Guest Tina Posted January 23, 2011 at 10:27 PM Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 at 10:27 PM When figuring out the 2/3 vote is there a specific mathmatical formula to be used? I used .666 multiplied by the total number of voters or members and then rounded up if it is not a whole number, this equation seems to work according to the example in RR on page 388. Our bylaws do not specify how to figure the 2/3 vote so would it be proper to use the formula I have indicated? Thank you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted January 23, 2011 at 10:29 PM Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 at 10:29 PM If the Yes votes are at least double the No votes, then you have a 2/3 vote.For example: 8 yes, 4 no. The total is 12, and eight is exactly 2/3 of twelve.The total number of voters may not be the same as the total number of members present due to abstentions. All you count are the actual Yes or No votes. And there is no rounding involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted January 23, 2011 at 10:30 PM Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 at 10:30 PM When figuring out the 2/3 vote is there a specific mathmatical formula to be used? I used .666 multiplied by the total number of voters or members and then rounded up if it is not a whole number, this equation seems to work according to the example in RR on page 388. Our bylaws do not specify how to figure the 2/3 vote so would it be proper to use the formula I have indicated? Thank you!A more mathematical approach would simply be to divide the number of votes cast by 3 and then multiply by 2. Now, did you get at least that many votes? If yes, the motion passed. If not, it failed.See Gary's answer. I like to do math stuff, but his is easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted January 23, 2011 at 10:36 PM Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 at 10:36 PM The total number of voters may not be the same as the total number of members present due to abstentions. All you count are the actual Yes or No votes. Unless the voting requirement is of the entire membership or of those present. In that case, abstentions (which are still not votes) have the same effect as a no vote and can skew the math, as would the number of absentees should there be any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted January 23, 2011 at 10:41 PM Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 at 10:41 PM When figuring out the 2/3 vote is there a specific mathmatical formula to be used?See also FAQ #5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tina Posted January 23, 2011 at 11:09 PM Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 at 11:09 PM Okay got it, the yes votes have to be at least double the no votes.Our bylaws state for dissolution of the club not less than 2/3 of the members must submit this in writing so for this if I use the mathmatical equation of divide the total by 3 then multiply by 2 I do not come out with a whole number and would need to round up, same as in the example I gave for .666 multiplied by total members is that correct? This is not a vote. Hope that is not confusing, I had made a table for our board to show the numbers for 2/3 for this scenario given our current member total. Thank you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted January 23, 2011 at 11:19 PM Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 at 11:19 PM is that correct?Yes. You need at least two thirds. If there are 100 members you'll need at least 66.666 members which means you'll need at least 67 members since 66 members would be less than two thirds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted January 23, 2011 at 11:19 PM Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 at 11:19 PM Okay got it, the yes votes have to be at least double the no votes.Our bylaws state for dissolution of the club not less than 2/3 of the members must submit this in writing so for this if I use the mathmatical equation of divide the total by 3 then multiply by 2 I do not come out with a whole number and would need to round up, same as in the example I gave for .666 multiplied by total members is that correct? This is not a vote. Hope that is not confusing, I had made a table for our board to show the numbers for 2/3 for this scenario given our current member total. Thank you!Well, technically, no, you don't need to round at all. Just multiply your total by 2 and divide by 3, as before (that will actually multiply by .66666666666...).Whatever number you get, you need at least that number to submit the petition, or whatever, in writing. You must meet or exceed it.Now, naturally your members do not come in fractional quantities, so you can only meet the threshold number exactly if it happens to be a whole number.And if you can't meet it, you must exceed it, which again will require a whole number of members. But it doesn't really require you to round or otherwise change the threshold number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tina Posted January 23, 2011 at 11:29 PM Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 at 11:29 PM Well, technically, no, you don't need to round at all. Just multiply your total by 2 and divide by 3, as before (that will actually multiply by .66666666666...).Whatever number you get, you need at least that number to submit the petition, or whatever, in writing. You must meet or exceed it.Now, naturally your members do not come in fractional quantities, so you can only meet the threshold number exactly if it happens to be a whole number.And if you can't meet it, you must exceed it, which again will require a whole number of members. But it doesn't really require you to round or otherwise change the threshold number.Okay so for example my member total is 52, multiplied by 2 then divided by 3 I get 34.666 so do I need 34 or 35 members to meet the at least 2/3. I think it is 35. Asking because on page 388 when I figure the totals some are not whole numbers and the answer is the next whole number. Just a bit confused about the not rounding to the next whole number. Thank you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted January 23, 2011 at 11:37 PM Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 at 11:37 PM Okay so for example my member total is 52, multiplied by 2 then divided by 3 I get 34.666 so do I need 34 or 35 members to meet the at least 2/3. I think it is 35.You have it right. And if it helps to think of it as rounding up, go ahead and round up. Just don't round down.By the way, technically, you'd want to first divide by three (to find out what one third is) and then multiply by two (to find out what two thirds are). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tina Posted January 23, 2011 at 11:37 PM Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 at 11:37 PM Yes. You need at least two thirds. If there are 100 members you'll need at least 66.666 members which means you'll need at least 67 members since 66 members would be less than two thirds.Thank you that makes perfect sense! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted January 23, 2011 at 11:40 PM Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 at 11:40 PM Okay so for example my member total is 52, multiplied by 2 then divided by 3 I get 34.666 so do I need 34 or 35 members to meet the at least 2/3. I think it is 35. Asking because on page 388 when I figure the totals some are not whole numbers and the answer is the next whole number. Just a bit confused about the not rounding to the next whole number. Thank you!Okay, here's what I mean:Since 33 is less than 34.666, 33 members is not enough.Since 34 is less than 34.666, 34 members is not enough. Since 35 is greater than or equal to 34.666, 35 members is enough. Since 36 is greater than or equal to 34.666, 36 members is enough. Since 37 is greater than or equal to 34.666, 37 members is enough. Notice that the number 34.666 never has to be rounded, it only has to be compared. The fact that you always get a whole number is not due to rounding, it is due to the fact that members do not occur except in whole numbers. If you could have 34.75 members sign the papers, that would also be enough, but that never happens, because members don't grow that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.