Temporary use of a plurality

[Sean Hunt]

p. 405 says "A plurality that is not amajority never chooses a proposition or elects anyone to office except by virtue of a special rule previously adopted."

Is a motion to suspend the rules sufficient to count as a "special rule previously adopted", or is majority rule an FPPL (possibly using p. 4. ll. 3-9 as the basis for this) and hence unsuspendable? If it is an FPPL, why can a special rule of order allow its violation?

[Josh Martin]

Is a motion to suspend the rules sufficient to count as a "special rule previously adopted", or is majority rule an FPPL (possibly using p. 4. ll. 3-9 as the basis for this) and hence unsuspendable?

I think the incidental motion to Suspend the Rules is not a "special rule previously adopted." It is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that a majority is required to adopt a proposition.

I think that, however, a special rule which applied to an entire meeting or session, such as a convention standing rule, would be sufficient to establish a rule providing for plurality vote (except in the case of election of officers, which requires authorization in the Bylaws).

If it is an FPPL, why can a special rule of order allow its violation?

This question seems to be based on a flawed premise. I'm not aware of a general rule in RONR which states that a rule in the Bylaws is required to override an FPPL. It is certainly the case that many FPPLs require a rule in the Bylaws in order to override them, but not all of them do.

As another case, consider the rule that only one question may be considered at a time. Such a rule is explicitly stated to be an FPPL (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 59, lines 17-23). It is, however, possible to override this rule with a special rule of order (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 361, lines 11-32).

[Dan Honemann]

It is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that a majority is required to adopt a proposition.

But can't the rule on page 405 be suspended so as to permit election by plurality vote if that is what the assembly wants to do?

Suppose there is an election and the chair erroneously declares someone elected who, as clearly shown by the teller's report, received only a plurality and not a majority of the votes cast. No point of order is raised concerning the matter, and the meeting is adjourned. May a point of order contesting the validity of the election be raised at some later point in time based upon a claim that action has been taken in violation of a fundamental principle of parliamentary law?

[jstackpo]

Hey! Dan is supposed to answer hard questions, not raise them.

But isn't the question answered in lines 4-6 on p. 405: "If such a rule [plurality] is to apply to the election of officers, it must be prescribed in the bylaws".

Makes the "majority is needed to elect" rule sound like an FPPL to me, so no "suspension" is proper. And, yes, a conutinuing breach ensues.

[J. J.]

But can't the rule on page 405 be suspended so as to permit election by plurality vote if that is what the assembly wants to do?

Suppose there is an election and the chair erroneously declares someone elected who, as clearly shown by the teller's report, received only a plurality and not a majority of the votes cast. No point of order is raised concerning the matter, and the meeting is adjourned. May a point of order contesting the validity of the election be raised at some later point in time based upon a claim that action has been taken in violation of a fundamental principle of parliamentary law?

I would doubt that there is an FPPL that says a majority vote is required to adopt a motion. I would doubt that there is an FPPL that states that officers must be elected by majority vote. There might be one creeping in, but it is not there yet.

The big one is that, unless the vote was by ballot, I would ultimately doubt that the person was elected by a plurality vote.

[Sean Hunt]

Hey! Dan is supposed to answer hard questions, not raise them.

But isn't the question answered in lines 4-6 on p. 405: "If such a rule [plurality] is to apply to the election of officers, it must be prescribed in the bylaws".

Makes the "majority is needed to elect" rule sound like an FPPL to me, so no "suspension" is proper. And, yes, a conutinuing breach ensues.

From context, that clearly applies only to officers, not to other motions.

[Josh Martin]

But can't the rule on page 405 be suspended so as to permit election by plurality vote if that is what the assembly wants to do?

Based on the language "except by virtue of a special rule previously adopted," I would say no.

Suppose there is an election and the chair erroneously declares someone elected who, as clearly shown by the teller's report, received only a plurality and not a majority of the votes cast. No point of order is raised concerning the matter, and the meeting is adjourned. May a point of order contesting the validity of the election be raised at some later point in time based upon a claim that action has been taken in violation of a fundamental principle of parliamentary law?

If it is not an election to office, no. Since the assembly could have then satisfied the pg. 405 rule even by adopting a rule for the session, I think it would be hard to argue that the chair's determination creates a continuing breach. In the case of an election to office (where a plurality vote must be prescribed by the Bylaws), however, I believe that a Point of Order could be raised regarding this issue.

The big one is that, unless the vote was by ballot, I would ultimately doubt that the person was elected by a plurality vote.

If you add "or roll call" after the word "ballot," then I agree with you on this point.

[J. J.]

If you add "or roll call" after the word "ballot," then I agree with you on this point.

Unless it involved absentee rights, I think the rule that something be conducted by roll call could be suspended

[Josh Martin]

Unless it involved absentee rights, I think the rule that something be conducted by roll call could be suspended

I agree, but your original statement was "unless the vote was by ballot, I would doubt that the person was elected by a plurality vote." I think it could be clearly established whether a person was elected by a plurality vote in an election by roll call as well.

[J. J.]

I agree, but your original statement was "unless the vote was by ballot, I would doubt that the person was elected by a plurality vote." I think it could be clearly established whether a person was elected by a plurality vote in an election by roll call as well.

I don't the question is the establishment of the vote total.

Let me give you this scenario: Three candidates were nominated, A, B, and C. After nominations are closed, the chair said "Candidate A is elected," prior to any voting. No ballot is required. No one raises a point of order at the time. Can be raised at that the next (monthly) meeting?

[Dan Honemann]

Backing up a bit, can we agree that the rule which says that a plurality that is not a majority is insufficient to elect is not itself a fundamental principle of parliamentary law?

[David A Foulkes]

Backing up a bit, can we agree that the rule which says that a plurality that is not a majority is insufficient to elect is not itself a fundamental principle of parliamentary law?

As much as I should know better by now...... the fact that a plurality to elect requires a minimum of a bylaw level rule (p. 405 ll. 4-6), and in conjunction with p. 4 ll. 3-5, it would seem to be more of a fundamental principle than not.

[George Mervosh]

Backing up a bit, can we agree that the rule which says that a plurality that is not a majority is insufficient to elect is not itself a fundamental principle of parliamentary law?

Unless you guys didn't mean exactly what you said in paragraph 2 of OI 2006-18, I can agree with it.

[J. J.]

Backing up a bit, can we agree that the rule which says that a plurality that is not a majority is insufficient to elect is not itself a fundamental principle of parliamentary law?

I agree, and approve strongly with the phrase, "not itself."

[Josh Martin]

Let me give you this scenario: Three candidates were nominated, A, B, and C. After nominations are closed, the chair said "Candidate A is elected," prior to any voting. No ballot is required. No one raises a point of order at the time. Can be raised at that the next (monthly) meeting?

No, I don't think so.

Backing up a bit, can we agree that the rule which says that a plurality that is not a majority is insufficient to elect is not itself a fundamental principle of parliamentary law?

Well, I suppose so.

[Dan Honemann]

Let me give you this scenario: Three candidates were nominated, A, B, and C. After nominations are closed, the chair said "Candidate A is elected," prior to any voting. No ballot is required. No one raises a point of order at the time. Can be raised at that the next (monthly) meeting?

I think this question presents facts so extraordinary on their face that it cannot be answered in any reasonable fashion.

[Josh Martin]

Given our understanding that "majority vote to elect" is not an FPPL, perhaps we should revisit the original poster's question - and I would be pleased to hear answers from other posters, as my original response was based on an incorrect assumption.

p. 405 says "A plurality that is not amajority never chooses a proposition or elects anyone to office except by virtue of a special rule previously adopted."

Is a motion to suspend the rules sufficient to count as a "special rule previously adopted", or is majority rule an FPPL (possibly using p. 4. ll. 3-9 as the basis for this) and hence unsuspendable? If it is an FPPL, why can a special rule of order allow its violation?

It seems clear now that it is not an FPPL, but the main question remains: Can the rules be suspended to permit a plurality to elect (or to fill a blank)? Is the answer any different in the case of an election to office?

[J. J.]

Given our understanding that "majority vote to elect" is not an FPPL, perhaps we should revisit the original poster's question - and I would be pleased to hear answers from other posters, as my original response was based on an incorrect assumption.

It seems clear now that it is not an FPPL, but the main question remains: Can the rules be suspended to permit a plurality to elect (or to fill a blank)? Is the answer any different in the case of an election to office?

A blank could, without violating p. 405, ll. 2-6). An election could not.

That said, I do not believe there is one example on this thread, including the one Dan didn't like, where the rule was suspended (or where there was a violation of the rule), that officers are elected by a majority.

[Tim Wynn]

In a previous thread, concerning the validity of suspending the rules to allow an election to be decided by a coin toss, Mr. Honemann made the following statement, which seems to have some relation to this topic:

"I think you will find that, unless a ballot vote is required, there is precious little that anyone can do to prevent a majority from electing whoever it wishes to elect by whatever means it wishes to elect him."

Previous thread:

[Josh Martin]

An election could not.

Do you specifically mean an election to office? The language on pg. 405 seems to treat an election to (for instance) a committee the same as filling any other blank - only an election to office is given special treatment.

In a previous thread, concerning the validity of suspending the rules to allow an election to be decided by a coin toss, Mr. Honemann made the following statement, which seems to have some relation to this topic:

"I think you will find that, unless a ballot vote is required, there is precious little that anyone can do to prevent a majority from electing whoever it wishes to elect by whatever means it wishes to elect him."

Previous thread: http://robertsrules....h__1#entry62854

I have no doubts about that, but that doesn't necessarily mean a motion to Suspend the Rules is the proper means to achieve that end.

[J. J.]

Do you specifically mean an election to office? The language on pg. 405 seems to treat an election to (for instance) a committee the same as filling any other blank - only an election to office is given special treatment.

I'm referring to an office, as defined in the bylaws.

I have no doubts about that, but that doesn't necessarily mean a motion to Suspend the Rules is the proper means to achieve that end.

I don't thing the rule could be suspended, but I also don't think the rule would be suspended.

I'm probably in agreement with the statement:

"I think you will find that, unless a ballot vote is required, there is precious little that anyone can do to prevent a majority from electing whoever it wishes to elect by whatever means it wishes to elect him."