Calculating a % Majority

[tcasey]

A vote was taken that required a 60% majority to pass. There were 22 Votes in total, plus 2 abstentions. 13 votes were yes votes, 9 were no. The board accepted the vote as passed. 22 votes x. 60% =13.2 votes required to pass. Rounded to the nearest whole number, 13 votes required to pass. Is this the correct way to calculate the vote? Thank you.

[jstackpo]

No. "Rounding to the nearest whole number" is incorrect. You have to round UP to the next whole number.

A majority means more than half, and I presume your "60% majority" would mean more than 60% of the votes cast. 13 0f 22 is LESS than 60% so the motion should have failed.

However, since this is all in the past it is too late to raise a point of order to correct things. Do it right next time. The motion stands as adopted.

You can move to rescind it, however... See p. 293 ff.

[tcasey]

Thanks, JD. I really appreciate the reply. Perhaps more specifically, the motion was that 60% of the voters needed to approve the motion in order for it to pass. Would the same logic apply?

[Josh Martin]

Perhaps more specifically, the motion was that 60% of the voters needed to approve the motion in order for it to pass. Would the same logic apply?

I think you're going to be more specific about exactly what happened. What I'm imagining right now is a motion which includes a proviso that it is only effective if it achieves a 60% vote. If that is the case, the motion was adopted, but due to the proviso, would not take effect. The motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted would be a way to remove the proviso, which requires a 2/3 vote, vote of a majority of the entire membership, or majority vote with previous notice.

As a side note, every time I hear about provisos of this nature, I'm more and more convinced that they're a really sloppy way of doing business. It's much cleaner to make a special rule of order which applies to a particular class of business, or if it's a one-time thing and the assembly feels it would be imprudent to move forward with a bare majority, the motion to reconsider can be applied.

[tcasey]

Thanks, Josh. Here's what happened. The Board approved the following motion--That the Board would will only approve the project if 60% of written ballots from the members were in favor of the proposal from the vendor.

The communication to the members at the time of voting re-stated that the Board would only approve the project if 60% of written ballots (e-mails) from the members were in favor of the proposal. The following example was given: If all 24 members respond, 14 "yes" votes will be needed for passage.

22 members responded, with 13 yes and 9 no.

The board voted to accept the 13 votes as the 60% required for passage. In a separate vote, the board then voted to approve the project.

[Josh Martin]

Here's what happened. The Board approved the following motion--That the Board would will only approve the project if 60% of written ballots from the members were in favor of the proposal from the vendor.

The communication to the members at the time of voting re-stated that the Board would only approve the project if 60% of written ballots (e-mails) from the members were in favor of the proposal. The following example was given: If all 24 members respond, 14 "yes" votes will be needed for passage.

22 members responded, with 13 yes and 9 no.

The board voted to accept the 13 votes as the 60% required for passage. In a separate vote, the board then voted to approve the project.

Interesting. If this is the case, it would appear that the second motion is in conflict with the first, since 60% of the votes from the members were not in favor, so it is null and void unless it can be clearly established that it was adopted by the vote required to rescind or amend the first motion.

[Dan Honemann]

Interesting. If this is the case, it would appear that the second motion is in conflict with the first, since 60% of the votes from the members were not in favor, so it is null and void unless it can be clearly established that it was adopted by the vote required to rescind or amend the first motion.

I'm not so sure.

This appears to be something which the board itself adopted for its own guidance in deciding whether or not it would approve a certain project (which, presumably was within its power to approve or disapprove), and it also appears that, from the example the board gave to the membership, it had determined that it would round to the nearest whole number in deciding if the 60% requirement was met (which I think, under these circumstances, it would have the right to do).

[jstackpo]

"(which I think, under these circumstances, it would have the right to do)"

Nonsense! (What has become of our mathematics standards!!)

If the board wanted at least a 60% favorable return they should have stuck to their guns -- 13 of 22 is only 59.09%

[Dan Honemann]

"(which I think, under these circumstances, it would have the right to do)"

Nonsense! (What has become of our mathematics standards!!)

If the board wanted at least a 60% favorable return they should have stuck to their guns -- 13 of 22 is only 59.09%

Whether or not you regard it as nonsense, the board, under these circumstances, can set its own standard.

[jstackpo]

Of course... but once set and announced to the full membership one would hope they had the integrity to stick to their decision even though the vote returns didn't (quite) achieve the outcome they may have been hoping for.

What next? 23 to 23 is good enough for a "majority"?

[Dan Honemann]

Of course... but once set and announced to the full membership one would hope they had the integrity to stick to their decision even though the vote returns didn't (quite) achieve the outcome they may have been hoping for.

John, I do not agree with your premise, but even if I did, perhaps you missed this:

"The communication to the members at the time of voting re-stated that the Board would only approve the project if 60% of written ballots (e-mails) from the members were in favor of the proposal. The following example was given: If all 24 members respond, 14 "yes" votes will be needed for passage."

[jstackpo]

I did indeed miss that the Board in question is not very good at mathematics...

[Matt Schafer]

Mr. Honemann, is your reasoning based on the fact that the board chose to get an advisory vote from the members? It appears to me (based on the given facts) that the board has the authority to approve the project, so they just wanted some guidance from the members before making their decision. Would it make any difference that the example of 14 out of 24 votes (which is 58.33%) was not a part of the original motion adopted by the board, that it was only explained that way when the board solicited the advisory vote from the members?

Just trying to understand, thanks.

[hmtcastle]

Would it make any difference that the example of 14 out of 24 votes (which is 58.33%) was not a part of the original motion adopted by the board, that it was only explained that way when the board solicited the advisory vote from the members?

It's not clear that the example was part of the motion but it suggests that 60% was an approximation. It's certainly a non-standard percentage so it may be that the board wanted something more than a (simple) majority but not as much as two-thirds.

Mr. Stackpole notes that the vote, 13 of 22, is only 59.09% but it's more than that. It's 59.090909 . . . and the farther you extend it, the closer it gets to 60%. Of course it'll never get there so I think the board simply figured they were getting close enough.

[Shmuel Gerber]

Mr. Stackpole notes that the vote, 13 of 22, is only 59.09% but it's more than that. It's 59.090909 . . . and the farther you extend it, the closer it gets to 60%. Of course it'll never get there so I think the board simply figured they were getting close enough.

No matter how far you extend it, it will never get any closer to 60% than 59.1%.

[tcasey]

Thanks for all your posts. Your opinions accurately reflect the disagreement on our board and with some of our members.

Yes, the board did have authority to approve the project. However, they sought an advisory vote from the residents, and wanted more than a simple majority. The board chose 60%-more than half. Whether based on the board's inexperience--or being bad at math--it is accurate to say that the board did not contemplate concepts such as "at least 60%" or "more than 60%." It was only stated that if 60% of the ballots were in favor, the project would be approved.

There is now a request from a board member (who voted in the minority) that the vote be re-taken, with a guidelines that "at least 60%" or "more than 60%." of the votes being required for passage. This has not yet been presented as a motion, but rather an open letter to all the members.

[jstackpo]

Well, like any board with authority to act, it is free to ignore "advisory opinions" even if it asks for them. (Or doesn't calculate the returns correctly!)

If the Board adopted the item in question, it is a done deal - no "re-vote" is proper. The unhappy member can move to rescind the motion, however. See p. 293 for details on that one.

[Dan Honemann]

Thanks for all your posts. Your opinions accurately reflect the disagreement on our board and with some of our members.

Yes, the board did have authority to approve the project. However, they sought an advisory vote from the residents, and wanted more than a simple majority. The board chose 60%-more than half. Whether based on the boards inexperience--or being bad at math--it is accurate to say that the board did not contemplate concepts such as "at least 60%" or "more than 60%." It was only stated that if 60% of the ballots were in favor, the project would be approved.

There is now a request from a board member (who voted in the minority) that the vote be re-taken, with a guidelines that "at least 60%" or "more than 60%." of the votes being required for passage. This has not yet been presented as a motion, but rather an open letter to all the members.

It is not at all unusual for members on the losing side to want another vote.

As you describe it, your board finally adopted a motion to approve a project after having satisfied itself that, according to its own, self imposed standard, a sufficient number of residents were in favor of it. At this point, nothing is of any significance other than this final vote of the board approving the project. None of the preceding events, as you describe them, have any effect at all on the validity of this approval.

Your board is, of course, free to rescind its approval if it wishes, but having the residents vote again is certainly not the way to go about doing it.

[David A Foulkes]

It is not at all unusual for members on the losing side to want another vote.

The guy holding four aces never calls for a re-deal.

[tcasey]

Thanks to all for the thoughtful feedback!

[Gary Novosielski]

Mr. Stackpole notes that the vote, 13 of 22, is only 59.09% but it's more than that. It's 59.090909 . . . and the farther you extend it, the closer it gets to 60%. Of course it'll never get there so I think the board simply figured they were getting close enough.

Well..... nnnnnno.

If you call it 59.09, it's slightly low, but if you extend the precision one decimal place at a time, it becomes 59.091, which is slightly high, and then , 59.0909, which is slightly low again, etc.

The more you extend the precision, the closer it gets to exactly thirteen twenty-seconds, which is, after all, exactly what it is. And 13/22 never gets any closer to 60%. It is the same distance away as it was in the days of the Immortal Syracusan.

[hmtcastle]

if you extend the precision one decimal place at a time, it becomes 59.091, which is slightly high, and then , 59.0909, which is slightly low again, etc.

Extending the precision [sic] one decimal place at a time when the repeating sequence consists of two numbers seems a bit disingenuous.

The more you extend the precision, the closer it gets to exactly thirteen twenty-seconds, which is, after all, exactly what it is. And 13/22 never gets any closer to 60%. It is the same distance away as it was in the days of the Immortal Syracusan.

As for the Immortal Syracusan, my understanding is that pi can not be represented as a repeating decimal.

In any case, when I see "Immortal Syracusan", I can't help but think of Ernie Davis.

Which is my way of saying you're absolutely correct about the math.