Debate in an Election - Repeated Balloting

[J. J.]

Game playing?

 

In the usual case an assembly has no way of knowing, before it has adopted a motion authorizing the making of additional nominations, that not a single member will want to make one, and that the only thing that anyone wants to do is engage in further debate. To the best of my knowledge, the rules do not require that in order to make a motion to reopen nominations, the member making the motion must intend to make one himself. Perhaps he hopes that simply providing an opportunity to other members to make a nomination may prompt someone to do so. Who knows? In any event, I don't think it matters. I think he is entitled to make a motion to reopen nominations, and the assembly is entitled to decide for itself, by majority vote, whether or not it wishes to do so.

 

This was my point in post #41.  I can move to reopen nominations so that some other member may make a nomination.  There is no way for me to know that any other member wants to nominate, nor for the majority to know if there is someone who wants to make an additional nomination.

 

The only time that I could regard this as being even close to improper is if all persons that could be nominated have already been nominated (unlikely, but not impossible).

[Josh Martin]

Well, I suppose a rule that debate cannot (normally) be reopened could be considered in the nature of a suspendable rule of order.  But whether it requires unanimous consent, or a 2/3 vote, or is in order at all, even with a unanimous vote is difficult to determine, since such a motion is not among those listed in the Work.

 

It would seem that, as usual, a motion to Suspend the Rules (when applied to a rule of order) requires a 2/3 vote for adoption, unless there is some reason why this would be otherwise. I can think of no such reason in this case.

 

In any case, since the motion to reopen nominations is clearly available, and by a mere majority vote at that, it would seem to be the preferred path to reach a parliamentary situation where debate is in order. 

 

Yes, as I noted back in Post #6, I concur that it would generally be preferable to reopen nominations, but there may be cases where the assembly does not wish to reopen nominations or this is not permitted under the organization's rules.

[Guest Patricia Junkin]

If the bylaws state that election of new officers shall be elected at the convention, the nominating committee reports, the presiding officer asks for nominations from the floor and then the vote is taken, if one office is left unfilled, can the assembly by a majority vote reopen the nominations to fill that office and then take a vote? RONR p. 289

[Hieu H. Huynh]

Please post as a new topic.

[Scorpion]

On ‎8‎/‎1‎/‎2017 at 1:44 PM, Guest Patricia Junkin said:

If the bylaws state that election of new officers shall be elected at the convention, the nominating committee reports, the presiding officer asks for nominations from the floor and then the vote is taken, if one office is left unfilled, can the assembly by a majority vote reopen the nominations to fill that office and then take a vote? RONR p. 289

Yes.

[SaintCad]

If nominations are reopened, does everyone's debate counter automatically reset to zero? (e.g. I spoke once for Candidate A. Am I now considered to have debated zero times in the new nomination?)

 

Would this apply even if no new people are nominated?

[Dan Honemann]

On ‎8‎/‎4‎/‎2017 at 11:22 PM, SaintCad said:

If nominations are reopened, does everyone's debate counter automatically reset to zero? (e.g. I spoke once for Candidate A. Am I now considered to have debated zero times in the new nomination?)

 

Would this apply even if no new people are nominated?

"A nomination is, in effect, a proposal to fill the blank in an assumed motion 'that ______ be elected' to the specified position."  (RONR, 11th ed., p. 430)

Early on in this thread I indicated that I thought it was the nominations themselves that were being debated, and not the election. However, I suspect a strong argument might be made that it is actually this assumed motion that is being debated. If so, no member can speak more than twice to this question on the same day, and this would be true no matter how many persons have been nominated. If, however, we are to take this statement on page 430 to heart, we will have to regard this assumed motion as one which has already been adopted while containing the unfilled blank, because, in this instance, filling the blank will finally decide the question (cf. p. 167, ll. 21-30).

If we look at what is said concerning debate on suggestions for filling a blank, we are told (on p. 164, ll. 24-26) that "Proposals to fill a blank in a debatable motion are debatable. Each proposal is treated as an independent original to be voted on separately until one is approved by a majority." This seems to indicate that each proposal to fill a blank in a debatable motion is itself debatable apart from the underlying motion containing the blank, and this finds substantial support in what is said with respect to motion No. 22 on tinted pages 10-11, especially in footnote 4. 

I trust this clears it all up for you.  

Actually, I'm convinced that, whenever an election is pending, the question to be decided is simply "who will we elect?" Or, to put it another way, the question to be decided is "what name shall fill the blank in the assumed motion 'that ______ be elected' to the specified position?" (or "what names shall fill the blanks", if there are more than one, in this assumed motion), and as a consequence, no member can speak more than twice to this question on the same day.

 

 

 

Edited August 6, 2017 at 11:10 AM by Daniel H. Honemann
Added the last paragraph.