tallying votes when using 2/3 method

[pattyhoa]

Our HOA is voting on covennt issues.  we have 38 elibible members voting.  there needs to be 2/3 votes to pass an amendment to the covenants.

What is the proper count that we need to meet the 2/3 mark?

38 div 3= 12.67     12.67 x 2=25.34    do you use the next whole number for the proper number of votes needed to meet the 2/3 mark?

thank you, Patty

[Atul Kapur]

Usually, it at least ⅔ of the votes cast not the number of eligible voters.

Assuming all 38 eligible voters cast a vote, or that you actually do require 2/3 of all those eligible to vote, then you need at least (2/3 x 38) 25⅓ votes. There is no rounding. So 25 votes is less than ⅔ and 26 votes is at least ⅔.

Say, instead, that only 22 of the eligible voters cast a ballot. In that case it would take any number of affirmative votes > 14⅔, so if there is no fractional voting, then 15 votes meets the standard.

A quick way to see if the ⅔ threshold is met is to check if the Yes votes are at least double the number of No votes. In our first example, a 25-13 result is less than ⅔ (25 < 2 x 13) and a 26-12 vote meets it. 

Edited May 5, 2024 at 05:35 PM by Atul Kapur
Added the bolded & underlined words to cover the situation if Pattyhoa's rules actually change the denominator to all eligible voters

[Rob Elsman]

On 5/5/2024 at 12:06 AM, Atul Kapur said:

...if there is no fractional voting...

Since the matter of "fractional voting" has been brought up, it is, in my opinion, a fundamental principle of parliamentary law, that a vote, being personal, cannot be either multiplied or divided.  Thus, the use of fractional voting would require authorization either in the organization's own rules or the operative statutes of the local place.

[Atul Kapur]

Yes, but since this is an HOA, the possibility that fractional voting exists is significant enough that I decided to mention it in my response. If it us an issue for the OP, she is now aware and can follow-up; if not, no harm done.

Edited May 5, 2024 at 01:46 PM by Atul Kapur

[J. J.]

On 5/5/2024 at 9:37 AM, Rob Elsman said:

Since the matter of "fractional voting" has been brought up, it is, in my opinion, a fundamental principle of parliamentary law, that a vote, being personal, cannot be either multiplied or divided.  Thus, the use of fractional voting would require authorization either in the organization's own rules or the operative statutes of the local place.

It would not violate an FPPL, but it would have to be expressed in the bylaws, in some form. 

[Richard Brown]

On 5/3/2024 at 2:40 PM, pattyhoa said:

Our HOA is voting on covennt issues.  we have 38 elibible members voting.  there needs to be 2/3 votes to pass an amendment to the covenants.

What is the proper count that we need to meet the 2/3 mark?

Please quote for us the EXACT VERBATIM provision in your bylaws regarding the vote requirement.

Edited May 5, 2024 at 05:19 PM by Richard Brown
Finished incomplete sentence

[Weldon Merritt]

On 5/5/2024 at 8:37 AM, Rob Elsman said:

it is, in my opinion, a fundamental principle of parliamentary law, that a vote, being personal, cannot be either multiplied or divided.

 

On 5/5/2024 at 12:17 PM, J. J. said:

It would not violate an FPPL

You don't think it would violate the "one voter, one vote" principle? It seems to me that one vote would not include a  fractional vote. 

[Rob Elsman]

Yes, that works for me, too.  The point is that voting expresses the judgment of a person, and one person (if he is mentally competent) cannot be fractionally in favor and fractionally opposed to a question.

Fractional voting is sometimes used in elections, but this seems to me to really be just another iteration of preferential voting.

[Atul Kapur]

We apparently have different definitions of "fractional voting" because I don't see a connection between fractional voting and preferential voting.

I am using it as a variation of weighted voting, where each vote does not necessarily have equal value to every other vote. For example, condo boards where a unit owner's vote is proportional to the size of their unit, so one owner may have a vote worth 1.25 of another owner's.

Please explain the connection to a preferential ballot. 

[Rob Elsman]

If A, B, and C are running for office, and I cast two-thirds vote for A and one-third vote for B, I am, in effect, saying that I prefer A over B and B over C.

[Atul Kapur]

The closest approximation of what you describe to any voting method I've ever heard of is cumulative voting.

[J. J.]

On 5/5/2024 at 4:16 PM, Weldon Merritt said:

 

You don't think it would violate the "one voter, one vote" principle? It seems to me that one vote would not include a  fractional vote. 

No, because the bylaws effectively define what that "one vote" is by defining membership.  If they "each unit shall have one vote" they are defining the unit as the member.  If the unit is owned by 3 people, each human owner may have 1/3 of a vote, but the unit still has one vote. 

[Weldon Merritt]

On 5/6/2024 at 5:35 AM, J. J. said:

If the unit is owned by 3 people, each human owner may have 1/3 of a vote, but the unit still has one vote. 

But can each cats 1/3 of a vote, or must they decide among themselves how the unit's one vole is the be cast? II am not fully familiar with HOAs and the like, but I suspect that it is the latter in most instances. If so, then I don't see it as fractional voting. It is still one voter (the unit), one vote.

[J. J.]

On 5/6/2024 at 8:21 AM, Weldon Merritt said:

But can each cats 1/3 of a vote, or must they decide among themselves how the unit's one vole is the be cast? II am not fully familiar with HOAs and the like, but I suspect that it is the latter in most instances. If so, then I don't see it as fractional voting. It is still one voter (the unit), one vote.

I think it depends on the bylaws.  In this case they are making the unit a member, and that one member has one vote.  Certainly the three owners could not each get a vote in that circumstance, unless the bylaws so provided. 

[Weldon Merritt]

On 5/6/2024 at 8:14 AM, J. J. said:

I think it depends on the bylaws.  In this case they are making the unit a member, and that one member has one vote.  Certainly the three owners could not each get a vote in that circumstance, unless the bylaws so provided. 

I agree. But I'm still not convinced that fractional voting does not violate the fundamental principle of one member, one vote.

[Josh Martin]

On 5/6/2024 at 8:33 AM, Weldon Merritt said:

I agree. But I'm still not convinced that fractional voting does not violate the fundamental principle of one member, one vote.

I think it is quite correct that fractional voting does violate the fundamental principle of one member, one vote, and that fractional voting is only permissible if authorized in the organization's bylaws or applicable law.

For that matter, defining membership on the basis of "units" rather than on the basis of people itself violates the same fundamental principle, whether or not there is fractional voting.

"It is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that each person who is a member of a deliberative assembly is entitled to one—and only one—vote on a question. This is true even if a person is elected or appointed to more than one position, each of which would entitle the holder to a vote. For example, in a convention, a person selected as delegate by more than one constituent body may cast only one vote. An individual member's right to vote may not be transferred to another person (for example, by the use of proxies)." RONR (12th ed.) 45:2

Now, I do not doubt that a homeowners association quite likely has rules in its bylaws and/or applicable law that may well provide for weighted voting, fractional voting, proxy voting, and all sorts of other things. But I agree that such rules do violate an FPPL.

On 5/6/2024 at 5:35 AM, J. J. said:

No, because the bylaws effectively define what that "one vote" is by defining membership.  If they "each unit shall have one vote" they are defining the unit as the member.  If the unit is owned by 3 people, each human owner may have 1/3 of a vote, but the unit still has one vote. 

You could perhaps make that argument in older editions, but the authors have made this FPPL quite a bit more explicit in more recent texts, and it is now clear that the FPPL is "one person = one member = one vote."

The bylaws can certainly define membership differently, but doing so does deviate from the FPPL.

Edited May 6, 2024 at 02:14 PM by Josh Martin

[Gary Novosielski]

On 5/5/2024 at 4:16 PM, Weldon Merritt said:

 

You don't think it would violate the "one voter, one vote" principle? It seems to me that one vote would not include a  fractional vote. 

I think it would violate this principle.

Edited to add:

Although, RONR does, in 44:1 mention that fractional voting is a possibility "in some conventions" without elaborating on how this might happen.

Edited May 6, 2024 at 05:22 PM by Gary Novosielski
addition

[J. J.]

On 5/6/2024 at 10:13 AM, Josh Martin said:

I think it is quite correct that fractional voting does violate the fundamental principle of one member, one vote, and that fractional voting is only permissible if authorized in the organization's bylaws or applicable law.

For that matter, defining membership on the basis of "units" rather than on the basis of people itself violates the same fundamental principle, whether or not there is fractional voting.

"It is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that each person who is a member of a deliberative assembly is entitled to one—and only one—vote on a question. This is true even if a person is elected or appointed to more than one position, each of which would entitle the holder to a vote. For example, in a convention, a person selected as delegate by more than one constituent body may cast only one vote. An individual member's right to vote may not be transferred to another person (for example, by the use of proxies)." RONR (12th ed.) 45:2

Now, I do not doubt that a homeowners association quite likely has rules in its bylaws and/or applicable law that may well provide for weighted voting, fractional voting, proxy voting, and all sorts of other things. But I agree that such rules do violate an FPPL.

You could perhaps make that argument in older editions, but the authors have made this FPPL quite a bit more explicit in more recent texts, and it is now clear that the FPPL is "one person = one member = one vote."

The bylaws can certainly define membership differently, but doing so does deviate from the FPPL.

I don' think it would apply because the member in not a person. 

[Josh Martin]

On 5/6/2024 at 1:39 PM, J. J. said:

I don' think it would apply because the member in not a person. 

If an organization defines a "member" as something other than a person, that in itself violates the FPPL in question.

Which, to be clear, the organization is free to do if that definition is in the organization's bylaws (or applicable law).

[J. J.]

On 5/6/2024 at 4:25 PM, Josh Martin said:

If an organization defines a "member" as something other than a person, that in itself violates the FPPL in question.

Which, to be clear, the organization is free to do if that definition is in the organization's bylaws (or applicable law).

In that case, the FPPL is not applicable.  I would say that it violates the FPPL, as such.