Abstentions

[Guest Jeff]

We recently held a vote in our church board meeting. There were 9 voting members out of 10 at the meeting. On the motion 3 members voted affirmative, 2 members voted against the motion and 4 members abstained.

Did the motion pass or fail?

I read the FAQ about abstentions and am still confused.

[Gary c Tesser]

Three members voted yes, and two members voted no. Majority rules, and the motion was adopted.

(Four members chose not to vote. That's the same as the one member who didn't vote by ... by not showing up at all.)

Does this help?

(If your church's rules say something different about abstentions, then, well, your rules say different.)

[David A Foulkes]

We recently held a vote in our church board meeting. There were 9 voting members out of 10 at the meeting. On the motion 3 members voted affirmative, 2 members voted against the motion and 4 members abstained.

Did the motion pass or fail?

I read the FAQ about abstentions and am still confused.

Generally, abstentions are ignored. You just count the votes cast. 3 vs 2 adopts for a required majority vote, but fails for a motion requiring a 2/3 vote. You don't say which, so we assume majority vote required. If something in your rules requires a majority (or 2/3) of members present, as opposed to those present and voting (the RONR default), then you've got another issue wherein the abstentions count as "no" votes. Just thought I'd mention it, in case there's more we should know.

[hmtcastle]

then you've got another issue wherein the abstentions count as "no" votes.

I'm not sure that's a particularly helpful way to phrase it. Abstentions may have the same effect as a "no" vote (which is how FAQ #6 states it), but abstentions don't "count", and aren't counted, as anything.

[David A Foulkes]

I'm not sure that's a particularly helpful way to phrase it. Abstentions may have the same effect as a "no" vote (which is how FAQ #6 states it), but abstentions don't "count", and aren't counted, as anything.

Your point is well taken. Thanks.

[Rob Elsman]

We recently held a vote in our church board meeting. There were 9 voting members out of 10 at the meeting. On the motion 3 members voted affirmative, 2 members voted against the motion and 4 members abstained.

Did the motion pass or fail?

I read the FAQ about abstentions and am still confused.

The motion was either adopted or rejected, depending on what the chairman announced at the time.

[Gary Novosielski]

We recently held a vote in our church board meeting. There were 9 voting members out of 10 at the meeting. On the motion 3 members voted affirmative, 2 members voted against the motion and 4 members abstained.

Did the motion pass or fail?

I read the FAQ about abstentions and am still confused.

Presuming the motion requires a majority to pass, it passes. As long as the Yes votes outnumber the No votes, you have a majority. No need to call for, count, record (except for roll-calls), or concern yourself with abstentions. Just ignore them. A 3-2 vote is a majority vote.

[Rob Elsman]

Presuming the motion requires a majority to pass, it passes. As long as the Yes votes outnumber the No votes, you have a majority. No need to call for, count, record (except for roll-calls), or concern yourself with abstentions. Just ignore them. A 3-2 vote is a majority vote.

That's all well and good, of course, but it doesn't answer the question the poster actually asked. What if the chairman announced that the motion was rejected, and no one made a Point of Order? Wouldn't you concede that the motion was, in fact, rejected, in that case?

[Gary Novosielski]

That's all well and good, of course, but it doesn't answer the question the poster actually asked. What if the chairman announced that the motion was rejected, and no one made a Point of Order? Wouldn't you concede that the motion was, in fact, rejected, in that case?

Sure, but I'll also settle for all well and good. The question the OP asked was how to properly calculate the outcome. What-ifs aside, one needs to know the rules before one can raise timely points of order. The OP gave no indication that the chair announced the result any particular way, or that points of order figured into the result, even by their absence.

Yes, I would certainly concede that in the case you proposed the motion was not adopted. I would also concede that if a bear came and ate the chairman without seeking recognition, while another had the floor, it would violate decorum.

But I don't recommend that the best way to ensure the correct outcome of a vote is simply to listen for the chair's announcement and then avoid making a point of order. The best way is to figure out the right answer, and listen carefully to the chair's announcement to make sure it agrees.

So, given the actual question, I think I did passably well.

[Rob Elsman]

Sure, but I'll also settle for all well and good. The question the OP asked was how to properly calculate the outcome. What-ifs aside, one needs to know the rules before one can raise timely points of order. The OP gave no indication that the chair announced the result any particular way, or that points of order figured into the result, even by their absence.

Yes, I would certainly concede that in the case you proposed the motion was not adopted. I would also concede that if a bear came and ate the chairman without seeking recognition, while another had the floor, it would violate decorum.

But I don't recommend that the best way to ensure the correct outcome of a vote is simply to listen for the chair's announcement and then avoid making a point of order. The best way is to figure out the right answer, and listen carefully to the chair's announcement to make sure it agrees.

So, given the actual question, I think I did passably well.

Did the motion pass or fail?

I would suggest that the real answer to this question has more to do with the rule on p. 243 than the definition of majority vote on p. 387. The fact is, the chairman announced whichever result he announced, right or wrong. Since it seems the allowed time expired without a Point of Order's being raised, whichever result he announced stands.

[Gary Novosielski]

I would suggest that the real answer to this question has more to do with the rule on p. 243 than the definition of majority vote on p. 387. The fact is, the chairman announced whichever result he announced, right or wrong. Since it seems the allowed time expired without a Point of Order's being raised, whichever result he announced stands.

And I would suggest that the answer the OP was seeking was how should the chairman have acted?

Fortunately, the OP now has the answer to BOTH questions.