Voting % for Main Motion

[Guest LittleConfused]

In general, the quick reference guides for Roberts Rules of Order state that a Main Motion requires a majority vote to pass. If a motion is of particular importance, can the voting requirement bar be raised within the body of the main motion. ie, "this motion must have an 80% affirmative vote to pass."? Any insight would be welcomed.

[George Mervosh]

If you wish to change from a majority vote to an 80% vote for the motion to be adopted, the rules may be suspended to allow for it. A 2/3 vote is required.

[Guest Guest]

Mr. Mervosh,

THANK YOU. I appreciate your time in posting a reply. I'm with you up to a 2/3 vote. Here is the current situation in a meeting that I am involved with (Motions are currentl;y tabled for three weeks.)

There is a primary motion on the floor that is of high importance. As an assembly member I do not believe there is significant majority backing for the proposed motion. The chairman would really like to push the primary motion through and is heavily supporting a majority 51% vote. As a member of the assemmbly, and because of the importance of this motion I have placed a Motion to Amend on the floor to require an 80% affirmative vote to pass and it has been seconded. It is my understanding that the vote for the Motion to Amend is a simple majority. Your 2/3 recommendation has me a little lost. (Understandably I didn't give as much of an outline as I should have.)

Am I on the right track, and where does the 2/3 fit in. Thank you again for your time.

[jstackpo]

Your motion to amend to require a 2/3 vote is putting the cart before the horse and is pointless.

Suppose your amendment is adopted and the main motion then reads "Do something important and this motion requires an 80% vote to be adopted". But the motion has NOT yet been adopted, the 80% rule has not been finally adopted, so a majority vote is sufficient to adopt the motion.

What George is suggesting is that you FIRST have to change the (standard) rule that a majority is sufficient to adopt this, or any, particular motion. You change the parliamentary rule to require an 80% adoption threshold, then vote on "Doing the important thing". But you have to change the rule first, and that rule change requires a 2/3 vote.

[Guest Guest]

I have respect for the board and chairman and want to make sure that I'm working the process appropriately. Thank you for your comments.

[Gary c Tesser]

I have respect for the board and chairman and want to make sure that I'm working the process appropriately. Thank you for your comments.

"Little confused,"I don't think you really understood what Dr Stackpole said, because I don't think he completely made sense at all, as far as your question is concerned.

Be clear to start with, that you are not at all looking at "amending" the main motion.

[jstackpo]

Well, our guest , in #3, spoke of a "motion to Amend" that required only a majority to pass - sounds like amending the main motion to me.

Which, as noted, will NOT accomplish his desired end of putting an 80% adoption threshold on that main motion to "do something important".

[Trina]

Mr. Mervosh,

THANK YOU. I appreciate your time in posting a reply. I'm with you up to a 2/3 vote. Here is the current situation in a meeting that I am involved with (Motions are currentl;y tabled for three weeks.)

There is a primary motion on the floor that is of high importance. As an assembly member I do not believe there is significant majority backing for the proposed motion. The chairman would really like to push the primary motion through and is heavily supporting a majority 51% vote. As a member of the assemmbly, and because of the importance of this motion I have placed a Motion to Amend on the floor to require an 80% affirmative vote to pass and it has been seconded. It is my understanding that the vote for the Motion to Amend is a simple majority. Your 2/3 recommendation has me a little lost. (Understandably I didn't give as much of an outline as I should have.)

Am I on the right track, and where does the 2/3 fit in. Thank you again for your time.

So, you believe there is majority support for the motion, but not much more than majority support. Presumably, other members can make the same assessment.

Your motion to amend to require a 2/3 vote is putting the cart before the horse and is pointless.

Suppose your amendment is adopted and the main motion then reads "Do something important and this motion requires an 80% vote to be adopted". But the motion has NOT yet been adopted, the 80% rule has not been finally adopted, so a majority vote is sufficient to adopt the motion.

What George is suggesting is that you FIRST have to change the (standard) rule that a majority is sufficient to adopt this, or any, particular motion. You change the parliamentary rule to require an 80% adoption threshold, then vote on "Doing the important thing". But you have to change the rule first, and that rule change requires a 2/3 vote.

To suspend the rules, as Mr. Mervosh and Mr. Stackpole describe, would take a 2/3 vote. Clearly, some of the supporters of the important motion would have vote in favor of suspending the rules (in order to achieve your goal of requiring an eventual 80% vote to adopt the important motion), thereby apparently ensuring the later defeat of the motion they favor.

Why would a rational person do such a thing?

Also, note that a motion to suspend the rules is not debatable. I'm reminded of this since you say the chair 'is heavily supporting a majority 51% vote' -- that sounds as though people are debating the vote margin required for the main motion -- this is not really a subject of debate, since the default vote margin simply is a majority. If it comes to a motion to suspend the rules in order to raise the vote margin, there's no proper place for debate there either.

Oh, and 'majority' and '51%' are not synonymous.