A question for Greeks-It's been a longggg time...
 

Situation: There is a serious issue going on in your chapter. It has been heavily debated and discussed. It's now time for the vote. The vote is called, you have your 'Yes' votes, your 'No' votes and those who have 'Abstained'.

My question is why is it necessary to abstain from the vote?

Doesn't it make more sense to stand for something (for or against the measure) as opposed to just saying "I have no opinion on the matter at all"?

This is something I have yet to understand. IMO, there is no in between, either you are for or against.


Your thoughts...

Really, this issue isn't limited to greekdom, but I'd like for the Greeks out there to respond. :)

Hey AKA2D,

In the latest version of Roberts Rules of order the abstention cannot be used, as there is no such thing as a no vote! I had this confirmed by the National Parliamentarian of the NPHC and the National Parliamentarian of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Incorporated. So when you call the vote no longer call the abstention because it is not a valid issue. But under the old rules of abstention people that abstained their vote was supposed to go the majority. I.e. if 5 voted yes 4 voted no and 3 abstained that meant that the 3 votes went with the yes thus that meant that if something needed 3/4 to pass it passed because there were 8 out of 12 votes!

That is your Parliamentarian lead in for today.

Sphinxpoet

Thank you!

Why was it ever allowed? I never understood. :confused:

Problem is that most people do not take courses and know their constitutions and Roberts Rules of Order.........

nooooooooooo. Why would you abstain? STAND for something, either you are FOR or you are AGAINST the measure. You know?

The only time you would really need to abstain is you walk in the meeting 1 minute before the vote and have no clue what is going on!

Sphinxpoet

As a parliamentarian...
 

People have a right to have an opinion and a right to have no opinion. If I do not care about an issue or would be happy with the outcome either way, I have the right to abstain from voting.

Like Sphinxpoet said, in most cases abstentions should not be called for nor counted. Decisions are most often determined by the majority, two-thirds or whatever of the number of people present AND voting. Someone who abstains is not voting. This is not new in Robert's Rules--it has been in at least the 3 last editions but most folx don't know that.

However, there are some exceptions. There are times when an organization has in their rules that a motion is decided by a certain percent of the number of members (whether they are present at the meeting or not.) For example: There are 10 members of a society. Their rules say that a vote is determined by a majority of the membership. That means that 6 people must vote yes for a motion for it to pass. If 5 people vote yes, 3 vote no, and 2 abstain or are not at the meeting to vote, obviously the vote fails. But if the rule had been that the decision is based on the majority of people present AND voting, then only 8 people actually voted, 5 voted yes and the motion passes. In the above scenario an abstention has the EFFECT of being a vote for the prevailing side.

Lastly, abstentions should be called for and recorded in legislative votes. Why? Because the public does have a right to know if their elected representative is voting their wishes or if he or she consistently dooesn't care one way or another about issues. If the latter is the case then maybe they need to elect a new representative.

Have I thoroughly confused everyone? :D

That rarely happens. When voting, members are to be (should be) notified PRIOR to the voting meeting.

Yeah, ladygreek, you have confused me. No, seriously though, I know it is a right to have an opinion or no opinion, but it just seems "funny".

I'm like this....stand for something, if not, you will fall for ANYthing.

Thanks for all of the input.

Abstention
 

There is one very sensitive matter currently on the floor in my chapter from which I have been considering a request for abstention when the vote comes up. I am new to the chapter (I just reactivated this year) and this issue arose last year. I am not intimately familiar with the situation and I have little knowledge of the people involved. There are certain instances where I feel I should know the people involved and even the politics of the chapter before I cast my vote. You may say that I should ask for more information, but I'm not comfortable asking for information about a controversial subject that I can easily veer away from. Additionally, what I would receive from my inquiries would be opinions - not facts. Voting, with the knowledge I have, would actually be irresponsible.

So, AKA2D'91, there you have it, a reason for abstention. A good reason? I feel so.

Choo-ChooAKA (aka Evergreen08)
Eta Gamma Omega Chapter
via Eta Lambda, Fall '90

IMHO, the main reason an abstention is chosen is often to "make a statement" that a soror is blatantly offended by the subject at hand. I personally find it to be the "petty" choice!

I consider it reasonable and appropriate for a soror to abstain from a vote when 1. there is a personal conflict involved with the matter at hand or 2. that soror has not been given an opportunity to be properly versed in matter at hand.

Do you all really not vote on anything without prior notice? Usually that is only required for Election of officers and amendments to your Rules.

Unfortunately, too many people abstain because they are afraid to vote no.

If that is the fear than call for a secret Ballot. Then there can be no questions later,

I pays my dues, and I casts my votes!!! Never have to worry about THIS sista' abstaining!!! I'm too opinionated for all that. But, this question reminded me of that book I'm reading, The 48 Laws of Power. While I don't know that I could actually operate under these laws, I enjoy learning them and seeing how they pertain to certain situations. In reading below, think of people who want to be National Officers.

Law #20 states, DO NOT COMMIT TO ANYONE: It is the fool who always rushes to take sides. Do not commit to any side or cause but yourself. By maintaining your independence, you become the master of others -- playing people against one another, making them pursue you.

Part I: DO NOT COMMIT TO ANYONE, BUT BE COURTED BY ALL: If you allow people to feel they possess you to any degree, you lose all power over them. By not committing your affections, they will only try harder to win you over. Stay aloof and you gain the power that comes from their attention and frustrated desire. Play the Virgin Queen: Give them hope but never satisfaction.

Part II: DO NOT COMMIT TO ANYONE -- STAY ABOVE THE FRAY: Do not let people drag you into their petty fights and squabbles. Seem intersted and supportive, but find a way to remain neutral; let others do the fighting while you stand back, watch, and wait. When the fighting parites are good and tired, they will be ripe for the picking. You can make it a practice, in fact, to stir up quarrels between other people, and then offer to mediate, gaining power as the go-between.

Re: As a parliamentarian...
 

I definitely agree with this.

Speaking of Parliamentarians, is anybody here a member of N.A.P? (National Association of Parliamentarians)

I've thought about joining but never pursued it.

True, but if the society's rules do not mandate a ballot vote then the motion to do so has to be passed by a majority vote. So depending on the situation the body may not allow it.

But you are right. If someone is uncomfortable casting a vote then he or she should move to vote by ballot.

Re: A question for Greeks-It's been a longggg time...
 

Actually as I re-read your post, I had a question. Why did the abstentions upset you? Were they people who had something to say about what was going on and then backed down when it came to the vote? If that is the case, I would be ticked off too. :rolleyes:

I abstain occasionally. I do so because often times I am not feeling the motion enough to vote for it, but I am not "not feeling" it enough to lend in killing it.

Re: Re: A question for Greeks-It's been a longggg time...
 

Yes!

Since I am in a Parliamentary mood this evening, I wanted to bump this thread and see what GC's newer generation had to say.

see, i always thought people would abstain from voting because they didnt want to be the person who voted "no," but didnt want to add to the "yes" votes just because.

maybe this is doing too much, but do chapters use abstentions in voting during intake? because i think that's a situation where it shouldnt be allowed. either you want them in or not. otherwise, why are you even there?

or maybe that was AKA2D's point. then again, we pay our dues to be able to vote, and more importantly to have the right to vote.

That's why I stopped participating in MIP.

While I can't speak on a greek matter, as I've never been involved in a voting situation that I can recall, I can speak from a student government perspective. We abstained from voting for four main reasons:

1. You don't care one way or the other about the outcome of the vote.

2. You don't have enough information about the motion to vote for or against it.

3. You don't want documentation of you having "chose sides," i.e., go "on the record" as being a voter for or against a motion.

4. You want to piss people off.*
*This may not be a definite reason, but I know we chose this measure based on principle when our democratic process broke down. We knew that whether the majority voted for/against a motion, the president was going to do what he/she wanted to do anyway, so a started abstaining from the voting.

The first three are basically the main reasons I know of people abstaining.

I also know that I have snapped on a person or two that kept on talking though chose to abstain. My philosphy is that if you don't say anything when it's time to argue or dispute a motion, shut the hell up if it passes.

I think that abstentions can be more problematic (or less problematic) depending on what is required for a resolution or matter to pass. For example, one problem is if all that it takes is for the majority "of those voting" to vote in favor of a resolution. Well, then the problem is that every person that abstains waters down what is necessary for the resolution to pass, and resolutions can then pass with only a small minority voting for something. Everyone else, who either did not have enough info to vote in favor or didn't feel that they had enough information to vote against simply abstains and you get all kinds of things passing that you might not have wanted to pass.

Now, on the flip side, if the way that things are defined is "majority of those present" or "majority of those eligible to vote", then you get the more true pulse of what everyone really wanted - w/out forcing them to conceal their vote by abstaining. They simply abstain but the voice is still heard and has effect.

Accordingly, if there is going to be a chance to abstain, perhaps changing the language from "majority of those voting" to "majority of those present" or "majority of those entitled to vote" should probably be done in order to truly see how a group feels about something...b/c then, even abstentions have effect.

ETA: It is true that Robert's Rules of Order may say x about the weight of abstentions but a company or organization's rules can trump Robert's Rules. This is why it is important for folk to really understand the power of an abstention in their respective company or org. Read the governing documents, whatever they may, and figure out what is required for something to pass. In different instances, depending on the subject matter at hand, the rules may differ. For example, with corporations and shareholders, for fundamental, important changes (ex: mergers), it takes a "majority of those entitled to vote" (not "majority of those present") in order to pass. In that case, if you abstain, the effect is to vote no. Similarly, in some organizations, the docs say "majority of those voting". In this case, it can be somewhat irresponsible to abstain, especially if the issue is important, because the result is that things happen or get approved based on just a few people who were willing to say yes or no one way or the other. Sometimes the best decision is not made with just a few voting, as you might imagine.

In one community board that I was apart of, membership admission was based on the majority "of those voting." Therefore, when one does not vote on a candidate, one is really doing the proverbial "leaving the gate open" for whomever to come in. This, I imagine can be a problem in any organization with this sort of stipulation as to how things pass. Thus, we need to all check our docs and figure out the power of an abstention. It may not be as harmless as one might think upon initial consideration. Consider the problem that I noted above with the community board.

SC

An issue that has come up in the current presidential election is that Sen Obama voted 'present' several times in the Illinois Senate. By voting that way, he didn't take a position yea or nay, but the record was there that he voted. So is that the same as abstaining?

As I understand it, in the Illinois legislature, voting "present" was/is? at times a well-established procedural maneuver, basically horsetrading of votes, which happens in every statehouse in America, by the way. From what I remembered reading of this, often a vote of "present" was a placeholder or a "chit" for a later vote in favor of something else.

Often this strategy was requested of the members by the leadership of the chamber, in this case Emil Jones, Ill. State Sen. President. "Present" votes appears to be how Illinois does this.



Regarding AKA2D's OP, "abstention" votes, they are as valid an expression of intent as a yes or no. Our chapter uses Robert's Rules of Order. It has its place....and also its limits. After all, Roberts wasn't a bruh. :)

There are times when the doors must be closed and the best interest of the brotherhood must be worked out in true Alpha fashion.