3 ms·

I'm not a certified parliamentarian, but I do have a decent amount of experience with Robert's Rules from extracurriculars in university, so I just wanted to ma

I'm not a certified parliamentarian, but I do have a decent amount of experience with Robert's Rules from extracurriculars in university, so I just wanted to make two points. 1) This quote ("Under Robert’s Rules, silence equals consent") is incredibly untrue, and makes it hard for me to take the rest of the article seriously. Abstention does not mean that you agree with a motion, and there are protections (e.g. quorum) to prevent abuse by a small cadre of disingenuous voters. 2) In my experience, very few organizations actually take the time to understand and follow Robert's Rules. Most just rely on whatever rules some motivated members happened to cherry pick from the text, plus a smorgasbord of bylaws and policies drafted by the organization (see edit). There is an argument to be made that maybe Robert's Rules is too complex to be useful, but most organization members only need a passing understanding; as long as you have a chair or parliamentarian who is familiar with the ins and outs, they should be able to keep meetings running smoothly and shut down most attempts to lawyer the system. Edit: For example: "the December 1964 late-evening vote by leaders of Students for a Democratic Society to focus on the Vietnam War and the December 1966 late evening SNCC vote to expel all white members (19-18, with 24 abstentions)". But Robert's Rules typically requires a 2/3 vote for disciplinary actions (such as the expulsion of a member). I don't have a copy of the 1951 edition to confirm, but I would be surprised if it allowed expulsion with a simple majority vote.

WorldMaker 7y ago
I had some similar thoughts. Out of curiosity, the original 1876 edition [1] doesn't include membership votes as requiring 2/3rds, but also doesn't directly address membership votes of that sort (and leaves that to a body's rules). It also uses the word "abstain" twice, but does not yet formalize abstentions. The 1915 edition, however definitely includes Vote to Expel Members as requiring a 2/3rds vote [2]. (It also doesn't seem to codify abstentions, other than generally allow for them [blank ballots in a balloted vote].) I'm also wondering if that "24 abstentions", which seems wildly high, if accurate. That's a lot of people not to care which way the vote went. Keep in mind that absentee ballots, and absent members, are very different from abstentions (and absent members do not count as abstentions, because they were not even present for the vote). [1] http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/9097/pg9097-images.html http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/9097/pg9097-images.html [2] https://www.bartleby.com/176/48.html https://www.bartleby.com/176/48.html
- thyrsus 7y ago
  I speculate that many, if not most, of the abstentions were whites who were there to help, but in light of the organization's goal of increasing black power, wanted on this occasion to cede power to black members. I highly doubt that they "didn't care".
  - WorldMaker 7y ago
    An abstention intentionally says that either outcome pass/fail is fine, whichever the remaining majority decides. While "didn't care" may be harsh descriptor for that, it's also not factually inaccurate. But you are correct that it can also represent "I'm not capable of making this choice" or "I should not be culpable in making this choice", which often is far from "didn't care" in emotional intent, even if the recorded vote was "did not lend explicit support to either outcome".
- lazulicurio 7y ago
  Thanks for actually taking the time to look up the references. It's been disappointing reading through this comment thread to see people ragging on Robert's Rules for things that aren't really its fault. It's like complaining about how terrible hammers are because the claw end makes it so difficult to drive nails. I did wonder about the number of abstentions. Also, the fact that there were only 61 votes total. Which indicates either that the organization wasn't that big, or that this was at a convention. From Wikipedia "white SNCC members were asked to leave the organization in December 1966. The vote, characterized by some as 'expelling' whites and by others as 'asking whites to work against racism in white communities,' was extremely close; 19 Aye, 18 Nay, and 24 abstentions"[1]. I'm not entirely sure what to make of it, but it sounds like there was a lot going on to understand the context of the vote. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_Nonviolent_Coordinating_Committee#Stokely_Carmichael_as_chair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_Nonviolent_Coordinatin...

WorldMaker 7y ago

I had some similar thoughts. Out of curiosity, the original 1876 edition [1] doesn't include membership votes as requiring 2/3rds, but also doesn't directly address membership votes of that sort (and leaves that to a body's rules). It also uses the word "abstain" twice, but does not yet formalize abstentions. The 1915 edition, however definitely includes Vote to Expel Members as requiring a 2/3rds vote [2]. (It also doesn't seem to codify abstentions, other than generally allow for them [blank ballots in a balloted vote].) I'm also wondering if that "24 abstentions", which seems wildly high, if accurate. That's a lot of people not to care which way the vote went. Keep in mind that absentee ballots, and absent members, are very different from abstentions (and absent members do not count as abstentions, because they were not even present for the vote). [1] http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/9097/pg9097-images.html http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/9097/pg9097-images.html [2] https://www.bartleby.com/176/48.html https://www.bartleby.com/176/48.html

thyrsus 7y ago
I speculate that many, if not most, of the abstentions were whites who were there to help, but in light of the organization's goal of increasing black power, wanted on this occasion to cede power to black members. I highly doubt that they "didn't care".
- WorldMaker 7y ago
  An abstention intentionally says that either outcome pass/fail is fine, whichever the remaining majority decides. While "didn't care" may be harsh descriptor for that, it's also not factually inaccurate. But you are correct that it can also represent "I'm not capable of making this choice" or "I should not be culpable in making this choice", which often is far from "didn't care" in emotional intent, even if the recorded vote was "did not lend explicit support to either outcome".
lazulicurio 7y ago
Thanks for actually taking the time to look up the references. It's been disappointing reading through this comment thread to see people ragging on Robert's Rules for things that aren't really its fault. It's like complaining about how terrible hammers are because the claw end makes it so difficult to drive nails. I did wonder about the number of abstentions. Also, the fact that there were only 61 votes total. Which indicates either that the organization wasn't that big, or that this was at a convention. From Wikipedia "white SNCC members were asked to leave the organization in December 1966. The vote, characterized by some as 'expelling' whites and by others as 'asking whites to work against racism in white communities,' was extremely close; 19 Aye, 18 Nay, and 24 abstentions"[1]. I'm not entirely sure what to make of it, but it sounds like there was a lot going on to understand the context of the vote. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_Nonviolent_Coordinating_Committee#Stokely_Carmichael_as_chair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_Nonviolent_Coordinatin...