Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

At Issue In a Massachusetts Town, the Value of Two-Thirds

Posted by timothy on from the all-those-in-favor-and-then-some dept.

An anonymous reader writes "In Truro, Massachusetts (a town on Cape Cod), a zoning decision came up for vote, where the results were 136 for, 70 against. The vote required 2/3 approval to pass. The Town Clerk and Town Accountant believe that since .66 * 206 is less than 136, the vote passes. However, an 'anonymous caller' noted that a more accurate value of 2/3 would require 137 (or perhaps even 138 votes) for the measure to be considered passed. The MA Secretary of State and State Attorney General are hard at work to resolve this issue." Updated 20100422 23:55 by timothy: Oops! This story is a year old (rounding up), which I didn't spot quickly enough. Hope they've got it all worked out in the meantime.

4 of 449 comments (clear)

  1. This is a year old... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Informative

    Date on the article is April 30th, 2009.

    So, does anyone know if basic math skills prevailed?

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    1. Re:This is a year old... by Anthony+Rosequist · · Score: 5, Informative
      Yup

      Voters did approve one of four petitioned zoning articles, one that would require cottage colonies to be in operation for at least three years before they can be turned into condominium ownership. Zoning articles require a two-thirds majority and the first vote was close, counted as 139 in favor and 64 opposed. A recount was held that was tallied at 136-70 and declared to be passed by Town Clerk Cynthia Slade, utilizing a multiplier of 0.66 to determine two-thirds, the figure the town has always used. Unfortunately, this vote was so close that the inaccurate fraction made the difference, and several months later the attorney general’s office negated the approval as not meeting the two-thirds threshold.

  2. Re:basic math by QRDeNameland · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...unless you have fractional people.

    Well, that's not exactly unprecedented in American politics.

    three fifths of all other Persons

    --
    Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
  3. Re:Counting people? Round up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Y'all screwed up.

    2/3 majority in parliamentary procedure is taken as meaning there are at least twice as many votes for than against. That avoids the whole fractional vote issue, which is a nonsensical concept.

    In this case there were 70 against, which means there would have to be at least 140 for. Thus the motion fails.

    C'mon, people. This thing has to have happened more than a few times in the course of history.