Guest JS Posted June 9, 2011 at 01:33 AM Report Share Posted June 9, 2011 at 01:33 AM Can a person make a motion, then abstain from voting on that same motion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Hunt Posted June 9, 2011 at 01:35 AM Report Share Posted June 9, 2011 at 01:35 AM Can a person make a motion, then abstain from voting on that same motion?Yes. While the mover of a motion can't speak against it, he is under no compulsion to cast a particular vote. He can even vote against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted June 9, 2011 at 01:41 AM Report Share Posted June 9, 2011 at 01:41 AM Yes. While the mover of a motion can't speak against it, he is under no compulsion to cast a particular vote. He can even vote against it.A member has a duty to vote on each question about which he is able to form an opinion; however, as you note, he cannot be compelled to vote, RONR (10th ed.), p. 394, ll. 6-9. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JS Posted June 13, 2011 at 01:24 AM Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 at 01:24 AM A member has a duty to vote on each question about which he is able to form an opinion; however, as you note, he cannot be compelled to vote, RONR (10th ed.), p. 394, ll. 6-9.So I make a motion, it is seconded. I cannot speak against the motion. However, while I have a duty to vote, I am not obligated to vote a particular way - yes, no or abstain. Is this correct?This begs another question - why would I make a motion at all if I thought I did not have sufficient knowledge to vote yes or no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted June 13, 2011 at 01:33 AM Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 at 01:33 AM This begs another question - why would I make a motion at all if I thought I did not have sufficient knowledge to vote yes or no?I don't know. But you have the right to do so. That doesn't mean it's a good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted June 13, 2011 at 01:48 AM Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 at 01:48 AM why would I make a motion at all if I thought I did not have sufficient knowledge to vote yes or no?Could also be that you thought you knew enough to make the motion, but during debate you heard enough of the other side of the story that you realized it wasn't such a good idea after all and vote no, or just abstain. The act of abstaining is really a way of saying "I don't care, you decide for me, whatevuh". It might be that even if the motion is adopted, you don't feel like you'll be affected by the ramifications, so you leave it up to those that feel otherwise to decide without you influencing the vote.Point is, you can do as you wish with the only restriction being not speaking against your own motion. In fact, you don't even have to speak at all, for it or agin it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Hunt Posted June 13, 2011 at 04:08 AM Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 at 04:08 AM This begs another question - why would I make a motion at all if I thought I did not have sufficient knowledge to vote yes or no?Sometimes I find myself moving amendments, despite not supporting them, because they are being discussed and the lack of a formal motion is hindering the progress of the debate, and I just want to see the issue decided upon one way or another so that the debate can be narrowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted June 13, 2011 at 07:23 PM Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 at 07:23 PM Sometimes I find myself moving amendments, despite not supporting them, because they are being discussed and the lack of a formal motion is hindering the progress of the debate, and I just want to see the issue decided upon one way or another so that the debate can be narrowed.I don't understand that. Could you explain the process a bit more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Hunt Posted June 14, 2011 at 01:59 AM Report Share Posted June 14, 2011 at 01:59 AM I don't understand that. Could you explain the process a bit more?I mean if the debate is getting into discussion along the lines of "Well, this motion says X. I'd vote for it if it said Y, but it says X". It may be worth moving an amendment so that the motion says Y (or doesn't) and then the debate will stop dealing with hypotheticals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted June 14, 2011 at 04:04 AM Report Share Posted June 14, 2011 at 04:04 AM I mean if the debate is getting into discussion along the lines of "Well, this motion says X. I'd vote for it if it said Y, but it says X". It may be worth moving an amendment so that the motion says Y (or doesn't) and then the debate will stop dealing with hypotheticals.If this is a regular occurrence, the members may benefit from some parliamentary education and/or some prodding from the chair when members say things like that. When I chair meetings, I often ask if the member intends to make an amendment when he makes a statement to that effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CCOFMIL Posted July 7, 2011 at 01:27 PM Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 at 01:27 PM Why would RROO specifically address the ability of the person seconding a motion to vote "no" and not the person making the motion? I believe it is because the person making the motion has the ability to withdraw the motion at any time prior to a call for question or vote. So if during the discussion the person making the motion changes their favor for the motion, they should withdraw the motion. This would imply that the person making a motion would be compelled to vote yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted July 7, 2011 at 01:31 PM Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 at 01:31 PM Why would RROO specifically address the ability of the person seconding a motion to vote "no" and not the person making the motion? " In debate, the maker of a motion, while he can vote against it, is not allowed to speak against his own motion." RONR, p. 381So your premise is faulty. Also, once the motion is before the assembly the maker cannot unilaterally withdraw it. RONR, p. 283ff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted July 7, 2011 at 03:31 PM Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 at 03:31 PM Why would RROO specifically address the ability of the person seconding a motion to vote "no" and not the person making the motion? I believe it is because the person making the motion has the ability to withdraw the motion at any time prior to a call for question or vote. So if during the discussion the person making the motion changes their favor for the motion, they should withdraw the motion. This would imply that the person making a motion would be compelled to vote yes.Your conclusion is based on two false pieces of information. There is no such implication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.