Tim Wynn Posted July 25, 2012 at 02:09 PM Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 at 02:09 PM 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.. . . 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. If you're referring to an obligation greater than refraining from deliberately choosing to refuse to fill the blank, I can say that I agree . . . the assembly has no greater or lesser obligation to fill the blank as a result of the voting method. If you're saying that the chair, after all suggestions have been rejected, should state the question on the motion containing the blank, I would say that RONR does not explicitly support or even address this. It merely alludes to the possibility of mistakenly adopting a motion containing a blank after a failed attempt by a large majority to reject the motion before any suggestions can be made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted July 25, 2012 at 11:03 PM Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 at 11:03 PM 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.This distinction, which is obvious in retrospect, is not one that I had thought of. But I don't think it changes my answer any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted July 26, 2012 at 02:45 PM Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 at 02:45 PM This distinction, which is obvious in retrospect, is not one that I had thought of. But I don't think it changes my answer any.Why not, if I may ask? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted July 26, 2012 at 03:26 PM Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 at 03:26 PM This distinction, which is obvious in retrospect, is not one that I had thought of. But I don't think it changes my answer any.Why not, if I may ask?Because either way, the vote has been taken on all pending questions involved in filling the blank, yet there is still a main motion pending with an unfilled blank.When balloting must be repeated in an election for office (per the rule on p. 441, ll. 1-5 that Dan cited), it's not because the taking of the first ballot necessitates the taking of more ballots. It's simply that the first ballot hasn't decided anything, and the question of whom to elect to office must be decided, so further balloting is necessary. The way I see it, it is the election that remains incomplete, not the vote per se. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted July 26, 2012 at 03:49 PM Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 at 03:49 PM Because either way, the vote has been taken on all pending questions involved in filling the blank, yet there is still a main motion pending with an unfilled blank.Ok, fair enough, but it seems to me (and give me some slack since there has been a lot of posts here) that there are different rules that apply depending on how the vote was taken:1) "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."Yet2) "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." (albeit not required)Do the rules for filling blanks really contemplate these two different procedures, or is it simply because a ballot is being used, and therefore no outright rejection of a proposal has occurred that the additional round of voting is permitted?I'm happy to continue on with these two sets of procedures in mind from now on, but yeah, I'm confused, but that's why you guys are here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted July 26, 2012 at 04:26 PM Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 at 04:26 PM Ok, fair enough, but it seems to me (and give me some slack since there has been a lot of posts here) that there are different rules that apply depending on how the vote was taken . . .Well, there seems to be little doubt about that. Since you're quoting Dan, I'll let him respond. I'll just say that, after all this discussion, I'm beginning to think that one would have be quite foolish to offer a motion that already contains a blank in it. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted July 26, 2012 at 04:50 PM Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 at 04:50 PM I'll just say that, after all this discussion, I'm beginning to think that one would have be quite foolish to offer a motion that already contains a blank in it. :-)No kidding Even after all of this interpretation, logic, and examination of what RONR says and implies, I'm more convinced than ever that this is true: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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted July 26, 2012 at 05:43 PM Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 at 05:43 PM No kidding Even after all of this interpretation, logic, and examination of what RONR says and implies, I'm more convinced than ever that this is true:Well, whether a ballot is a "suitable" method ,or not, for voting on suggestions to fill a blank, I'm not convinced that the majority cannot order a ballot The majority could order one, under the existing rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted July 26, 2012 at 05:47 PM Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 at 05:47 PM Well, whether a ballot is a "suitable" method ,or not, for voting on suggestions to fill a blank, I'm not convinced that the majority cannot order a ballot The majority could order one, under the existing rules.At this point I don't read that any of us are convinced a ballot is improper since repeated balloting is seemingly not required......but that doesn't mean it's very suitable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted July 26, 2012 at 08:04 PM Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 at 08:04 PM At this point I don't read that any of us are convinced a ballot is improper since repeated balloting is seemingly not required......but that doesn't mean it's very suitable Well, I think the suitability of a ballot is really dependent on the circumstances. However, I would not second guess an assembly that chose to ballot on suggestions to fill a blank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.