Why isn't the division of a question debatable?

[Guest Argo]

RONR is clear that the division of a question is not a debatable motion. I'm wondering if anyone can offer an explanation as to the rationale for why that is the case. What is this rule designed to prevent/promote? 

 

Thank you in advance. 

[Hieu H. Huynh]

"Except as noted in this paragraph, the incidental motions are undebatable, because they have high privilege to interrupt any motions or situations to which they are incidental." (RONR 11th ed., p. 398, ll. 18-20)

[Rev Ed]

RONR is clear that the division of a question is not a debatable motion. I'm wondering if anyone can offer an explanation as to the rationale for why that is the case. What is this rule designed to prevent/promote? 

 

Thank you in advance. 

 

"Except as noted in this paragraph, the incidental motions are undebatable, because they have high privilege to interrupt any motions or situations to which they are incidental." (RONR 11th ed., p. 398, ll. 18-20)

 

Or to put it another way, each member potentially only a small amount of time to talk about a motion (during the overall debate about a motion), so if the question of a division were to be debatable, it would essentially allow some members more time to essentially discusss a motion by debating why the motion should be divided.

[Guest Argo]

"Except as noted in this paragraph, the incidental motions are undebatable, because they have high privilege to interrupt any motions or situations to which they are incidental." (RONR 11th ed., p. 398, ll. 18-20)

So because these motions enjoy the privilege of being able to interrupt debate on a main motion, they are not debatable. I suppose the issues related to the main motion to be divided can still be discussed before and after a motion to divide is brought to the floor, so the rights of members to speak on the issue are not limited. Correct?

[Guest Argo]

Or to put it another way, each member potentially only a small amount of time to talk about a motion (during the overall debate about a motion), so if the question of a division were to be debatable, it would essentially allow some members more time to essentially discusss a motion by debating why the motion should be divided.

So the incidental motions (other than appeal and excuse from duty) are not debatable so as to prevent certain members from artificially expanding their time for debate. Is that correct? 

[Rev Ed]

So the incidental motions (other than appeal and excuse from duty) are not debatable so as to prevent certain members from artificially expanding their time for debate. Is that correct? 

 

Most people would probably tell you that it is because the motion is 'incidental', but basically it is easy to think of it as being a way of stopping members from using incidental motions as a way of filibusting - thus slowing down the time it takes to deal with the motion.  Either the members want a division or not.  But if debate was allowed, members may use the time to discuss the pros and cons of a division, thus extending effectively extending the time for debate on the original motion.

[Gödel Fan]

I think the other side is also worth looking at:  not allowing debate on the motion to divide the question doesn't violate anyone's rights.  Suppose you opposed the division, and it passes, but you would have been able to persuade people to vote no.  Have you lost anything?  Absolutely not - you can use the same arguments to convince people to vote yes or no to both, and you still have the opportunity to vote on both questions.

 

On the other hand, maybe you supported the division, and now cannot split your vote, nor can you persuade others to do the same.  I still say you haven't lost anything - you can now move to amend by striking out, and if the motion fails, you can move one of the questions separately - both of which are debatable.

 

(What if time on the motion to divide ends together with time on the agenda item?  You should have kept an eye on the clock and moved to extend.)

[Dan Honemann]

(What if time on the motion to divide ends together with time on the agenda item?  You should have kept an eye on the clock and moved to extend.)

 

I'm at a loss trying to understand what this is about, or what it has to do with the reason why motions to divide a question are undebatable (which was provided in post #2).

[Josh Martin]

So because these motions enjoy the privilege of being able to interrupt debate on a main motion, they are not debatable. I suppose the issues related to the main motion to be divided can still be discussed before and after a motion to divide is brought to the floor, so the rights of members to speak on the issue are not limited. Correct?

 

This is correct, but I would add that most of the incidental motions can interrupt motions of higher rank than the main motion (sometimes motions of a much higher rank), which further shows why they are generally not debatable. Even Division of a Question takes precedence over Postpone Indefinitely. It also takes precedence over an amendment to a main motion, if it is being used to divide an amendment rather than a main motion.

[Gödel Fan]

I took the question to be asking something along the lines of "why is this right/fair?" rather than the technical reason why.  Saying that a motion may interrupt other motions doesn't fully explain, in my mind, why it is acceptable to take action without allowing the minority to be heard from.  It partially answers the question by explaining what can go wrong if debate is allowed, but we also have to show why that outcome is worse than prohibiting debate.  That's why I offered my thoughts on the fairness matter.  

 

As to the parenthetical portion - the trickier fairness question is the second - why it is fair that you cannot speak in favor of division.  In the event that it fails, I offered some remedies a person can use to achieve the same end that speaking in favor of division would have attained - but they are unavailable if time expires on the agenda item while the vote on division is ongoing, since you'll then move immediately to a vote on the main motion if the division fails.  Hence my answer to that problem in parenthesis.  

[jstackpo]

 

 

As to the parenthetical portion - the trickier fairness question is the second - why it is fair that you cannot speak in favor of division.  In the event that it fails, I offered some remedies a person can use to achieve the same end that speaking in favor of division would have attained - but they are unavailable if time expires on the agenda item while the vote on division is ongoing, since you'll then move immediately to a vote on the main motion if the division fails.  Hence my answer to that problem in parenthesis.  

 

If the pre-specified limit of discussion time (found in the adopted agenda) is reached, anybody can move to extend the limits of debate - p. 191 - if they are nice and prompt about it.

 

(FWIMBW, in my 45 years of parliamenting around, I have NEVER seen that motion get made.  Limit, yes, but never Extend.)

[Gödel Fan]

Hence my response - except that, so far as I know, the motion to extend debate is out of order when time has actually expired, since at that point you'd move immediately to a vote on all pending questions.

 

I've seen it used, and used it, quite often.  

[jstackpo]

 the motion to extend debate is out of order when time has actually expired, since at that point you'd move immediately to a vote on all pending questions.

That's an interesting assertion. I'm gonna flesh it out a bit and pose it as a question on the "Advanced Discussion"  page.  Stay tuned (over there).

[Josh Martin]

Hence my response - except that, so far as I know, the motion to extend debate is out of order when time has actually expired, since at that point you'd move immediately to a vote on all pending questions.

 

I'm afraid this is mistaken. When time expires on an item on the agenda, the motion to extend debate is in order (although RONR notes that the chances that such a motion will be adopted are slim). See RONR, 11th ed., pg. 373.