Voting Variations
-- Paul McClintock, PRP
The most common voting situation under Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR) is simply that the affirmative vote of a majority of the legal voters, a quorum being present at a properly called meeting, is required for a motion to be adopted.[1] This article explores some variations in these elements. In particular, we will look at using multiple vote thresholds, flexible quorums, various rules regarding voting by the chair, and options for resolving election deadlocks.
Multiple Vote Thresholds
RONR and other parliamentary authorities provide a simple system with a single threshold for the affirmative vote, generally a majority of the votes cast.[2] RONR’s rules for some motions provide for alternative vote thresholds, such as Amend Something Previously Adopted, which can be adopted by a majority vote with notice, or without notice, by a two-thirds vote or by a majority of the entire membership.[3] Only one of the three alternative vote thresholds must be met.
But many groups must meet multiple vote thresholds at the same time. Consider the nonprofit organization incorporated under a law that requires an affirmative vote of a majority of those present, unless the bylaws prescribe a higher vote requirement.[4] Their bylaws may require a two-thirds vote to amend bylaws, and their parliamentary authority may require a two-thirds vote to close debate.[5] Both the majority-of-those-present and the two-thirds vote requirements must be met. A vote of 7 For, 4 Against, with 2 abstaining would meet the first vote threshold, but not the second. A vote of 2 For, 1 Against, with 10 abstaining would meet the second vote threshold, but not the first.
Some groups may not have this legal constraint, but still want to have some sort of minimum requirement. One group had an election of board members where the nominating committee had no nominee for one board position. The pre-printed ballots had the position listed in case someone was nominated from the floor, but no one was. When the ballots were counted, there was one write-in for the position. Some felt that it was too small a vote to be able to elect, but under RONR it sufficed.
One approach to ensure that a reasonable minimum is achieved is to require an affirmative vote of a majority of those present.[6] Another approach is to require that a majority of the quorum (MOTQ) vote affirmatively, in addition to the normal majority of the votes cast (MOVC) rule.[7] A MOTQ rule should never be given without making it supplemental to the basic majority rule; otherwise it could be construed to allow adoption/election when the MOTQ criteria was met but the MOVC threshold was not met.
With 15 total members and a quorum of 8: 4 For and 3 Against meets the standard MOVC rule, but not the MOTQ rule. And 5 For, 6 Against would pass under MOTQ, but not under MOVC.
Another multiple vote threshold can occur when a parent organization's voting body is made up of delegations from its constituent units. A rule can require both the standard majority of those voting, and support by a specified number or percentage of the units. This may be useful to protect the interests of the smaller units, similar to how the amendment requirement for the U. S. Constitution protects the smaller states.[8] Lochrie defines “Double-Majority Vote” as “A requirement that majorities on two levels of an organization vote for a proposal before it is adopted.”[9]
Flexible Quorums
A quorum “is the [minimum] number of voting members who must be present in order that business can be legally transacted.”[10] It is usually specified as a fixed number, or relating to a percentage of all the members.[11]
Some groups operate under a special rule that says that once a quorum is established it shall exist throughout the meeting.[12] This is a safeguard against the pick-up-my-toys-and-leave strategy used under the normal quorum rules by a minority, which by leaving, break the quorum and prevent the majority from conducting business. However, this particular solution to the problem is a dangerously extreme measure, allowing the number present to dwindle to just one person, who could still unilaterally conduct business in the name of the entire group.
To resolve the disappearing quorum problem without allowing an unrepresentatively small number of members to conduct business, some groups adopt a special rule or bylaw that allows business to continue after once obtaining the initial quorum, if a majority of the quorum votes in favor of the motion.[13] With a membership of 20, a quorum of 11, suppose 14 were present with factions of 8 and 6. The six could leave to break the quorum under the normal rules, but under the MOTQ rule, even if they left, motions could still be adopted if six (a majority of 11) or more voted for the motion.
Another variation on standard quorum rules used by some groups is to set minimum attendance requirements not only of members, but also of officers, and/or constituent units. For example, “The quorum shall be 20% of the members, so long as at least two officers are present.” Or, “The quorum for the convention shall be one-third of the delegates registered as attending, provided that these delegates represent one-half of the units in good standing, and two elected officers and four other members of the Board of Directors.”
Another type of flexible quorum may be needed as a safeguard against being crippled by apathy. If a group persists in failing to achieve a quorum, it may be useful to have a diminishing quorum rule. For example, strata corporation (condominiums) law in British Columbia provide: “Unless otherwise provided in the bylaws, if within 1/2 hour from the time appointed for an annual or special general meeting a quorum is not present, the meeting stands adjourned to the same day in the next week at the same place and time but, if on the day to which the meeting is adjourned a quorum described in subsection (2) is not present within 1/2 hour from the time appointed for the meeting, the eligible voters present in person or by proxy constitute a quorum.”[14]
Voting by the Chair
A common misconception is that the chair votes only in case of a tie. RONR's rules are that the chairman of a small board or committee can vote on all issues,[15] and the chair in other situations can vote when ballots are used,[16] or when his vote would change the outcome.[17] If his vote doesn't affect the result, there is no need to vote, and by not voting he better maintains the impartiality needed to effectively chair the meeting.
“Affect the result” differs from “in case of a tie” in several ways. A tie vote for a motion that needs a majority fails to adopt the motion. Under RONR, the chair would vote in this case only if he was for the motion, as that is the only case where his vote would “affect the result.” On the other hand, if he's against a motion that has a 10-For, 9-Against vote count, in order to change the result he can add his “no” vote. Similarly he can vote For or Against when it would alter the result of a motion requiring a two-thirds vote.
The chair can always vote on ballot votes, but must do so at the same time others are voting, not after a count is made. The chair only votes if he is a member of the assembly (RONR does not restrict an assembly to electing officers only from their members[18]).
In variance with these rules in RONR, some organizations may want to allow a non-member president to vote in the case of a tie in an election. Such permission would need to be in the bylaws. A familiar example of this is: “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote unless they be equally divided”[19].
Typically, “the chair cannot vote twice, once as a member, then again in his capacity as presiding officer.”[20] But the standard bylaws for strata corporations in British Columbia provide: “If there is a tie vote at an annual or special general meeting, the president, or, if the president is absent or unable or unwilling to vote, the vice president, may break the tie by casting a second, deciding vote.”[21] This is not common, nor recommended, but it is possible if bylaws prescribe it.
Resolving Election Deadlocks
In an election, a tie can result in repeated voting under RONR rules, until finally one candidate achieves a majority vote.[22] If it is a ballot election, as is usually the case, the chair could only vote with the others, and not after the count is known, so he couldn’t break the tie. With stubborn voters, voting may be repeated many, many times with no one changing his or her vote. (Demeter notes that a convention once selected a nominee for U. S. President only after voting 103 times, and a city council once voted 114 times before electing their presiding officer.[23]) In the case of voting by mail, repeated balloting is extremely onerous, even once. Thus a tie-breaking rule is often needed.
A common misconception is that if one candidate concedes or withdraws, then the other is automatically elected, but no such rule exists in RONR. Voting must be repeated until one candidate obtains a majority of the votes cast.[24]
In contrast to resolving tie votes by repeated balloting,[25] some public election laws provide for breaking ties by lot.[26] Deciding by lot may be an especially sensible solution for breaking ties in mail voting or perhaps after repeating the balloting some specified number of times. A bylaw allowing mail voting could easily include such a provision.
If repeated voting results in a repeated tie under regular RONR rules,[27] a member may want to ask if the candidates would all agree to draw lots and to withdraw if they lose by lot. A subsequent vote would still be required and a majority to win, but unless the bylaws required a ballot even with only one nominee,[28] then the vote could be by voice. Even if the candidates don’t agree to settle by lot, one voter from each side could privately agree to draw lots with the loser(s) abstaining on the following round of voting.
Conclusion
The standard rules in RONR may not always work well with regard to voting thresholds, static quorums, and rules on voting by the chair. Variations can be put in the bylaws, or in some cases, in special rules of order.
Author's Bio
Paul McClintock, PRP, CP, (www.paulmcclintock.com) has served as NAP’s District 7 Director, and Washington State Association of Parliamentarians as President, and is an active member of two NAP units in the Seattle area. Paul has presented workshops at NAP’s National Training Conferences, and writes “Meeting Tips and Myths” monthly emails on behalf of NAP’s Point of Order Parliamentary Law Unit.
Endnotes
1. Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR), 10th ed., p. 4, l. 5-10; p. 387, l. 5-13.
2. RONR, p. 387, l. 5-7; The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure (TSC), 4th ed., p. 130.
3. RONR, p. 295, l. 24-31.
4. See 1987 Revised Model Nonprofit Corporation Act, section 8.24(b), for boards: "If a quorum is present when a vote is taken, the affirmative vote of a majority of directors present is the act of the board unless this Act, the articles or bylaws require the vote of a greater number of directors."
5. RONR, p. 192, l. 24.
6. See RONR, p. 389, l. 25-30.
7. See 1987 Revised Model Nonprofit Corporation Act, section 7.23(a): "Unless this Act, the articles, or the bylaws require a greater vote or voting by class, if a quorum is present, the affirmative vote of the votes represented and voting (which affirmative votes also constitute a majority of the required quorum) is the act of the members."
8. U. S. Constitution, Article V, which reads in part: "Amendments...shall be valid...when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof...."
9. Meeting Procedures: Parliamentary Law and Rules of Order for the 21st Century, James Lochrie, 2003, p. 130.
10. RONR, p. 334, l. 3-5.
11. RONR, p. 335, l. 21-29.
12. See Clark County Fish & Game Club bylaws (www.ccfgclub.com/bylaws2.phtml?anum=2): "The shareholders present at a duly organized meeting may continue to transact business until adjournment, notwithstanding the withdrawal of enough shareholders to leave less than a quorum."
13. See California's Nonprofit Mutual Benefit Corporation Law, section 7512(c), which says in part (exceptions omitted), "the members present at a duly called or held meeting at which a quorum is present may continue to transact business until adjournment notwithstanding the withdrawal of enough members to leave less than a quorum, if any action taken (other than adjournment) is approved by at least a majority of the members required to constitute a quorum...."
14. www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/stat/S/98043_04.htm.
15. RONR, p. 471, l. 7-11; p. 483, l. 10-14.
16. RONR, p. 400, l. 25-28.
17. RONR, p. 50, l. 29-35.
18. RONR, p. 431, l. 16-20.
19. U. S. Constitution, Article I, section 3, clause 4.
20. RONR, p. 393, l. 15-16.
21. www.fic.gov.bc.ca/pdf/responsibilities_strata/stdbylaws.pdf, subsection 27(5).
22. RONR, p. 426, l. 27-31.
23. Demeter’s Manual of Parliamentary Law and Procedure, George Demeter, 1969, p. 247.
24. RONR, p. 426, l. 27-31.
25. RONR, p. 426, l. 27-33.
26. For example, see Revised Code of Washington 29A.60.221(b). Eli Mina’s The Complete Handbook of Business Meetings, p. 183, also suggests that “drawing lots to determine the winner” might be done.
27. RONR, p. 426, l. 27-31.
28. RONR, p. 427, l. 20-23.
NAP National Parliamentarian, 3rd Qtr 2008