No votes

[Rev Ed]

I have an interesting question that I just thought of: when the Chair calls for 'aye' votes (either by calling out 'aye' or more likely be raising hands), and it obvious that the 'ayes' have a majority of votes, does the Chair still have to ask for 'no' votes?

My reasoning is this: at most general membership meetings that I attend, the Chair will ask for raised hands for votes (to keep it simple) and always asks for 'no' votes even though there are rarely any 'no' votes for most issues (important issues, like elections, or handled through ballot votes.) As it is always obvious just by looking around that the 'ayes' have it, why waste time asking for 'no' votes?

What do other members think?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

When the Chair calls for 'aye' votes (either by calling out 'aye' or more likely be raising hands), and it obvious that the 'ayes' have a majority of votes, does the Chair still have to ask for 'no' votes?

What do other members think?

What do I think?

I think you should follow The Book.

(excerpt, RONR page 43.)

In putting the question by any of these methods, the chair calls first for the affirmative vote, and all who wish to vote in favor of the motion so indicate in the manner specified; then he calls for the negative vote.

The chair must always call for the negative vote, no matter how nearly unanimous the affirmative vote may appear, except that this rule is commonly relaxed in the case of noncontroversial motions of a complimentary or courtesy nature; but even in such a case, if any member objects, the chair must call for the negative vote.

A further exception arises when the negative vote is intrinsically irrelevant, as, for example, when “a vote of one fifth of the members present” is required, and the number who have voted in the affirmative is clearly greater than one fifth of those present (see p. 390).

[Larry Cisar]

I have an interesting question that I just thought of: when the Chair calls for 'aye' votes (either by calling out 'aye' or more likely be raising hands), and it obvious that the 'ayes' have a majority of votes, does the Chair still have to ask for 'no' votes?

My reasoning is this: at most general membership meetings that I attend, the Chair will ask for raised hands for votes (to keep it simple) and always asks for 'no' votes even though there are rarely any 'no' votes for most issues (important issues, like elections, or handled through ballot votes.) As it is always obvious just by looking around that the 'ayes' have it, why waste time asking for 'no' votes?

What do other members think?

Because that minority (the noes) want to express themselves. Better to let them express themselves in the vote than later rumblings that they were not heard.

[hmtcastle]

What do other members think?

I think the fundamental right (even responsibility) of each member to express his opinion by casting a vote trumps any supposed "waste of time", especially when the time that's "wasted" amounts to no more than a few seconds.

[jstackpo]

Also, what is "obvious" to the chair up front, may not be at all obvious to a "No" voter surrounded by collection of "Yes" voters, say. He may have no way of telling that there are Yes votes all through the hall, but think that he is in a little island of yesers and the others out there are ready to vote "no". Then he'll get suspicious of the chair if no "no" vote is called for.

[Trina]

I have an interesting question that I just thought of: when the Chair calls for 'aye' votes (either by calling out 'aye' or more likely be raising hands), and it obvious that the 'ayes' have a majority of votes, does the Chair still have to ask for 'no' votes?

My reasoning is this: at most general membership meetings that I attend, the Chair will ask for raised hands for votes (to keep it simple) and always asks for 'no' votes even though there are rarely any 'no' votes for most issues (important issues, like elections, or handled through ballot votes.) As it is always obvious just by looking around that the 'ayes' have it, why waste time asking for 'no' votes?

What do other members think?

I was at a recent meeting of a small board where this happened -- the chair called for 'yes' votes (we also use raised hands), and it was clear that the motion would carry. He neglected (forgot, I assume) to call for 'no' votes. No real harm done, but I know I felt uneasy that potential 'no' voters weren't given their turn. Also, calling for 'no' votes allows members to indicate whether they feel strongly (raise hand for 'no') or just don't care that much (don't do anything, and abstain) on the issue. In a small group, where people are all looking at each other, this is part of the unspoken interaction between members.

In addition to the fact that RONR says to do it, it's just polite to give all members an equal chance to weigh in on the disposition of the motion. To characterize it as 'wasting time' devalues the opinions of those in the minority... and for what? Saving a few seconds of meeting time???

[Rev Ed]

I really asked this question, because non-controversial issues are those that are usually dealt with by saying 'aye' or by raising one's hand. At general membership meetings, I tend to find that if 'no' votes are asked for when there are non-controversial issues that there tend to be few or more likely none. And when the aye votes are asked for, there is a sea of hands around the room obviously a majority.

It's not a waste of time in the sense that it takes up a lot of time, but in the sense that if it is obvious that the result will be a landslide for the 'aye' vote (especially when it looks like a near unanimous vote) it is obvious that the motion will pass in spite of the couple of 'no' votes out there - especially in a room of 50 people and the Chair can see everyone.

I guess I'll put it this way, unless I was planning on voting against a non-controversial motion, I wouldn't object to the Chair not asking for any 'no' votes when it is obvious that the vote passed. If I did want to vote 'no', I would object.

Thank you everyone for your comments.

[hmtcastle]

I guess I'll put it this way, unless I was planning on voting against a non-controversial motion, I wouldn't object to the Chair not asking for any 'no' votes when it is obvious that the vote passed. If I did want to vote 'no', I would object.

A member should not have to object in order to exercise his right to vote. For one thing, it's wrong. For another, it could unfairly stigmatize a member as someone who keeps wasting the assembly's time by always objecting.

Deciding what's controversial and what's not is a slippery slope that the chair should not be greasing.

[Trina]

...

If I did want to vote 'no', I would object.

...

You shouldn't have to go through all that extra effort, though, just in order to cast your vote.

[jstackpo]

And if someone wishes to Reconsider a motion, those in his vicinity could vouch that he voted on the prevailing side, if there is any question. But that vouch mayn't be possible for sure if the "No" vote isn't taken.

[Tim Wynn]

I guess I'll put it this way, unless I was planning on voting against a non-controversial motion, I wouldn't object to the Chair not asking for any 'no' votes when it is obvious that the vote passed. If I did want to vote 'no', I would object.

The chair shouldn't share this disregard for the rights of other members.

[Josh Martin]

I have an interesting question that I just thought of: when the Chair calls for 'aye' votes (either by calling out 'aye' or more likely be raising hands), and it obvious that the 'ayes' have a majority of votes, does the Chair still have to ask for 'no' votes?

Generally speaking, yes, although there are two exceptions:

• Motions where the no vote is intrinsically irrelevant. The example RONR provides is a motion which requires a vote of 1/5 of those present.
• Courtesy resolutions (unless someone demands for the no vote to be taken). At conventions, for instance, it is common for a resolutions to be adopted thanking individuals for their service. It is permissible to be a bit looser on this rule in such cases.

As it is always obvious just by looking around that the 'ayes' have it, why waste time asking for 'no' votes?

It is important to allow members to express their opinion by vote. Much of my experience is in representative assemblies (college student government), so this was even more important - members who believed a motion was not in the best interest of their constituents wanted to make sure they were quite vocal about their opposition, even if they were in a very small minority. Additionally, it is important for purposes of who may make the motion to Reconsider.

I really asked this question, because non-controversial issues are those that are usually dealt with by saying 'aye' or by raising one's hand. At general membership meetings, I tend to find that if 'no' votes are asked for when there are non-controversial issues that there tend to be few or more likely none. And when the aye votes are asked for, there is a sea of hands around the room obviously a majority.

You may want to consider using the procedure of unanimous consent for such non-controversial motions. If a formal vote is taken, however, both the affirmative and the negative must be taken.

[Gary Novosielski]

One of the sure signs that a chair doesn't know what he's doing is failing to call for No votes. It is NOT optional and even if I have no intention of voting no, it offends me when I see a chair acting in such a presumptuous and contemptuous manner. Except in the case of the "courtesy" vote as mentioned in RONR, there's no excuse for it. Even in the "one fifth of those present" case, I would never, if presiding, leave out calling for the negative. It literally takes one second.

The only thing that peeves me more is calling for "Any abstentions?" That makes my skin crawl, and makes me want to buy them a gift card for a clue.

[Rob Elsman]

One of the sure signs that a chair doesn't know what he's doing is failing to call for No votes. It is NOT optional and even if I have no intention of voting no, it offends me when I see a chair acting in such a presumptuous and contemptuous manner. Except in the case of the "courtesy" vote as mentioned in RONR, there's no excuse for it. Even in the "one fifth of those present" case, I would never, if presiding, leave out calling for the negative. It literally takes one second.

The only thing that peeves me more is calling for "Any abstentions?" That makes my skin crawl, and makes me want to buy them a gift card for a clue.

In the case of a vote of one-fifth of the members present, the chair counts the number of members present immediately after putting the affirmative, RONR (10th ed.), p. 390. The number of votes in the negative is meaningless.

[David A Foulkes]

In the case of a vote of one-fifth of the members present, the chair counts the number of members present immediately after putting the affirmative, RONR (10th ed.), p. 390. The number of votes in the negative is meaningless.

Assuming, of course, that at least one fifth of the votes are in the affirmative.

[Rob Elsman]

Assuming, of course, that at least one fifth of the votes are in the affirmative.

Not so. There is either one-fifth in the affirmative, or there is not. It makes no difference whether the others would vote in the negative or abstain.

[Gary Novosielski]

In the case of a vote of one-fifth of the members present, the chair counts the number of members present immediately after putting the affirmative, RONR (10th ed.), p. 390. The number of votes in the negative is meaningless.

Yes, on a counted vote, I'd agree.

Although, should the affirmative prove insufficient for passage, a member wishing to reserve the right to move to Reconsider may wish to object and demand the negative vote be counted anyway. The number of votes remains meaningless, but the fact that there was a negative vote at all may be important.

In the case of a voice vote, excepting the "courtesy" case, I think the call for the No vote is required and should be put.

[David A Foulkes]

Not so. There is either one-fifth in the affirmative, or there is not. It makes no difference whether the others would vote in the negative or abstain.

The light bulb goes on.

So, in any vote regardless of the threshold (majority, 2/3, etc), as long as it is a vote of the members present , the no vote is "intrinsically irrelevant"? Either enough vote aye to pass the motion, or it fails regardless of the no vote, right? Thus the language on p. 43 from l.23 following "required" could be struck, since it matters not whether the affirmative is "clearly greater" or "clearly less than" the threshold.

[Rob Elsman]

Yes, on a counted vote, I'd agree.

Although, should the affirmative prove insufficient for passage, a member wishing to reserve the right to move to Reconsider may wish to object and demand the negative vote be counted anyway. The number of votes remains meaningless, but the fact that there was a negative vote at all may be important.

In the case of a voice vote, excepting the "courtesy" case, I think the call for the No vote is required and should be put.

Votes requiring a certain fraction of the members present should always be taken as counted votes. The number of votes in the affirmative is counted, then the number of members present is counted.

[David A Foulkes]

Votes requiring a certain fraction of the members present should always be taken as counted votes. The number of votes in the affirmative is counted, then the number of members present is counted.

And then the chair can announce the results, since in these cases the no votes are "intrinsically irrelevant." The results are based solely on the aye votes and the number of members present. Correct?

The language on p.43 "suggests" (I'm going loose here, thus the quotes) that calling for the no votes is irrelevant (only) when "[and] the number who have voted in the affirmative is clearly greater than one fifth of those present." It also applies when the number who vote in the affirmative is clearly less than one fifth of those present.

[Dan Honemann]

And then the chair can announce the results, since in these cases the no votes are "intrinsically irrelevant." The results are based solely on the aye votes and the number of members present. Correct?

The language on p.43 "suggests" (I'm going loose here, thus the quotes) that calling for the no votes is irrelevant (only) when "[and] the number who have voted in the affirmative is clearly greater than one fifth of those present." It also applies when the number who vote in the affirmative is clearly less than one fifth of those present.

No, it does not apply when the number who vote in the affirmative is clearly less than one fifth of those present. In such a case, the "no" votes are not irrelevant.

[David A Foulkes]

No, it does not apply when the number who vote in the affirmative is clearly less than one fifth of those present. In such a case, the "no" votes are not irrelevant.

I'm not sure I understand. 100 members present. 20 aye votes (or more) required to pass. If only 19 votes in the affirmative, how could it matter whether the other 81 voted no or abstained? You fell short of one fifth, the motion fails. What am I missing?

[Dan Honemann]

I'm not sure I understand. 100 members present. 20 aye votes (or more) required to pass. If only 19 votes in the affirmative, how could it matter whether the other 81 voted no or abstained? You fell short of one fifth, the motion fails. What am I missing?

If a motion is defeated, only members who vote "no" are permitted to move to reconsider (unless the vote is taken in a committee), and there can't be any such members if the chair does not call for the negative vote.

My recollection is that someone mentioned this in an earlier thread.

[David A Foulkes]

If a motion is defeated, only members who vote "no" are permitted to move to reconsider (unless the vote is taken in a committee), and there can't be any such members if the chair does not call for the negative vote.

My recollection is that someone mentioned this in an earlier thread.

Thank you.

[jstackpo]

There's hope: your recollection machinery is still functioning.