Final answer:
The chairman typically votes in a tie only if their vote changes the outcome; in this case, voting in the negative maintains the status quo, as the motion to adjourn would still fail.
Step-by-step explanation:
When the vote to adjourn results in a tie, as with a 10 affirmative to 10 negative outcome, the motion does not pass because a majority is needed for the motion to carry. The chairman typically has the right to vote when their vote could affect the outcome, either to break a tie or to vote in the negative to create a tie, thus maintaining the status quo. In this scenario, if the chairman voted in the negative, it would simply reaffirm the tied result, and the motion to adjourn would still fail. However, chairpersons often abstain from voting to maintain an appearance of impartiality unless their vote is necessary to break a tie or to meet a required voting threshold.
This situation mirrors similar decision-making scenarios within groups, where majority voting rules might apply, and the need for a supermajority might exist to guard against quick or incorrect decisions in matters with significant consequences. In cases where the existing voting rules result in a tie or the lack of a supermajority, as the example illustrates, the status quo remains in place and no change occurs.