Interesting. I know it's raking over the embers, but I looked up the protocol/custom and practice regarding Chairman's vote. I don't know if there are any rules about having a re-run of the voting instead. Who was the Chairman and did he like whisky?barrowfan wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 7:03 pmThe first vote was tied at 26 votes each. The Chairman could have made a casting vote, but he chose to hold a second ballot which Barrow lost by three votes.Methuselah wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 5:18 pm For someone who saw Barrow get unjustly voted out of the Football League I think by the casting vote of Newcastle United it would be the righting of a wrong that should never have happened.
There was talk of bottles of Whisky being handed out by Her****d directors.![]()
A wise chair will nearly always exercise their casting vote to “preserve the status quo“. That means they will vote so the situation does NOT change. In most circumstances, that means that they will vote against the proposal although some proposals are worded so that a vote in favour preserves the status quo.
I can almost hear some people saying WHY????
The answer is that by preserving the status quo, the issue is free to be raised again at a later meeting when there is more support. But the reason wise people vote this way is that if the casting vote is used to change something, then the decision has in reality been made by one person – the person in the chair. As many people are in favour as are against and it is not a sound decision.