A R ebuttal to
“The Intrinsically Irrelevant Negative Vote”
By Weldon L. Merritt, PRP
The Winter 2021 issue of the National Parliamentarian® included an article by Lorenzo R. Cuesta, PRP, entitled, “The Intrinsically Irrelevant Negative Vote.” It is my belief that Mr. Cuesta has stretched the meaning of “intrinsically irrelevant” well beyond its meaning in RONR. Accordingly, this article is submitted as a rebuttal. The term “intrinsically irrelevant” appears only three times in RONR (12th ed.): at 4:35, 37:10(a), and 44:9(a). The reference in 37:10(a) refers to 44:9(a), which in turn refers to 4:35. The controlling language is in 4:35, which first states, “The chair must always call for the negative vote, no matter how nearly unanimous the affirmative vote may appear, except that this rule is commonly relaxed in the case of noncontroversial motions of a complimentary or courtesy nature; but even in such a case, if any member objects, the chair must call for the negative vote.” That sentence is followed immediately by the statement, “A further exception arises when the negative vote is intrinsically irrelevant, as, for example, when ‘a vote of one fifth of the members present’ is required, and the number who have voted in the affirmative is clearly greater than one fifth of those present ….” (Emphasis added.) While the italicized phrase in the preceding quote is only an example, not an exhaustive list, the clear implication is that a negative vote is “intrinsically irrelevant” only when the voting threshold is based on some fixed base, such as “those present” or “the entire membership,” rather than the more usual base of “those present and voting.” Using the RONR example quoted above, the affirmative vote either is or is not greater than one fifth of those present. Either way, the outcome is determined by the size of the affirmative vote alone. The negative vote cannot make a difference.1 This article will discuss Mr. Cuesta’s examples, in the same order and with the same headings as in his article, and why I believe he is mistaken. 1. “Intrinsically Irrelevant” Negative Vote: Robert’s words: RONR (12th ed.) 4:35. Mr. Cuesta’s first example is a bit confusing. He posits a convention in which the bylaws require a specified number of days’ notice for consideration of an amendment, but allow an amendment that did not meet the notice requirement to be considered “if a specified number of members propose or second the motion.” Thus, he is not referring to a vote at all (affirmative or 1 See also, Kim Goldsworthy, CP, PRP. “Intrinsically Irrelevant Negative Votes,” Parliamentary Journal, LVI, No. 3 (July 2015), 73. 16
National Parliamentarian • Spring 2021
