Thinking Anglicans

General Synod – electronic voting results for adjournment

Updated Monday evening to add a webpage version of the spreadsheet.

The detailed electronic voting results for the vote on the motion

That the debate be now adjourned to enable the new clause 5(1)(c) inserted by the House of Bishops into the draft Measure entitled “Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure” to be reconsidered by the House of Bishops.

at General Synod last Monday are now available for download.

As already announced at the time of the vote the result was 288 votes in favour and 144 against with 15 recorded abstentions.

From the detailed electronic voting results I have calculated how the votes went in each house.

  for against abstain
Bishops 36 10 4
Clergy 136 54 6
Laity 116 80 5
total 288 144 15

From these figures it can be seen that there was a comfortable two-thirds majority in the houses of bishops and clergy. But the majority was only 59% in the house of laity. These figures may or may not be relevant to the vote on final approval in November when a two-thirds majority will be required in each house for the measure to be approved.

I have split the voting lists into houses in this spreadsheet, also available as a webpage. I have also added the names of those members who did not record a vote or abstention. They are marked as absent for convenience but at least one (the Archbishop of York, who was in the chair) was present.

14
Leave a Reply

avatar
3000
14 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
10 Comment authors
Laurence C.Anthony ArcherJCFAlastair CuttingFather David Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
Father David
Guest
Father David

It seems that at least three viable episcopal candidates for the throne of St. Augustine either abstained or were absent.

Hannah
Guest
Hannah

Fr David,

I rather think one of those viable candidates was not absent but chairing….

Laurence Roberts
Guest
Laurence Roberts

I can not get the spread sheet to open I am afraid.

Concerned Anglicans
Guest
Concerned Anglicans

It is the House of Bishops’ figures that are really interesting. Their ‘amendment’; came about because they are all chums together and didn’t want to hurt their pals. Now we know almost exactly how many of their number they sought to appease and who they are.

Susannah
Guest
Susannah

I can’t find +Stepney on the list?

JCF
Guest
JCF

Can somebody translate this data for an Ignorant Yank?

Father David
Guest
Father David

“If the trumpet gives an uncertain sound who shall prepare himself for the battle”. Having voted in favour of adding amendment 5(1)(c) to the Measure at the House of Bishops meeting – we now find that at the meeting of the General Synod 36 bishops voted to refer the matter back to themselves for possible revision and only 10 voted against. It makes me wonder what tune the bishops are actually playing.

Alastair Cutting
Guest

JCF – one attempt at some translation. Those who wanted to vote on the measure on Monday and not adjourn included: those who genuinely wanted to get on with the process now; those who were encouraged by the bishops taking a lead; traditionalists/conservatives who consider this is the strongest provision they are likely to receive; and other traditionalists/clergy who think it may have been their best chance of getting the legislation kicked out. Those who voted for the adjournment included: those who thought that the legislation might fall and not be able to return in this synod (to 2015) which… Read more »

JCF
Guest
JCF

Oh, so it IS really All a Big Mess: not just my wee brain that couldn’t figure it out!

Thanks, Alastair. 🙂

Anthony Archer
Guest
Anthony Archer

Usual suspects in the usual camps I fear. ++ Sentamu as Chairman had a vote. Not sure why he didn’t exercise it. Perhaps he forgot in the excitement and/or there wasn’t a gizzmo on the platform!

Laurence C.
Guest
Laurence C.

Can someone explain to me why the voting isn’t done by secret ballot?

This is pretty basic stuff I know, but surely it would mean that people would vote according to their consciences and not according to others’ expectations of them.