2/3 super majority vote

[Guest LJames]

Our students are currently in the process of amending their constitution. In order for the amend to be considered, it needs a 2/3 super majority vote from their senate. What does mean, 2/3 super-majority vote” in terms of Robert’s Rules of Order? In their legislative documents, a 2/3 majority is defined as “ two thirds of the Senate Members contributing to the quorum rounded to the nearest senator.” But no where else do their documents do they define what a two-thirds super-majority is. Just that it is needed for the amendment to pass. Are they being redundant with the term itself?

[Dan Honemann]

On 11/6/2023 at 3:14 PM, Guest LJames said:

Our students are currently in the process of amending their constitution. In order for the amend to be considered, it needs a 2/3 super majority vote from their senate. What does mean, 2/3 super-majority vote” in terms of Robert’s Rules of Order? In their legislative documents, a 2/3 majority is defined as “ two thirds of the Senate Members contributing to the quorum rounded to the nearest senator.” But no where else do their documents do they define what a two-thirds super-majority is. Just that it is needed for the amendment to pass. Are they being redundant with the term itself?

"A two-thirds vote—when the term is unqualified—means at least two thirds of the votes cast by persons entitled to vote, excluding blanks or abstentions, at a regular or properly called meeting. For example (assuming that there are no fractions of votes):
• If 30 votes are cast, a two-thirds vote is 20.
• If 31 votes are cast, a two-thirds vote is 21.
• If 32 votes are cast, a two-thirds vote is 22.
• If 33 votes are cast, a two-thirds vote is 22."

RONR, 12th ed., 44:3

 

[Joshua Katz]

On 11/6/2023 at 3:14 PM, Guest LJames said:

Are they being redundant with the term itself?

Yes. But their definition of 2/3 majority conflicts with that in RONR, and is a very high bar, significantly higher than 2/3 is in RONR (as Mr. Honemann explained above). (We can ignore the fact that 2/3 majority does not make sense. The better term is 2/3 vote.)

Edited November 6, 2023 at 08:46 PM by Joshua Katz

[Gary Novosielski]

On 11/6/2023 at 3:14 PM, Guest LJames said:

Our students are currently in the process of amending their constitution. In order for the amend to be considered, it needs a 2/3 super majority vote from their senate. What does mean, 2/3 super-majority vote” in terms of Robert’s Rules of Order? In their legislative documents, a 2/3 majority is defined as “ two thirds of the Senate Members contributing to the quorum rounded to the nearest senator.” But no where else do their documents do they define what a two-thirds super-majority is. Just that it is needed for the amendment to pass. Are they being redundant with the term itself?

The term 2/3 super-majority vote is not a proper term of art in parliamentary usage.  What is the exact rule for constitutional amendments, and does it actually say "super-majority"?

RONR usus the terms majority vote and two-thirds vote, and they mean different things:

• majority vote means: a vote of more than half of those present and voting (i.e. more Yes votes than No votes)
• two-thirds vote means a vote of at least two-thirds of the votes cast. (i.e., Yes votes at least double the No votes)

Your rules apparently have their own definition of "2/3 majority" but it is a little confusing.  "Members contributing to the quorum" is unclear.  It may mean simply 2/3 of the members present, or it may mean something else.  Adding the word "super," or omitting it, would not, in my view, change the meaning.  People like to add the word "super" for their own reasons.

But if your definition means 2/3 of members present, that's a higher threshold than the usual two-thirds vote, because in the latter, abstentions do not affect the outcome, while in the former, abstentions have a similar effect to a No vote.

[Joshua Katz]

On 11/6/2023 at 4:26 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

It may mean simply 2/3 of the members present, or it may mean something else. 

The number present, or the number which constitutes a quorum, whichever is smaller, seems most sensible, but it can lead to some absurd results in terms of the vote threshold. I don't know that this definition can be read coherently, but I think 2/3 of those present is the best reading. (Except for the fractional part, which necessarily varies from RONR in certain cases.)

[Gary Novosielski]

On 11/6/2023 at 4:28 PM, Joshua Katz said:

The number present, or the number which constitutes a quorum, whichever is smaller, seems most sensible, but it can lead to some absurd results in terms of the vote threshold. I don't know that this definition can be read coherently, but I think 2/3 of those present is the best reading. (Except for the fractional part, which necessarily varies from RONR in certain cases.)

The number which constitutes a quorum might be barely more than half of the members or perhaps set much lower, and two-thirds of that, would allow bylaws amendments with barely detectable approval levels.  I think that the implied "whichever is smaller" must be rejected. Since "contributing to a quorum" could be paraphrased as "showing up," I think it's closer to "members present."

I don't know the point of rounding, since counting votes requires no rounding, and presumably the number of Senators is also a whole number.  Too often, bylaws are drafted by people who love the sound of their own words more than they do clarity.

Edited November 6, 2023 at 09:42 PM by Gary Novosielski

[Joshua Katz]

On 11/6/2023 at 4:41 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

I don't know the point of rounding, since counting votes requires no rounding, and presumably the number of Senators is also a whole number.  Too often, bylaws are drafted by people who love the sound of their own words more than they do clarity.

Yes. I don't know the point either, but the effect seems pretty clear.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 11/6/2023 at 4:44 PM, Joshua Katz said:

Yes. I don't know the point either, but the effect seems pretty clear.

It is, but that's no guarantee someone won't interpret it creatively.

[Drake Savory]

It sounds like they want 2/3 super-majority to be different than a regular 2/3 vote.  While a 2/3 vote is 2/3 of those voting, they want a super-majority of 2/3 of the members there.

On 11/6/2023 at 2:41 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

I don't know the point of rounding, since counting votes requires no rounding, and presumably the number of Senators is also a whole number. 

So someone can pull out a calculator and count 35 members present and do 35 * 2 ÷ 3 =23.33333..... . Then round down to 23 and count to see if 23 or more voted yes.

Probably a math major came up with that plan.

[Joshua Katz]

On 11/6/2023 at 9:26 PM, Drake Savory said:

So someone can pull out a calculator and count 35 members present and do 35 * 2 ÷ 3 =23.33333..... . Then round down to 23 and count to see if 23 or more voted yes.

 

Except that 23 will not be 2/3 of those present.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 11/7/2023 at 2:57 AM, Joshua Katz said:

Except that 23 will not be 2/3 of those present.

No, but it meets the definition in the bylaws which allows rounding to the nearest integer, which in this case is less than 2/3.

Someone thought they were being smart.

Edited November 7, 2023 at 07:42 PM by Gary Novosielski