Straw poll

[Christopher Mallon]

I wish to qualify my "No" vote.

The President should not have an initial vote when he is acting as the Chair. I see no reason he could not choose to cast a (non-decisive) vote at the end to show support for a motion that has passed, and of course having the option to cast the deciding vote in case of a tie. And should someone else be the (non-voting) Chair, I see no reason why the President should not vote.

[Les Bunning]

In most organisations the president only votes to break a tie.This has nothing to do with neutrality as the president is free to voice his opinion. If the president is allowed to vote what do we do in case of a tie? a tied vote means the motion did not pass which leaves the status quo as is. If the tie is for an election then their is a problem as their is no winner. The president would not normally be allowed to vote and also break a tie as this would give him 2 votes.
Les Bunning

[Fred McKim]

In most organisations the president only votes to break a tie.This has nothing to do with neutrality as the president is free to voice his opinion. If the president is allowed to vote what do we do in case of a tie? a tied vote means the motion did not pass which leaves the status quo as is. If the tie is for an election then their is a problem as their is no winner. The president would not normally be allowed to vote and also break a tie as this would give him 2 votes.
Les Bunning

1) Robert's Rules of Order explains than the President need only vote on motions to break a tie or make a tie (which defeats the motion).

2) We will have to make our own rules for elections and tournament bids. I think the most common method is that somebody (presumably the President) would only vote to break a tie.

[Bob Armstrong]

Am I sensing some momentum back toward the " NO " side?? Any " Yes'ers " want to change their vote?

Bob

[Fred McKim]

Am I sensing some momentum back toward the " NO " side?? Any " Yes'ers " want to change their vote?

Bob

Bob: The straw vote is too simple... My response is - "It depends"

[Lyle Craver]

Go back and read the original regulations for the Online Meetings - there they make it clear the chair is expected to break ties but not otherwise vote.

I happen to think that is sound but I understand the issues on both sides.

On our local municipal council, the mayor does vote but a tie motion automatically fails. (You only get ties when one member of council is absent)

On the other hand in the House of Commons the Speaker breaks tie votes. This hardly happens of course since there are 300+ MPs

Our local council has only 7 members so ties happen more often.

I don't have difficulty with the president voting as long as we're clear that a tie vote fails.

[Christopher Mallon]

Well if it's in the rules Lyle...

What is the point in even having rules like this, and like the one saying voting takes place on the forum, if we're just going to ignore them whenever the chair feels like it?

[Fred McKim]

I don't have difficulty with the president voting as long as we're clear that a tie vote fails.

I believe Robert's Rules of Order allow the President to vote to make a tie, causing the motion to fail.

[Christopher Mallon]

The suggestion was that the President should get an initial vote, and THEN a vote to break a tie...

[Fred McKim]

The only thing we need to decide on is how to break a tie in elections and tournament bids.

In those kinds of votes the President should only vote if there is a tie or else we flip a coin or something.