Updated to include following motion
Updated 1 November to correct voting figures for the following motion
Ely diocesan synod debated the women bishops legislation today.
The main motion, in favour of the legislation, was passed in all three houses. Here are the voting figures.
For Against Abstentions Bishops 2 0 0 Clergy 39 6 1 Laity 30 10 2
A following motion, seeking more provision for opponents was defeated with 12 votes in favour, 74 72 against and 6 abstentions. The abstentions included both bishops.
Whereas in other diocese voters have left before considering the following motion, am I correct in my figures when I write that in this case a couple of latecomers arrived?
Not necessarily, Martin. There is no requirement that the numbers voting should add up to the numbers present (although they can’t exceed it). In other words, no one is required to cast their vote. Equally, no one who does not vote either for or against the motion being debated is required to *indicate* that s/he has abstained. The numbers shown in the table as having abstained are only those who actually raised their hands when the call for abstentions was made (or, on a secret ballot, handed in a blank paper).
Two bishops?
Feria
The two bishops are the diocesan (Bishop of Ely) and the suffragan (Bishop of Huntingdon).
Thanks Peter.
I have just corrected the voting figures for the following motion; it appears that two people were counted twice.
As a result the total votes recorded for each motion were the same (70), although without lists of names we cannot be sure that they were the same 70 people in each case.
And to correct Peter’s correction: there were 90 (not 70) votes recorded (including abstentions) at each of the two motions. I’m not aware that anyone either left or entered the meeting room between the two votes, so unless there were differing unrecorded abstentions, I think we can assume that the same people voted on both motions.
Simon K (who was present, and who voted and spoke)