Balloting on Suggestions - Part II

[Dan Honemann]

Can an assembly, without a suspension of the rules, order that the vote on suggestions for filling a blank be taken by ballot, and then treat it like an election being conducted by ballot vote?

On page 164, lines 24-26, we are told 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.” Not a word here about voting by ballot. Immediately following this statement (on pp. 164-65) we are given instructions on how to fill a blank with names. No ballot voting is indicated. Next (pp. 165-66) we are given instructions on how to fill a blank with amounts of money. No ballot voting indicated. Finally, on page 166, lines 16-29, we are instructed on how to fill a blank with places, dates, or numbers. No ballot voting indicated.

However, in the general discussion that follows, we find the following three sentence paragraph (p. 167, ll. 3-10):

“The suggestions for filling a blank can be voted on by any of the regular methods (pp. 44ff., 409ff.). Voting by ballot or roll call is seldom used except in the case of names, however, unless there is keen competition—for example, among several cities seeking a convention. When names are being voted on, the ballot has an advantage in more truly revealing the will of the voting body; frequently when the vote is by voice, members vote for those nominated first.”

One may be justified, I think, in concluding that if the first sentence means much of anything, it means that voting by ballot or by roll call are not to be used when filling blanks, since neither of these methods is one of the “regular methods” of voting. My own view of it is that voting by ballot is not a suitable method for filling blanks except in those situations in which the assembly has already committed itself to filling the blank (e.g. p. 167, ll. 21-30), so that the circumstances are essentially the same as they are in an election of officers. Note that the example given is one of several cities seeking a convention. In such a case, there will ordinarily be no question pending about whether or not to hold a convention. The only question to be decided is its location.

I’ve got a bit more to say on this, but, for the moment, I’m getting tired of typing.

[J. J.]

Can an assembly, without a suspension of the rules, order that the vote on suggestions for filling a blank be taken by ballot, and then treat it like an election being conducted by ballot vote?

On page 164, lines 24-26, we are told 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.” Not a word here about voting by ballot. Immediately following this statement (on pp. 164-65) we are given instructions on how to fill a blank with names. No ballot voting is indicated. Next (pp. 165-66) we are given instructions on how to fill a blank with amounts of money. No ballot voting indicated. Finally, on page 166, lines 16-29, we are instructed on how to fill a blank with places, dates, or numbers. No ballot voting indicated.

The paragraph on p. 164, ll. 24-26, appears to be general in nature, not limited to one particular method of voting. It, for example, notes that suggestions are debatable, which is not tied to a specific method of voting. The rule that suggestions must be "an independent original to be voted on separately until one is approved by a majority,” is not specific to a particular method of voting. I might add, "unfortunately."

This, however, could be accomplished under suspension of the rules.

[Shmuel Gerber]

Can an assembly, without a suspension of the rules, order that the vote on suggestions for filling a blank be taken by ballot, and then treat it like an election being conducted by ballot vote?

. . . .

. . . we find the following three sentence paragraph (p. 167, ll. 3-10):

“The suggestions for filling a blank can be voted on by any of the regular methods (pp. 44ff., 409ff.). Voting by ballot or roll call is seldom used except in the case of names, however, unless there is keen competition—for example, among several cities seeking a convention. When names are being voted on, the ballot has an advantage in more truly revealing the will of the voting body; frequently when the vote is by voice, members vote for those nominated first.”

One may be justified, I think, in concluding that if the first sentence means much of anything, it means that voting by ballot or by roll call are not to be used when filling blanks, since neither of these methods is one of the “regular methods” of voting. My own view of it is that voting by ballot is not a suitable method for filling blanks except in those situations in which the assembly has already committed itself to filling the blank (e.g. p. 167, ll. 21-30), so that the circumstances are essentially the same as they are in an election of officers. Note that the example given is one of several cities seeking a convention. In such a case, there will ordinarily be no question pending about whether or not to hold a convention. The only question to be decided is its location.

I wouldn't read the first sentence that way. They might not be phrased with airtight precision, but when all three sentences of the paragraph are read together, it seems rather clear to me that voting by ballot on the question of filling a blank is in order, and is well suited to certain types of questions.

And, although the juxtaposition is probably nothing more than a coincidence, the very next sentence states, "It should be noted that the vote that fills a blank does not decide the main question."

I don't see why the election form of a ballot would be unsuitable for filling in the place in a motion that might or might not be adopted, as in J.J.'s example in Part I of this topic. In fact, I think that if a ballot vote is ordered, it would be the ordinary way of voting by ballot on such a question. Every member has the right to write in a place that was not suggested, and -- as in the case of an election to office -- it would be anomalous for the assembly to leave the blank unfilled. If the majority wishes to not hold the event in any place, the motion itself should be rejected. But if the event is to be held, it's going to be held in one particular place. There is therefore no reason to solicit votes against particular places (rather than votes for the place of one's choice) when the vote is taken by ballot.

[Dan Honemann]

A little bit of history, as best I have been able to determine without too much effort:

In the first three editions of Robert's Rules of Order, and in PL, no mention at all is made of voting by ballot on suggestions for filling a blank. The only procedure prescribed is to vote on each suggestion, individually and successively, until one is adopted.

In the next three editions, a rather strange thing occurs (at least I think it's strange ). On pages 150-51, a brief discussion appears concerning how a blank may be created, eventually noting that a member may move to create a blank. The discussion ends with this sentence: "This motion is undebatable, and cannot be amended, but it may be moved to fill the blank by ballot or in any other way."

The paragraph which now appears on page 167, lines 3-10, first appeared in the 7th edition (on page 140), and has remained unchanged ever since.

[J. J.]

I don't see why the election form of a ballot would be unsuitable for filling in the place in a motion that might or might not be adopted, as in J.J.'s example in Part I of this topic. In fact, I think that if a ballot vote is ordered, it would be the ordinary way of voting by ballot on such a question.

The problem that I would have with that is the "independent original to be voted on separately" rule (p. 164, ll. 25-26). If there was some different process specified for ballot (and roll call) votes, e.g. a rule that said, "This does not apply to ballot or roll call votes, where members may vote for a specific option instead of a yes or no vote," I could see it.

I think you could argue that the "ordinary way" to vote on filling blanks is for the chair to ask, "How many are in favor of suggestion A," count the vote and then take the vote on the next option and declare the option with the largest vote to fill the blank. That might be "ordinary," even on a voice vote. By "ordinary" I mean what most nonprofessional chairs would do. I don't mean it is done according to the rules, only "ordinary."

[Dan Honemann]

I wouldn't read the first sentence that way. They might not be phrased with airtight precision, but when all three sentences of the paragraph are read together, it seems rather clear to me that voting by ballot on the question of filling a blank is in order, and is well suited to certain types of questions.

And, although the juxtaposition is probably nothing more than a coincidence, the very next sentence states, "It should be noted that the vote that fills a blank does not decide the main question."

I don't see why the election form of a ballot would be unsuitable for filling in the place in a motion that might or might not be adopted, as in J.J.'s example in Part I of this topic. In fact, I think that if a ballot vote is ordered, it would be the ordinary way of voting by ballot on such a question. Every member has the right to write in a place that was not suggested, and -- as in the case of an election to office -- it would be anomalous for the assembly to leave the blank unfilled. If the majority wishes to not hold the event in any place, the motion itself should be rejected. But if the event is to be held, it's going to be held in one particular place. There is therefore no reason to solicit votes against particular places (rather than votes for the place of one's choice) when the vote is taken by ballot.

I agree that, “If the majority wishes to not hold the event in any place, the motion itself should be rejected.”

But how does the assembly do this if it has agreed to vote on suggestions by ballot? Once balloting has begun, it won’t be able to reconsider its decision to vote by ballot. So, my question is, if an assembly is voting on suggestions for filling a blank by ballot (as in an election), isn’t repeated balloting required until a suggestion is agreed to by a majority (as per p. 441, ll. 1-5)?

When voting by ballot on the election of officers called for by the bylaws, or on the election of members to a committee which the assembly has agreed to establish, or on suggestions for filling a blank in a motion which the assembly has already adopted, we can understand why repeated balloting is both necessary and appropriate, since the assembly is already committed to doing the job.

(By the way, I don’t think that the sentence you quoted ["It should be noted that the vote that fills a blank does not decide the main question."] tells us much in this regard, since this is the case regardless of whether or not the main question has already been decided.)

[Tim Wynn]

I agree that, “If the majority wishes to not hold the event in any place, the motion itself should be rejected.”

But how does the assembly do this if it has agreed to vote on suggestions by ballot? Once balloting has begun, it won’t be able to reconsider its decision to vote by ballot. So, my question is, if an assembly is voting on suggestions for filling a blank by ballot (as in an election), isn’t repeated balloting required until a suggestion is agreed to by a majority (as per p. 441, ll. 1-5)?

The vote, whether by ballot or not, is to determine the wording to complete the language in the main motion or primary amendment. The assembly need not decide where it wants to hold a summer picnic that it doesn't want to hold. It merely needs to decide the language of the motion that it will inevitably reject. I would suggest the North Pole and get on with it.

When voting by ballot on the election of officers called for by the bylaws, or on the election of members to a committee which the assembly has agreed to establish, or on suggestions for filling a blank in a motion which the assembly has already adopted, we can understand why repeated balloting is both necessary and appropriate, since the assembly is already committed to doing the job.

(By the way, I don’t think that the sentence you quoted ["It should be noted that the vote that fills a blank does not decide the main question."] tells us much in this regard, since this is the case regardless of whether or not the main question has already been decided.)

I think the underlying principle tells a lot: in filling the blank the assembly is committed to deciding the language of the question, not the final outcome.

[Shmuel Gerber]

I agree that, “If the majority wishes to not hold the event in any place, the motion itself should be rejected.”

But how does the assembly do this if it has agreed to vote on suggestions by ballot? Once balloting has begun, it won’t be able to reconsider its decision to vote by ballot. So, my question is, if an assembly is voting on suggestions for filling a blank by ballot (as in an election), isn’t repeated balloting required until a suggestion is agreed to by a majority (as per p. 441, ll. 1-5)?

When voting by ballot on the election of officers called for by the bylaws, or on the election of members to a committee which the assembly has agreed to establish, or on suggestions for filling a blank in a motion which the assembly has already adopted, we can understand why repeated balloting is both necessary and appropriate, since the assembly is already committed to doing the job.

(By the way, I don’t think that the sentence you quoted ["It should be noted that the vote that fills a blank does not decide the main question."] tells us much in this regard, since this is the case regardless of whether or not the main question has already been decided.)

Tim has nicely summed up what I was trying to get at.

In response to your question, yes; I think repeated balloting would be necessary, until either the blank is filled by a majority vote for one choice or the Previous Question is ordered and the main motion is rejected with a blank still in it.

But how is this any different from voting on filling a blank by any other method? The assumption is that those whose choices have been voted down will come to their senses and vote for, or at least not vote against, another choice. But there is no guarantee that this will happen on voice votes (or on "yes/no" ballots) taken successively on each choice, and I see no* reason why it cannot* (and should not*) happen on an election-style ballot vote that is repeated.

(*For those who may be reading too quickly: these are double negatives.)

[J. J.]

There to me seems to be a fundamental problem with treating voting on suggestions the same way that a nomination, at least as far as a ballot (or roll call) is concerned. On those to methods, while a nomination is not out of order, it is also not required. You could elect someone, by those two methods, without any nominations at all.

Now, assume that a blank was created. Can a Motion Relating to Methods of Voting and to the Polls create a ballot without suggestions? If there are no actual suggestions, p. 164, ll. 25-26 would not come into play? The members would write their choices on the ballot (or state them on a roll call).

(The problem I have with Shmuel's idea is that it blatantly violates the "independent original" treatment of suggestions, but this seems to overcome that.)

[Dan Honemann]

Tim has nicely summed up what I was trying to get at.

In response to your question, yes; I think repeated balloting would be necessary, until either the blank is filled by a majority vote for one choice or the Previous Question is ordered and the main motion is rejected with a blank still in it.

But how is this any different from voting on filling a blank by any other method? The assumption is that those whose choices have been voted down will come to their senses and vote for, or at least not vote against, another choice. But there is no guarantee that this will happen on voice votes (or on "yes/no" ballots) taken successively on each choice, and I see no* reason why it cannot* (and should not*) happen on an election-style ballot vote that is repeated.

(*For those who may be reading too quickly: these are double negatives.)

First of all, unless you are considering voting on each suggestion successively, one at a time, please stop referring to this "yes/no" ballot business.

If what Tim says is correct (I'm not yet sure that it is), it would appear that he may have made my point for me. If the assembly is committed to filling the blank, as he says it is, it must be because it agreed to vote on suggestions by ballot. Before doing that, the assembly was under no obligation to fill the blank..

[J. J.]

If what Tim says is correct (I'm not yet sure that it is), it would appear that he may have made my point for me. If the assembly is committed to filling the blank, as he says it is, it must be because it agreed to vote on suggestions by ballot. Before doing that, the assembly was under no obligation to fill the blank..

Wouldn't this be covered on p. 167, ll. 27-30, in effect. If for some reason a blank isn't filled in something the assembly has authorized (including a just adopted main motion), wouldn't that page mandate that assembly must then fill the blank, before moving on to other business? Why would this be any different between a voice vote on the suggestion and a ballot vote on the suggestions?

[Dan Honemann]

Wouldn't this be covered on p. 167, ll. 27-30, in effect. If for some reason a blank isn't filled in something the assembly has authorized (including a just adopted main motion), wouldn't that page mandate that assembly must then fill the blank, before moving on to other business? Why would this be any different between a voice vote on the suggestion and a ballot vote on the suggestions?

No; we are not talking about a situation in which the assembly has already adopted a motion containing a blank.

[J. J.]

No; we are not talking about a situation in which the assembly has already adopted a motion containing a blank.

In your first post, you said, "My own view of it is that voting by ballot is not a suitable method for filling blanks except in those situations in which the assembly has already committed itself to filling the blank (e.g. p. 167, ll. 21-30), so that the circumstances are essentially the same as they are in an election of officers." Page 167 ll. 27-30, is a situation where the assemble has just, literally committed itself by adopting a motion with an unfilled blank.

Suppose that the motion was "That the society hall hold an education conference in _______." Suggestions A, B, C, D, E, are made and voted upon, by ballot, with a yes or no vote. Every suggestion gets 20 yes and 80 no. The assembly is not obligated to fill the blank, as you've indicated.

The question is put on the pending main motion "That the society hall hold an education conference in _______." It is adopted. The assembly is now obligated to fill the blank.

Something similar would apply to things required to be done by the bylaws. At some point prior to the filling of the blank the assembly has adopted a motion authorizing the setting of the annual meeting or to elect officers. Even if in the bylaws, those bylaws had to be adopted by a motion.

RONR abhors a blank in an adopted main motion, and it provides a method for taking care of it. I'm not seeing how that relates to filling a blank in a pending (and unadopted) main motion.

[Tim Wynn]

No; we are not talking about a situation in which the assembly has already adopted a motion containing a blank.

RONR abhors a blank in an adopted main motion, and it provides a method for taking care of it. I'm not seeing how that relates to filling a blank in a pending (and unadopted) main motion.

Exactly. As Dan said, we're not talking about that.

[George Mervosh]

I think the underlying principle tells a lot: in filling the blank the assembly is committed to deciding the language of the question, not the final outcome.

How do we know they are, except in the cases that Dan noted in post #1?

[Shmuel Gerber]

First of all, unless you are considering voting on each suggestion successively, one at a time, please stop referring to this "yes/no" ballot business.

If what Tim says is correct (I'm not yet sure that it is), it would appear that he may have made my point for me. If the assembly is committed to filling the blank, as he says it is, it must be because it agreed to vote on suggestions by ballot. Before doing that, the assembly was under no obligation to fill the blank..

I was indeed referring to "yes/no" voting on each suggestion successively, and I don't see any difference, insofar as whether or not the assembly is committed to filling the blank, between voting successively by voice, by successive yes/no ballots, or by an election-style ballot that might have to be repeated.

But since it appears that I am completely lost, maybe we'll just have to take up the topic of filling blanks -- again -- at the next Advanced Seminar.

[J. J.]

Exactly. As Dan said, we're not talking about that.

With all due respect, that might be exactly what Dan is talking about, though I suspect that neither he nor you might realize the implications.

There may be two separate standards for filling a blank:

1. In cases where a blank need not be filled.

2. There are cases where the assembly is obliged to fill a blank. In those cases, a yes/no vote for a ballot may not be appropriate, and may even be out of order.

The rule on p. 167, ll. 27-30 may mark the dividing line between the two (and it would be a bright dividing line).

[Shmuel Gerber]

I agree that, “If the majority wishes to not hold the event in any place, the motion itself should be rejected.”

But how does the assembly do this if it has agreed to vote on suggestions by ballot? Once balloting has begun, it won’t be able to reconsider its decision to vote by ballot. So, my question is, if an assembly is voting on suggestions for filling a blank by ballot (as in an election), isn’t repeated balloting required until a suggestion is agreed to by a majority (as per p. 441, ll. 1-5)?

I think I might finally be getting what your point is (or maybe not).

I'm sure that everyone reading this understands by now that if the blank-filling ballot is structured as in an election, there will be no "for" and "against" spaces. So, the members cannot explicitly reject all choices, as they could when voting on each one individually; nor could the members adjust their votes on later choices to account for the results on earlier ones.

I see absolutely no problem being created by these facts. If, on the first round of election-style balloting, no choice receives a majority, the situation is no different from when all choices have been explicitly rejected by individual votes on each choice. I don't think repeated balloting is required any more or less than repeated voting would be required when, having been voted on one at a time, none of the choices has received a majority vote.

Ordinarily, however, the assembly should fill the blank in the motion before voting on the motion, regardless of the method of voting on filling the blank. Therefore, an election-style ballot is proper, as there is no valid reason, when voting on the choices to fill the blank, to deliberately choose to refuse to fill the blank, leaving a nonsensical (or incomplete) motion pending. The filling of the blank with a certain choice, even on an election-style ballot, doesn't compel any result on the main motion (other than when it has already been decided to do what the main motion proposes to do, which is not the case presented here).

[J. J.]

Ordinarily, however, the assembly should fill the blank in the motion before voting on the motion, regardless of the method of voting on filling the blank. Therefore, an election-style ballot is proper, as there is no valid reason, when voting on the choices to fill the blank, to deliberately choose to refuse to fill the blank, leaving a nonsensical (or incomplete) motion pending. The filling of the blank with a certain choice, even on an election-style ballot, doesn't compel any result on the main motion (other than when it has already been decided to do what the main motion proposes to do, which is not the case presented here).

I think this would be out of order, but there are two different issues.

First, there is still the p. 164, ll. 25-26 problem, at least in cases where the motion has already been decided. An "election style ballot," a ballot were several choices are voted on together with an instruction to chose a singular choice, ultimately does not treat a suggestion "as an independent original to be voted on separately." The suggestion becomes dependent on the vote on the other suggestions.

It would be on that ground that the motion to have an "election style ballot" should be ruled out of order (though the rule could possibly be suspended).

On the second point, in this case, there may be a valid reason not to fill the blank. That reason is that the majority may find no choice acceptable, because if finds the motion in which the blank is created to be unacceptable. This reason is envisioned on p. 167, ll. 20-28.

[Tim Wynn]

If what Tim says is correct (I'm not yet sure that it is), it would appear that he may have made my point for me. If the assembly is committed to filling the blank, as he says it is, it must be because it agreed to vote on suggestions by ballot. Before doing that, the assembly was under no obligation to fill the blank..

Dan, you appear to be in the camp that asserts that if a majority votes against every suggestion offered to fill a blank, the majority has decided to leave the blank unfilled. Even in that camp it must hold that when the majority has decided to use an election-style voting method, it has decided to fill the blank.

Now, let's navigate trickier waters. A consistent phrase attached to voting on filling blanks is "until one is approved by a majority vote," or words to that effect, such as "until a majority is obtained," from PL. The last paragraph of p. 41 of PL agrees with RONR (11th ed.), p. 167, ll. 21-30, that blanks should be filled before putting the motion to a vote, but PL delivers a rationale that the two-thirds vote required to order the Previous Question should ensure that the motion will not be adopted with a blank. It also, on the next page, uses the word "danger" in regards to a motion being adopted with its blank unfilled.

It seems clear that RONR's only interest in leaving a blank unfilled is when "a large majority is confident that the measure will be rejected in any case," and this is described as a time-saving matter. Yet, when a majority has voted to take the vote on filling the blank by ballot, it seems unlikely that there can be a large majority seeking to save time.

RONR says "Normally, blanks should be filled before voting on the motion itself . . ." p. 167, ll. 21-21, so, except for abnormal situations, I'd say the assembly is committed to filling the blank before voting on the motion itself, no matter which method is used.

Also, p. 173, l. 25 ff. details how an adopted motion to commit is completed by the use of a voice vote on suggestions for filling an assumed blank until one receives a majority. This is an example of a blank that must be filled, no matter which camp you call home. However, there is no special voting procedure assigned to it. It has the same procedure as the "normal" case of filling blanks. In other words, if the chair gets through the list of suggestions without one receiving a majority, I don't see that he can claim that the will of the majority is to leave the motion with a blank. I believe he would have to continue putting the questions "until one receives a majority," just like any other vote to fill a blank.

Page 167, ll. 12, says, "When the blank is filled . . ." I don't know of any place in RONR where is says "if the blank is filled . . ."

Now, I have to see if Shmuel wants to carpool to this Advanced Seminar on filling blanks.

[Shmuel Gerber]

Now, I have to see if Shmuel wants to carpool to this Advanced Seminar on filling blanks.

Tim, I don't know if you realize it, but major strides have already been made in the 11th edition's treatment of filling blanks. For example, the third sub-listing of Table V no longer refers to proposals for "filing" blanks.

[Dan Honemann]

I think I might finally be getting what your point is (or maybe not).

I'm sure that everyone reading this understands by now that if the blank-filling ballot is structured as in an election, there will be no "for" and "against" spaces. So, the members cannot explicitly reject all choices, as they could when voting on each one individually; nor could the members adjust their votes on later choices to account for the results on earlier ones.

I see absolutely no problem being created by these facts. If, on the first round of election-style balloting, no choice receives a majority, the situation is no different from when all choices have been explicitly rejected by individual votes on each choice. I don't think repeated balloting is required any more or less than repeated voting would be required when, having been voted on one at a time, none of the choices has received a majority vote.

Ordinarily, however, the assembly should fill the blank in the motion before voting on the motion, regardless of the method of voting on filling the blank. Therefore, an election-style ballot is proper, as there is no valid reason, when voting on the choices to fill the blank, to deliberately choose to refuse to fill the blank, leaving a nonsensical (or incomplete) motion pending. The filling of the blank with a certain choice, even on an election-style ballot, doesn't compel any result on the main motion (other than when it has already been decided to do what the main motion proposes to do, which is not the case presented here).

When all suggestions for the location of J.J.’s “gathering for educational and social purposes” (referred to in Part I) have been explicitly rejected by individual votes on each suggestion, the assembly has decided that the blank will not be filled by any of the rejected locations. Absent the adoption of a motion to Reconsider, no repeated voting on any rejected suggestion is in order.

On the other hand, when, on the first round of election-style balloting, no choice receives a majority, the assembly hasn’t decided anything at all; it hasn’t expressly rejected any location, and repeated balloting is entirely appropriate.

However, if you are right, and repeated balloting is not required when balloting on suggestions for filling a blank, my problems in this regard all mostly go away.

[Dan Honemann]

Dan, you appear to be in the camp that asserts that if a majority votes against every suggestion offered to fill a blank, the majority has decided to leave the blank unfilled. Even in that camp it must hold that when the majority has decided to use an election-style voting method, it has decided to fill the blank.

I have never asserted that, if a majority votes against every suggestion offered to fill a blank, the majority has decided to leave the blank unfilled. Actually, I don't recall anyone making any such assertion.

As best I can determine, Shmuel says that, when the majority has decided to use an election-style voting method, it has not obligated itself to fill the blank. I gather you disagree.

[Dan Honemann]

But since it appears that I am completely lost, maybe we'll just have to take up the topic of filling blanks -- again -- at the next Advanced Seminar.

Well, the only vote cast so far is in favor of holding the next Advanced Seminar at the North Pole.

[J. J.]

When all suggestions for the location of J.J.’s “gathering for educational and social purposes” (referred to in Part I) have been explicitly rejected by individual votes on each suggestion, the assembly has decided that the blank will not be filled by any of the rejected locations. Absent the adoption of a motion to Reconsider, no repeated voting on any rejected suggestion is in order.

If not sure that this would be the case if the motion, still with an unfilled blank is subsequently adopted. The description on p. 167, ll. 21-30 would provide for additional rounds of voting, rather explicitly.

Assume that the original main motion is "That the Society hold a gathering for educational and social purposes in _______, from June 15 to June 18, 2013” Five suggestions are offered, but none receives a majority and no one moves to reconsider. The assembly would not still try to fill the blank. The main motion would still be pending.

The question is put on the main motion, and it is adopted. The assembly would then be obliged to fill the blank. Obviously, if the main motion is defeated, the assembly would not need to fill the blank. That seems to be the broad line.