|
mcrowder - I believe the original poster listed the vote count just for completeness. And that is good parliamentary form to list the vote count.
You are right - the 2 formal abstentions would not have affected this outcome. But it is interesting to note that the first line "Box Given" suggests that there 95 members who are eligible to cast votes, and that only 92 "participated" in the vote. By themselves, the three who didn't "participate" wouldn't have made a difference, even if they were "yes" votes (43 + 3 = 46) which is less than the 47 No votes. (By "participate", I am also including the two who must have taken the trouble to announce or otherwise officially indicate that they were abstaining.)
(In the IOC charter, the majority is based on the sum of the number of votes cast. Abstentions are not included in the sum. Blank ballots are not included in the sum. "Spoiled" (an undefined IOC term) votes are not counted. This is described in the Charter that can be found at the IOC website.)
But toss in an assumption that the two abstaining voters could have voted as Yes votes, and you potentially have 48 yes to 47 no (with all 95 ballots cast, majority becomes 48).
(I am guessing about the missing three voters. Maybe they didn't show up, or maybe they handed back or displayed blank ballots or sat on their hands. One non-vote may have been the Chairman who purposely withheld his vote so as to appear impartial as the vote went his way. The IOC charter states that the Chairman votes only "in the event of a tie". (Somewhat restrictive in that the Chairman ought to be allowed to vote to create a tie and thus defeat a motion if he/she is against it, but I digress.) [I'm not sure of the voting method if it was a role-call or a "count of hands", then the Chairman could withhold his/her vote until the count was complete.] [Per the Charter, a secret ballot is only performed when the Charter calls for it (elections are the only such cases), if the Chairman so decides, or if one-quarter of the members call for it.] [Maybe the "yes" side thought they had a lock but if they really thought that there would be some sort of retribution to "yes" voters, they should have tried to muster enough votes to ask for a secret ballot.]
Assuming that there was no change in the make-up of the Session, how did two other members decide they had to abstain? [That's rhetorical.]
Joe
|