The Power of NO

The Power of

NO!

When taking a voice vote, the “no” vote, even by the minority, is frequently louder than the “affirmative” vote . In a recent association meeting attended by about a dozen members, a voice vote was taken after which the chair announced, “The noes have it and the motion is lost .” As parliamentarians, we often look for learning opportunities . A member saw such an opportunity (he may have also doubted the announced results of the vote) and called for a division . 1 Upon taking a rising vote, the chair discovered that only three members voted against the motion and there were far more members who stood when asked if they were in favor . For some reason, the “no voters” just seemed to be louder or more passionate when voicing their vote .

But the power of the “no” vote isn’t just about saying it louder . The rules of parliamentary procedure actually gives the advantage to the member who wants to disapprove the motion . Simply put, it takes more votes to adopt a motion than it does to defeat a motion . A motion is defeated if there is an equal number of people in favor as against . 2 A group opposed to a motion only needs a tie to defeat it, where it is necessary to have more than half (a majority) to adopt a motion . 3 This rule applies to most motions . For some motions, it takes two-thirds to adopt . In that case, the minority only needs a little more than one-third to vote against a motion in order to win the day—or at least derail the motion from its present course .

“No” is only a two-letter word, yet carries a lot of power . There are only two one-letter words—“A” and “I,” but there are over one hundred two-letter words . You can hear the power of the word “no” when stated earnestly—NO! Can you do the same with “it,” “be,” “eh,” or “do”? These words just don’t carry the same tone as an emphatic NO!

So, getting back to the weight of the “no” vote, in my view, “no” is stronger or weightier than “yes .” It is more powerful . In order to adopt a motion, there must be more yeses than noes, which gives an edge to “no .” If you think of it as a race, “no” begins in the lead .

Let’s look at another way a member can say “no”: Point of Order . 4 This is a member’s exclamation of “no” to the presiding officer, who is stating, “I do not agree…and you are required to rule on the matter .” The same can be said for Appeal (from the Decision of the Chair) . 5 In the first example, only one member is necessary to say, “no .” The

Beverly Przybylski, PRP

1 RONR (12th ed.) 4:52 2 RONR (12th ed.) 44:12 3 RONR (12th ed.) 1:6 4 RONR (12th ed.) 23:1 5 RONR (12th ed.) 24:1

Appeal will come before the members for a vote, but the mover and seconder made clear statements of “no,” even if voted down .

Another is Call for the Orders of the Day . 6 This is similar to telling the chair, “No, you’re headed in the wrong direction .” Although not pointed out in the story in the first paragraph, but still true, calling for a division is another way of saying “no .” A division is just a way a member says to the chair, “No, I don’t believe I heard the same thing as you; let’s vote again, but next time do it differently . ”

How about Objection to the Consideration of the Question?7 While the members may not say NO!, the motion just left the gate and a member can stop it before it builds up any steam, in effect, saying, “No, let’s not talk about that!” Very similar to this motion is Postpone Definitely, 8 that is an attempt to say, “No, let’s not make a decision about that now!”

Another stopping mechanism is the motion Previous Question, 9 which essentially says, “No more talk! Enough!” (Did you notice that the word “no” is in “enough”?) The motion to Adjourn10 says, “No more meeting! It is time to go home . We’re done here . ”

Although not related to actual voting, the requirement to have a quorum11 is similar to saying “no .” It is a statement that unless there are a certain number of members present at the meeting, no meeting can be validly held .

In a recent conversation, a unit member (who, in her professional life, is an audiologist), stated that the word “no” is actually a more powerful sounding word than “yes .” The vowel “o” comes from the back of the throat and is carried by air forced through the mouth, while a consonant, in this case the “s” in “yes” comes from the front of the mouth, the lips and teeth . There is no vigor to “yes .” So, when a determined few members shout the word “no,” it can be misheard as more, not simply louder .

I hope you didn’t miss the double entendre . The “no” vote, when stated strongly, loudly, and forcefully, can seriously affect the decision of the group if misheard by the chair and not questioned by the members . But so is the strength of many motions that are, in effect, saying “no” by stopping or slowing down the decision-making process .

An easy solution is to take the vote with a show of hands, authorized voting cards, or electronic devices, because the effect of “no” is very powerful . NP

6 RONR (12th ed.) 18:1 7 RONR (12th ed.) 26:1 8 RONR (12th ed.) 14:1 9 RONR (12th ed.) 16:1 10 RONR (12th ed.) 6:12(4) 11 RONR (12th ed.) 3:3

Beverly Przybylski, PRP, began studying parliamentary procedure when she was faced with taking on a leadership role in a large organization. She joined NAP in 2007 and has been a PRP since 2011. She serves local, state, national, and international organizations as a parliamentarian, bylaws consultant, and presiding officer. She is currently serving her second term as president of the Oregon Association of Parliamentarians, and was recently elected to a second term as president of the Rose City Unit. She also serves on the board of the Washington State Association of Parliamentarians as the MAL representative.