“Carried by Simple Majority” — But What Was the Actual Vote? 🗳️

I regularly see strata meeting minutes where the outcome of a motion is recorded simply as:

“Carried by simple majority.”

But what does that actually tell an owner? Not very much.

Was the vote 25 for and 1 against?

Or was it 13 for and 12 against?

Were there 10 abstentions?

Those are very different voting outcomes — yet “carried by simple majority” makes them look exactly the same in the permanent records of the strata company.

Minutes should provide transparency 🔍

Meeting minutes aren't just an administrative formality. They become part of the strata company's records and may be referred to years later by owners, prospective purchasers, strata managers, lawyers, insurers and the State Administrative Tribunal.

When somebody looks back at those minutes, they should be able to understand what actually happened at the meeting.

Simply recording:

Carried by simple majority tells us the legal outcome, but very little about the decision-making behind it.

Compare that with:

For: 18 | Against: 2 | Abstained: 1 — CARRIED

Immediately, the reader has a much clearer picture.

Why does the voting breakdown matter?

Because the numbers provide context.

Imagine owners are voting on a significant building project.

Scenario A

For: 24 Against: 1 Abstained: 0

Scenario B

For: 13 Against: 12 Abstained: 0

Both motions may ultimately be recorded as “carried by simple majority.”

But they tell completely different stories.

In Scenario A, there was overwhelming support.

In Scenario B, the ownership was almost evenly divided.

That information can become extremely important later — particularly if the issue resurfaces, costs increase, further stages of work are proposed or a future Council wants to understand the history behind the original decision.

Abstentions matter too

Abstentions shouldn't simply disappear from the historical record.

There is a meaningful difference between an owner voting against something and an owner choosing not to vote either way.

If 20 people are present but only 11 vote on a motion, future readers of the minutes should ideally be able to see that.

Without the numbers, they can't.

It can also hide how close a decision really was

This is perhaps my biggest concern. “Carried by simple majority” sounds definitive.

Technically, the motion may well have been carried. But if it passed by a single vote, that's relevant information.

Recording the actual voting numbers doesn't undermine the resolution. It simply creates an accurate and transparent record of the level of support it received.

Good governance isn't about recording the least amount of information necessary.

It's about creating records that allow owners to understand how their strata company reached its decisions.

What about proxies? 📄

Clear voting records become even more important when proxies are involved.

If a chairperson holds several directed or undirected proxies, simply recording “carried” gives owners very little visibility over how the final result was reached.

Recording the actual votes cast provides a much better audit trail.

For contentious or significant decisions, I also think good minutes should provide enough information to understand the voting process without requiring someone years later to reconstruct the meeting from proxy forms, voting papers and handwritten notes.

And this matters when management changes

One of the first things I do when taking over a strata scheme is review previous minutes. Those minutes tell us the history of the building:

• What did the owners approve?

• What did they reject?

• What expenditure was authorised?

• What issues were contentious?

• What direction did owners give?

When the minutes contain actual voting results, you get a much clearer picture of the scheme's decision-making history.

When every resolution simply says “carried by simple majority”, much of that history has been lost.

Minutes aren't just for today's meeting

That's the key point.

Minutes may be read five or ten years from now by people who weren't in the room and have absolutely no knowledge of the discussion that took place.

The minutes need to stand on their own and sometimes they form evidence that will be required by the Tribunal - so for that reason, owners should insist that their strata manager correctly record the votes, along the lines of...

🟢 FOR: 18🔴 AGAINST: 2⚪ ABSTAINED: 1 RESULT: CARRIED

rather than: “Carried by simple majority.”

Sure... It takes additional effort and record-keeping (Software can help you out here!), but it provides significantly greater transparency and aligns with the strata manager's fiduciary responsibility.

Good records are part of good strata management

Strata managers handle other people's money, property and records. Owners should be able to look at their meeting minutes and clearly understand how decisions were made.

“Carried by simple majority” may tell you what happened. The voting numbers tell you what actually happened in the room.

And when you're creating a permanent record of a strata company's decisions, I think owners deserve to see the difference.

Transparency shouldn't stop once the votes have been counted. 🗳️