Does Chair Count?

[Guest George Galamba]

I hope this question isn't too dumb: In our senate, there are 10 members. We know that for a motion to pass, it needs a majority of "aye" votes, which would be 6. We recently had a vote in which it was 5 "aye" 4 "no." (The chair did not vote.) Some argued that the motion did not pass because it did not get a majority (6). Others argued that because the chair only votes to make/break a tie, only 5 votes were needed, a majority of 9. Should the chair have voted in this situation? I thought I knew the basics of Robert's rules, but now I'm confused.

[hmtcastle]

Should the chair have voted in this situation?

See FAQ #1.

A majority vote (which is what's usually required) is based on the number of members present and voting (not the number of members present). So, with all ten members present, a vote of 1-0 would constitute a majority vote. As would a vote of 5-4.

[Rev Ed]

No member, even the Chair, can be compelled to vote. While the Chair would have the right to vote in a small Board, as this is, he/she may feel that it would be more prudent to appear "neutral" by refraining from voting. And while we are at it, a 4-4 vote would defeat a motion as a tie vote is the same as defeating the motion.

[Gary Novosielski]

I hope this question isn't too dumb: In our senate, there are 10 members. We know that for a motion to pass, it needs a majority of "aye" votes, which would be 6. We recently had a vote in which it was 5 "aye" 4 "no." (The chair did not vote.) Some argued that the motion did not pass because it did not get a majority (6). Others argued that because the chair only votes to make/break a tie, only 5 votes were needed, a majority of 9. Should the chair have voted in this situation? I thought I knew the basics of Robert's rules, but now I'm confused.

The chair may vote at any time his vote would affect the result, not only to break a tie--or any time there is a ballot vote. Strictly speaking he cannot be prohibited from voting at any time as long as his is a member of the body, but there are "shoulds" to consider that arise out of the need for the appearance of impartiality.

On the question you mention, a majority vote (meaning a majority of those present AND voting) of 5-4 is certainly valid, since 5 is a majority of 9. The only time 6 would be required is if the voting requirement were a majority of the entire senate, or of all members present, but these are not what RONR refers to when the term "majority vote" is used.

In general, any time the Yes votes outnumber the No votes, you have a "majority".

[David A Foulkes]

The only time 6 would be required is if the voting requirement were a majority of the entire senate, or of all members present, but these are not what RONR refers to when the term "majority vote" is used.

Well, if the vote were by ballot, and the chair voted along with the rest, and no one abstained, 6 would still be the majority threshold. While that is essentially a vote of the entire senate, if it were not explicitly qualified that way it would still be the magic number. Just splittin' a hair, I know.

[Gary Novosielski]

Well, if the vote were by ballot, and the chair voted along with the rest, and no one abstained, 6 would still be the majority threshold. While that is essentially a vote of the entire senate, if it were not explicitly qualified that way it would still be the magic number. Just splittin' a hair, I know.

That's true, but it would be considerably more difficult, in that case, to achieve the resulting 5-4 vote count.

[David A Foulkes]

That's true, but it would be considerably more difficult, in that case, to achieve the resulting 5-4 vote count.

Yes, and indeed the general (mine) yields to the specific (yours).

[Josh Martin]

Should the chair have voted in this situation?

It would have been appropriate for the chair to vote if he opposed the motion. He could have voted in the negative and created a tie, causing the motion to fail. If he supported the motion there was no need for him to vote. Since the vote on the motion was 5-4, it should have been declared adopted, however, at this point the announcement of the chair stands, whatever that may have been. (FAQ #1, FAQ #4, FAQ #6, Official Interpretation 2006-18)