Counting Abstentions

[Guest Chuck Graham]

When counting abstentions, I was recently informed that per Robert's Rules, when there is a tie between Yays and Nays, the abstentions are used as Yays.  Does anyone know chapter and paragraph where I can either find this or conflicting information.  It seems to me that this would be false by the very nature of the voter being an abstention.  Thanks in advance!

[Rob Elsman]

Whoever informed you was dead wrong.  The only time abstentions are dealt with is when a vote is taken by roll call, when enough abstentions by members who are present are recorded as "abstain" or "present" in order to demonstrate the meeting has a quorum.  At any rate, the immediate answer to the question is that abstentions are never counted as affirmative votes.

[Richard Brown]

1 hour ago, Guest Chuck Graham said:

When counting abstentions, I was recently informed that per Robert's Rules, when there is a tie between Yays and Nays, the abstentions are used as Yays. 

No, That is not correct.

In ordinary voting, abstentions  are ignored. They don’t count one way or the other because they are not votes. However, in a situation where the rules require something like a majority (or two-thirds) of the members present or The vote of a majority of the entire membership, an abstention can have the EFFECT of a no vote. However, it is not a vote and is not counted unless necessary for the sole purpose of showing that a quorum was present.  An abstention is never counted as a yes vote.

So, although abstentions are not counted as no votes, they are sometimes counted and they also sometimes have the EFFECT of a no vote. 
 

Edited to  add: See 4:35, 44:1 and 44:9 (RONR 12th Ed.)

Edited March 21, 2021 at 07:24 PM by Richard Brown
Added last paragraph

[Joshua Katz]

3 hours ago, Guest Chuck Graham said:

informed

Someone has not informed you, but rather misinformed you.

[Gary Novosielski]

10 hours ago, Guest Chuck Graham said:

When counting abstentions, I was recently informed that per Robert's Rules, when there is a tie between Yays and Nays, the abstentions are used as Yays.  Does anyone know chapter and paragraph where I can either find this or conflicting information.  It seems to me that this would be false by the very nature of the voter being an abstention.  Thanks in advance!

Abstentions should not be called for, nor counted (unless necessary to establish a quorum on a roll-call).  Abstaining from voting is, by definition, not a vote--neither Yes, nor No, and should not be counted as either one. 

A person who remains silent after a call for "any Abstentions?"  has abstained just as surely as someone who stands and shouts "I abstain!".  Therefor it is bad practice to ask for abstentions, and on counted votes it is improper for the minutes to include a count of abstentions.

[Guest Civic leader]

Our bylaws state that a particular vote will pass if it is approved by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the Members present and voting at a meeting of the Members where quorum is established.  

Should abstentions count when determining if this vote passes or fails? It has been argued that they do not, that only the yes and no votes should be counted for purposes of determining the 2/3 majority, since the rule explicitly states the members must be present and voting.   A quorum was established.  

[Gary Novosielski]

24 minutes ago, Guest Civic leader said:

Our bylaws state that a particular vote will pass if it is approved by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the Members present and voting at a meeting of the Members where quorum is established.  

Should abstentions count when determining if this vote passes or fails? It has been argued that they do not, that only the yes and no votes should be counted for purposes of determining the 2/3 majority, since the rule explicitly states the members must be present and voting.   A quorum was established.  

No they do not count, and should not be counted.  Abstentions by definition are not votes, so a member who abstains is not "present and voting" and so does not affect the outcome of the vote.  A 2/3 vote then is simply one where the number of Yes votes is double (or more) the number of No votes.

Abstentions are not counted, not recorded, and are simply ignored.

Edited March 22, 2021 at 02:50 PM by Gary Novosielski

[Guest Ben]

11 members present

Majority of a quorum is clearly 6

Yes - 5

No - 0

Abstain - 6

Pass or fail vote?

[puzzling]

On 9/16/2022 at 5:02 AM, Guest Ben said:

11 members present

Majority of a quorum is clearly 6

Yes - 5

No - 0

Abstain - 6

Pass or fail vote?

it is adopted if the voting requirement is

- majority of members present and voting

-2/3 vote of members present and voting.

it has failed if the voting requirement is

- majority of members present.

-2/3  vote of members present.

I don't  know what "majority of the quorum" means, so you tell me

[Josh Martin]

On 9/15/2022 at 11:02 PM, Guest Ben said:

11 members present

Majority of a quorum is clearly 6

Yes - 5

No - 0

Abstain - 6

Pass or fail vote?

I assume what you mean to say is that a majority of the members present is six. A quorum is the minimum number of members who must be present in order to conduct business, and is not necessarily the number of members that is actually present.

In any event, under ordinary circumstances, a vote of 6-0 will be sufficient to adopt a motion. See FAQ #6 for more information.

On 9/16/2022 at 1:17 AM, puzzling said:

I don't  know what "majority of the quorum" means, so you tell me

It is a rather bizarre phrase I have often seen used by questioners on the forum which, so far as I can determine, translates to either "a majority of the members present, provided that at least a quorum is present" or "a majority vote, provided that at least a quorum is present." The OP appears to be using the first of these two meanings.

[puzzling]

On 9/16/2022 at 11:36 AM, Josh Martin said:

I assume what you mean to say is that a majority of the members present is six. A quorum is the minimum number of members who must be present in order to conduct business, and is not necessarily the number of members that is actually present.

In any event, under ordinary circumstances, a vote of 6-0 will be sufficient to adopt a motion. See FAQ #6 for more information.

It is a rather bizarre phrase I have often seen used by questioners on the forum which, so far as I can determine, translates to either "a majority of the members present, provided that at least a quorum is present" or "a majority vote, provided that at least a quorum is present." The OP appears to be using the first of these two meanings.

If I was being forced to interprete

"a majority of thequorum"

I would answer:

 

a majority  of the quorum

AND

a majority of members present and voting.

Sslo in this case:

A majority of the quorum == majority of quorum (6) members == 4

A majority of those present and voting  = majority of 6 votes == 4

so the motion was adopted.

But having no idea what *a majority of the quorum " really means I would not be sure if this is the right interpretation 

[Dan Honemann]

On 9/16/2022 at 6:36 AM, Josh Martin said:

In any event, under ordinary circumstances, a vote of 6-0 will be sufficient to adopt a motion.

I agree, but in this instance the vote was 5-0.  If, in fact, the vote required for adoption is "a majority of a quorum", since Guest Ben tells us that a "majority of a quorum is clearly 6", I suppose 5 won't cut it.  🙂

[puzzling]

On 9/16/2022 at 6:14 PM, Dan Honemann said:

I agree, but in this instance the vote was 5-0.  If, in fact, the vote required for adoption is "a majority of a quorum", since Guest Ben tells us that a "majority of a quorum is clearly 6", I suppose 5 won't cut it.  🙂

i (very humbly) allready disagree seem to disagree with Mr Honemann (and I  don't like to disagree with him) about what quorum means 

for me - the number of members that has to be present according to the bylaws to hold a valid meeting.

for mr Honemann (more authorities than me) - the number of members present.

(I guessed the quorum, mentioned in the bylaws was 6  otherwise no vote could be taken in the first place) 

 

[Dan Honemann]

On 9/16/2022 at 1:49 PM, puzzling said:

i (very humbly) allready disagree seem to disagree with Mr Honemann (and I  don't like to disagree with him) about what quorum means 

for me - the number of members that has to be present according to the bylaws to hold a valid meeting.

for mr Honemann (more authorities than me) - the number of members present.

(I guessed the quorum, mentioned in the bylaws was 6  otherwise no vote could be taken in the first place) 

 

I'm afraid you misunderstand me.  Since we have nothing else to go on than what we have been told, and what we have been told is that, in this instance, a majority of a quorum is 6, than that's that. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 9/16/2022 at 12:02 AM, Guest Ben said:

11 members present

Majority of a quorum is clearly 6

Yes - 5

No - 0

Abstain - 6

Pass or fail vote?

It is not at all clear to me that a majority of a quorum is 6.    A majority of the members present is 6, but without knowing the total number of members, or a fixed quorum number, you have not told us what the quorum requirement is, or what the voting threshold is.  In any case, the rule is whatever the bylaws say it is.  

If the rules in RONR apply,  it's simple. the vote is a 5-0 vote, and clearly carries.  If they do not apply, your guess is as good as mine.  No, it is better than mine, because I am not a member.

In the future, please ask questions by creating a new topic, rather than tail-ending on a year-old one.  Thanks!

[Josh Martin]

On 9/16/2022 at 12:14 PM, Dan Honemann said:

I agree, but in this instance the vote was 5-0.

Yes, I meant 5-0, which will still generally be sufficient to adopt a motion.

On 9/16/2022 at 12:14 PM, Dan Honemann said:

If, in fact, the vote required for adoption is "a majority of a quorum", since Guest Ben tells us that a "majority of a quorum is clearly 6", I suppose 5 won't cut it.  🙂

Well, I hope for everyone's sake that the organization's rules do not, in fact, provide that "a majority of the quorum" is required for adoption and it was just a phrase he heard somewhere (which is my suspicion).

Edited September 16, 2022 at 08:37 PM by Josh Martin

[Gary Novosielski]

On 9/16/2022 at 4:32 PM, Josh Martin said:

Well, I hope for everyone's sake that the organization's rules do not, in fact, provide that "a majority of the quorum" is required for adoption and it was just a phrase he randomly heard somewhere (which is my suspicion).

I suspect the same, and I further suspect that this is the way that the phrase ends up in various bylaws, because someone thought it sounded kewl.  I know it is has also found its way into some case law, where it also doesn't belong.

[Richard Brown]

On 9/16/2022 at 3:38 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

I suspect the same, and I further suspect that this is the way that the phrase ends up in various bylaws, because someone thought it sounded kewl.  I know it is has also found its way into some case law, where it also doesn't belong.

Amen. 

[Richard Brown]

On 9/16/2022 at 2:36 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

It is not at all clear to me that a majority of a quorum is 6.    A majority of the members present is 6, but without knowing the total number of members, or a fixed quorum number, you have not told us what the quorum requirement is, or what the voting threshold is.  In any case, the rule is whatever the bylaws say it is.

I agree 

On 9/16/2022 at 2:36 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

If the rules in RONR apply,  it's simple. the vote is a 5-0 vote, and clearly carries.  If they do not apply, your guess is as good as mine.  No, it is better than mine, because I am not a member.

Again I agree 

On 9/16/2022 at 2:36 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

In the future, please ask questions by creating a new topic, rather than tail-ending on a year-old one.  Thanks!

And I also agree with this. I would have said so in the first response, but people had already started responding, somewhat to my surprise.

[Dan Honemann]

On 9/16/2022 at 4:32 PM, Josh Martin said:

Well, I hope for everyone's sake that the organization's rules do not, in fact, provide that "a majority of the quorum" is required for adoption and it was just a phrase he heard somewhere (which is my suspicion).

 

On 9/16/2022 at 4:38 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

I suspect the same, and I further suspect that this is the way that the phrase ends up in various bylaws, because someone thought it sounded kewl.  I know it is has also found its way into some case law, where it also doesn't belong.

Well, the Supreme Court of the United States, in U.S. v Ballin, 144 U.S. 1 (1892), told us that "...the general rule of all parliamentary bodies is that, when a quorum is present, the act of a majority of the quorum is the act of the body."

[Atul Kapur]

On 9/16/2022 at 2:17 AM, puzzling said:

I don't  know what "majority of the quorum" means, so you tell me

As RONR is silent, I checked the American Institute of Parliamentarians Standard Code, which defines it as, "A majority of those present and voting, assuming a quorum is present, with the further stipulation that the affirmative vote must include a majority of the number required for a quorum."

Take, for example a body of 8 with quorum being 5. A 2-1 vote (with 2-5 abstentions) does not meet the threshold of 3 affirmative votes (3 is a majority of 5) so would be lost.

I understand that the principle is that too many abstentions can invalidate the result.

[Dan Honemann]

On 9/16/2022 at 8:21 PM, Atul Kapur said:

As RONR is silent, I checked the American Institute of Parliamentarians Standard Code, which defines it as, "A majority of those present and voting, assuming a quorum is present, with the further stipulation that the affirmative vote must include a majority of the number required for a quorum."

Take, for example a body of 8 with quorum being 5. A 2-1 vote (with 2-5 abstentions) does not meet the threshold of 3 affirmative votes (3 is a majority of 5) so would be lost.

I understand that the principle is that too many abstentions can invalidate the result.

And where did this idea come from?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Atul Kapur]

The citation is Hascard v Samony 

1 Freeman 504, 89 E.R. 380 (K.B. 1693)

The part I could find states that for this body of 13, quorum is 7 and a majority of the 7 is required to bind the corporation:

"the Dean and Canons of Windsor, where there are twelve canons besides the dean, which in all make up thirteen of the corporation, it was held, 1. That primd [prima?] facie in all acts done by a corporation, the major number must bind the lesser, or else differences could never be determined. 2. That acts done by the corporation ought to be done by the consent of the major number, or else they are not valid; and therefore where the corporation consists of thirteen, there ought to be seven to make a chapter ; but the act of the major number of those seven is binding to the corporation."

[Dan Honemann]

On 9/16/2022 at 9:15 PM, Atul Kapur said:

The citation is Hascard v Samony 

1 Freeman 504, 89 E.R. 380 (K.B. 1693)

The part I could find states that for this body of 13, quorum is 7 and a majority of the 7 is required to bind the corporation:

"the Dean and Canons of Windsor, where there are twelve canons besides the dean, which in all make up thirteen of the corporation, it was held, 1. That primd [prima?] facie in all acts done by a corporation, the major number must bind the lesser, or else differences could never be determined. 2. That acts done by the corporation ought to be done by the consent of the major number, or else they are not valid; and therefore where the corporation consists of thirteen, there ought to be seven to make a chapter ; but the act of the major number of those seven is binding to the corporation."

But certainly this bolded portion was not intended to mean that the act of 4 members will bind a body of 13.

The crucial part of this holding is the statement that "in all acts done by a corporation, the major number must bind the lesser, or else differences could never be determined" and I certainly have no quarrel with this.

Although I don't see how this holding leads to what is said in the Standard Code concerning "a majority vote of the quorum", none of this really matters and I should not have asked the question that I did.  In U.S. v Ballin (and perhaps here as well, I'm not sure) the court was simply trying to describe the vote needed to adopt as prescribed by the rules of the House, which I think was then, as it is now, a majority of the votes cast.  It simply didn't do a very good job of it. The important thing to understand is that the court was not attempting to itself prescribe the vote required for adoption, the right to do so being vested in the House. 

[Atul Kapur]

On 9/17/2022 at 8:20 AM, Dan Honemann said:

But certainly this bolded portion was not intended to mean that the act of 4 members will bind a body of 13.

I'm not sure how you arrive at that when the conclusion is 

On 9/16/2022 at 9:15 PM, Atul Kapur said:

but the act of the major number of those seven is binding to the corporation."

Where "the act" of the four is to vote in favour. Yes, seven have to be present, but four voting in favour binds the corporation. The point I'm inferring is that three or fewer voting in the affirmative, even if they constitute a majority of those voting, would not bind the corporation.

QED