A question for Greeks-It's been a longggg time... - Page 2

ladygreek · #1 04-29-2003, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dardenr
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.

ladygreek · #2 04-29-2003, 08:35 PM

Quote:

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

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.

ladygreek · #3 04-29-2003, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AKA2D '91
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.

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.

Exquisite5 · #4 04-29-2003, 10:46 PM

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.

AKA2D '91 · #5 04-30-2003, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ladygreek
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.

Yes!

Senusret I · #6 08-11-2008, 08:09 PM

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.

tld221 · #7 08-11-2008, 09:00 PM

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.

Senusret I · #8 08-11-2008, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tld221

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?

That's why I stopped participating in MIP.

RedefinedDiva · #9 08-11-2008, 11:13 PM

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.

SummerChild · #10 08-12-2008, 12:18 PM

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by AKA2D '91

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.

LRobinson · #11 08-12-2008, 07:48 PM

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?

TonyB06 · #12 08-13-2008, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LRobinson

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.