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)