it would be somewhere around a one-third vote.  Is that really what you mean by a "2/3 majority vote"?  So, please just stop  saying "two thirds majority" (or 2/3 majority).  If you are using two-thirds, do not use the word majority in the same sentence.

Edited February 8, 2021 at 03:48 PM by Richard Brown
Addded word "entire" to 2nd paragraph and Added last three paragraphs

[Guest Puzzling]

The term used in https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/36599-poa-covenant-changes/

Was

 "a 2/3rd majority vote of all eligible members to pass" 

(Sorry for the word majority but I am quoting)

For the entire membership of 100 how many years would this mean?

[George Mervosh]

6 minutes ago, Guest Puzzling said:

The term used in https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/36599-poa-covenant-changes/

Was

 "a 2/3rd majority vote of all eligible members to pass" 

(Sorry for the word majority but I am quoting)

Examples of poorly worded bylaws are on every page of this forum.  The term should not be used at all because there is no such thing and using it causes confusion.

[Richard Brown]

6 minutes ago, Guest Puzzling said:

The term used in https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/36599-poa-covenant-changes/

Was

 "a 2/3rd majority vote of all eligible members to pass" 

(Sorry for the word majority but I am quoting)

For the entire membership of 100 how many years would this mean?

You are quoting from someone's question, not  from RONR.

As to the number of yes votes required if the phrase means "a vote of two thirds of the entire membership" of 100, it would be 67 yes votes as I said in my previous post.  Again, it is critical to first know exactly what the phrase means..... does it mean "of the ENTIRE membership"?

The language you are using is non-standard, so we can't tell you what it means.  My answer is based on my assumption that it means "a vote of two thirds of the entire membership".  However, that may not be what the people who drafted your bylaws intended it to mean.   When the wording used in your bylaws or rules of order is other than the standard language used in RONR, your membership has to decide what it means.  

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, Guest Puzzling said:

The term used in https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/36599-poa-covenant-changes/

Was

 "a 2/3rd majority vote of all eligible members to pass" 

(Sorry for the word majority but I am quoting)

For the entire membership of 100 how many years would this mean?

I have no idea. I would not have any confidence expressing an opinion on this matter without seeing the full rule in context.

To the extent that it means "a vote of 2/3 of the entire membership," it would require 67 votes in the affirmative with a membership of 100. (Assuming all 100 of those persons are "eligible members" as the rule specifies.) If it means something else, then it may not be possible to answer the question of how many votes in the affirmative are required without having additional information.

Edited February 8, 2021 at 04:43 PM by Josh Martin

[Rob Elsman]

Requiring a two-thirds vote of the entire membership is usually not desirable, since obtaining such a high attendance at meetings is often impossible in ordinary societies.

[Richard Brown]

2 minutes ago, Rob Elsman said:

Requiring a two-thirds vote of the entire membership is usually not desirable, since obtaining such a high attendance at meetings is often impossible in ordinary societies.

Well, we don't really know what "a two-thirds vote of the entire membership" is, since it, too, is non-standard language.  What exactly does it mean?  It could well be just two thirds of a handful of members who showed up for a meeting.  Did you perhaps mean instead, "a vote of two-thirds of the entire membership"?   The two statements do not necessarily mean the same thing.  The latter phase is defined in RONR.  The former one is not.    This again shows the importance of using the proper terminology and precise language.

[alanh49]

On 2/8/2021 at 8:51 AM, Richard Brown said:

A two thirds vote is a two thirds vote, not a "two thirds majority vote".  The  two terms are contradictory.  A majority means more than half.  Two thirds means two thirds.  RONR never once uses the term "two thirds majority vote"

But two thirds is more than half so it is a majority. It is a majority of a certain size. The  two terms are not contradictory but adding majority after two thirds is pointless and should not be done.

[Shmuel Gerber]

30 minutes ago, alanh49 said:

But two thirds is more than half so it is a majority. It is a majority of a certain size. The  two terms are not contradictory but adding majority after two thirds is pointless and should not be done.

If you add majority after two thirds, do you get more than seven sixths?