Tie vote on a Point of Order

[Chris Harrison]

I think this has been asked before but I don't recall the answer and not sure how to find the thread (IIRC it was several years ago and might have been in the old forum) so here goes again.

Say that a member offered an amendment and a Point of Order was raised that it wasn't germane to the original question and the Chair being in doubt places the question before the assembly. I know that the Chair's ruling is upheld with a tie vote on an Appeal but what happens if there is a tie vote when the question had been placed before the assembly? My guess is that like most other motions a tie vote defeats the motion because a majority vote is required so a tie vote on whether the amendment is germane would mean the assembly decided it wasn't since a majority vote is necessary to decide that it was.

[Dan Honemann]

I think this has been asked before but I don't recall the answer and not sure how to find the thread (IIRC it was several years ago and might have been in the old forum) so here goes again.

Say that a member offered an amendment and a Point of Order was raised that it wasn't germane to the original question and the Chair being in doubt places the question before the assembly. I know that the Chair's ruling is upheld with a tie vote on an Appeal but what happens if there is a tie vote when the question had been placed before the assembly? My guess is that like most other motions a tie vote defeats the motion because a majority vote is required so a tie vote on whether the amendment is germane would mean the assembly decided it wasn't since a majority vote is necessary to decide that it was.

Looks like a good guess to me.

[Shmuel Gerber]

I think this has been asked before but I don't recall the answer and not sure how to find the thread (IIRC it was several years ago and might have been in the old forum) so here goes again.

Say that a member offered an amendment and a Point of Order was raised that it wasn't germane to the original question and the Chair being in doubt places the question before the assembly. I know that the Chair's ruling is upheld with a tie vote on an Appeal but what happens if there is a tie vote when the question had been placed before the assembly? My guess is that like most other motions a tie vote defeats the motion because a majority vote is required so a tie vote on whether the amendment is germane would mean the assembly decided it wasn't since a majority vote is necessary to decide that it was.

My guess is it would depend on how the chair puts the question. A tie vote on the question "Is the amendment germane?" disallows the amendment, whereas a tie vote on the question "Is the point of order well taken?" allows the amendment.

[Tim Wynn]

My guess is that if exactly half the voters think the amendment isn't germane, it's not going to be adopted anyway.

[Dan Honemann]

My guess is it would depend on how the chair puts the question. A tie vote on the question "Is the amendment germane?" disallows the amendment, whereas a tie vote on the question "Is the point of order well taken?" allows the amendment.

My guess is that Chris's guess was that the chair put the question on whether or not the amendment was germane in the form recommended on pages 254-55, which is why I guessed that Chris's's's guess was a good guess.

[Shmuel Gerber]

Actually, now I'm beginning to second-guess my guess, and Chris's guess, and everybody's guesses. At this point, I would say they are indeed best guesses, but this is a really good question.

By simple analogy to other motions, a tie vote answers the question in the negative. But I don't think it's entirely logical to either "adopt" or "reject" the question "Is the amendment germane?" (or, for that matter, the question "Is the point of order well taken?").

I would need to do more research on this, like trying to find if Dan answered this question more definitively in the past.

For example, in the U.S. Congress, the "burden of proof" (whatever that means) is on the proponents of an amendment to show (and persuade the Speaker) that the amendment is germane, although I'm not sure that is relevant here.

[Tim Wynn]

Actually, now I'm beginning to second-guess my guess, and Chris's guess, and everybody's guesses. At this point, I would say they are indeed best guesses, but this is a really good question.

I think my guess stands.

By simple analogy to other motions, a tie vote answers the question in the negative. But I don't think it's entirely logical to either "adopt" or "reject" the question "Is the amendment germane?" (or, for that matter, the question "Is the point of order well taken?").

Henry Robert seems to have shared your thought.

"The chair being in doubt will ask the assembly to decide the question, 'Is the amendment germane?' . . . "As many as are of the opinion that the amendment is germane to the resolution [or amendment] say 'Aye.' As many as are of the contrary opinion say 'No.' The ayes have it, the amendment is declared germane . . . Or if there are more votes in the negative than in the affirmative he says "The noes have it, the amendment is declared not germane . . .

- PL, page 22.

He didn't allow for any ties on this matter in his day.

[George Mervosh]

I think my guess stands.

Henry Robert seems to have shared your thought.

"The chair being in doubt will ask the assembly to decide the question, 'Is the amendment germane?' . . . "As many as are of the opinion that the amendment is germane to the resolution [or amendment] say 'Aye.' As many as are of the contrary opinion say 'No.' The ayes have it, the amendment is declared germane . . . Or if there are more votes in the negative than in the affirmative he says "The noes have it, the amendment is declared not germane . . .

- PL, page 22.

He didn't allow for any ties on this matter in his day.

Are you sure he didn't? "if there are more votes in the negative......." Creative reading on my part? Maybe.

[Tim Wynn]

Are you sure he didn't? "if there are more votes in the negative......." Creative reading on my part? Maybe.

I think I read it the same way you do, George.

My comment about not allowing ties was a (presumably ineffectual) joke about Henry demanding that no tie take place on such a vote.

You've highlighted the exact word that made me reference that passage.

[David A Foulkes]

But I don't think it's entirely logical to either "adopt" or "reject" the question ...

What's left?

[Shmuel Gerber]

What's left?

A point of order does not present a proposal for action, but rather a choice between two equal alternatives -- in this case, the choice is whether the amendment is germane to the main motion or not. There is no such thing as simply letting the question "fail" or "rejecting" it, and there is no obvious reason why it should take less than a majority to answer "no" but not to answer "yes". Since RONR doesn't state what the vote requirement is, I think there is a legitimate question here.

[Tim Wynn]

A point of order does not present a proposal for action, but rather a choice between two equal alternatives -- in this case, the choice is whether the amendment is germane to the main motion or not. There is no such thing as simply letting the question "fail" or "rejecting" it, and there is no obvious reason why it should take less than a majority to answer "no" but not to answer "yes". Since RONR doesn't state what the vote requirement is, I think there is a legitimate question here.

Shmuel, are you suggesting, then, that this would be a case of filling a blank in the motion "That the amendment be ruled _________," with "germane" and "not germane" being the only two choices, a majority required to adopt the choice?

"In principle, the chair must state the question on a motion immediately after it has been made and seconded, unless he is obliged to rule that the motion is out of order . . ." - RONR (11th ed.), p. 39, ll. 8-10. If we extend that principle to the case of the assembly determining whether a motion is out of order, the motion must be allowed, unless it is determined to be out of order, not "unless it is not determined to be in order."

However, upon support from p. 255, ll. 6-15, it seems clear that the chair is, in effect, submitting to the assembly a point of order that the amendment is not germane, which should be put as "Is the amendment germane to the resolution?" This would require an affirmative result of the vote to mean that the motion is in order, anything other meaning otherwise.

[David A Foulkes]

A point of order does not present a proposal for action, but rather a choice .....

This has been my rumination on this so far.

When a motion is presented to the assembly, I come up with three possible results:

1. It is stopped in its tracks [Object to Consideration, ruled out of order with no (successful) appeal, etc]

2. Deferred [Postpone, Commit, etc]

3. A direct vote [adoption or defeat]

A tie vote in an election is a special case which I'll disregard for this discussion

With regard to 3, the result is actually based on whether the required voting threshold (majority, 2/3, etc) to adopt is reached. If it is not then the motion is defeated. With the one exception of successfully appealing a chair's ruling, there is no voting threshold required to defeat a motion, only to adopt.

Chapter XIII opens with a discussion of the "basic requirement of approval of an action or choice", that being the majority vote. If the majority vote is attained, the action or choice has been approved (the motion is adopted). If this does not occur, the action or choice has been disapproved, and I can only take that to mean defeated, and I'd have to expect this includes a tie vote where a majority vote is required.

If a motion is allowed to come before the assembly, and makes it through options 1 and 2 above all the way to option 3, a decision must be made by the assembly -- adoption or defeat.

[Shmuel Gerber]

Shmuel, are you suggesting, then, that this would be a case of filling a blank in the motion "That the amendment be ruled _________," with "germane" and "not germane" being the only two choices, a majority required to adopt the choice?

Something like that, although I don't think it helps much to substitute for a question in one murky area another in an even murkier area.

"In principle, the chair must state the question on a motion immediately after it has been made and seconded, unless he is obliged to rule that the motion is out of order . . ." - RONR (11th ed.), p. 39, ll. 8-10. If we extend that principle to the case of the assembly determining whether a motion is out of order, the motion must be allowed, unless it is determined to be out of order, not "unless it is not determined to be in order."

I don't think this is at all dispositive.

However, upon support from p. 255, ll. 6-15, it seems clear that the chair is, in effect, submitting to the assembly a point of order that the amendment is not germane, which should be put as "Is the amendment germane to the resolution?"

I'm not sure what you mean by "in effect". That is obviously the point of order that is being submitted to the assembly, but there are two opposite forms in which the chair may put the question (although one of them is clearly recommended in this case). It seems to me that if the rule is that a tie vote decides the question in the negative (and the basic question here is whether or not that's true), then it matters what form the question is put in, regardless of what the question is "in effect".

This would require an affirmative result of the vote to mean that the motion is in order, anything other meaning otherwise.

This is what's known as begging the question. You are asserting the answer without having demonstrated its truth.

[Dan Honemann]

It seems to me that if the rule is that a tie vote decides the question in the negative (and the basic question here is whether or not that's true), then it matters what form the question is put in, regardless of what the question is "in effect".

Yes, the rule is that a tie vote decides the question in the negative, and so yes, the form in which the question is put matters, which is why RONR (on p. 255, ll. 12-13) tells us how it should be done ("the question should be put so that an affirmative result of the vote will mean that the motion is in order").

[Shmuel Gerber]

This has been my rumination on this so far. . . .

In other words, you've completely ignored most of what I wrote last night.

When a motion is presented to the assembly, I come up with three possible results:

1. It is stopped in its tracks [Object to Consideration, ruled out of order with no (successful) appeal, etc]

2. Deferred [Postpone, Commit, etc]

3. A direct vote [adoption or defeat]

A tie vote in an election is a special case which I'll disregard for this discussion

With regard to 3, the result is actually based on whether the required voting threshold (majority, 2/3, etc) to adopt is reached. If it is not then the motion is defeated. With the one exception of successfully appealing a chair's ruling, there is no voting threshold required to defeat a motion, only to adopt.

Chapter XIII opens with a discussion of the "basic requirement of approval of an action or choice", that being the majority vote. If the majority vote is attained, the action or choice has been approved (the motion is adopted). If this does not occur, the action or choice has been disapproved, and I can only take that to mean defeated, and I'd have to expect this includes a tie vote where a majority vote is required.

If a motion is allowed to come before the assembly, and makes it through options 1 and 2 above all the way to option 3, a decision must be made by the assembly -- adoption or defeat.

A lot of this is either untrue or irrelevant, but the main things is, what does it mean to you to "defeat" the question of whether an amendment is germane to a resolution?

Let's try an analogy if it helps (ignore it if it doesn't).

Suppose the patient has a life-threatening infection.

Doctor: "I need to give you some antibiotics to treat this."

Patient: "OK, please do."

Doctor: "Are you allergic to penicillin? If you are allergic, I'll give you a different drug; if not, I'll give you penicillin."

Patient: No thanks.

Doctor: Don't you want to be treated?

Patient: Yes, of course.

Doctor: So, are you allergic or not allergic to penicillin?

Patient: Umm, I'd rather not.

Doctor (starting to suspect the infection has reached the brain already): Arrgh. Take two of these and call me in the morning.

Has the patient answered the doctor's question? Or is what we have here another failure to communicate? (Less brutal than the previous one, I hope.)

[Shmuel Gerber]

Yes, the rule is that a tie vote decides the question in the negative, and so yes, the form in which the question is put matters, which is why RONR (on p. 255, ll. 12-13) tells us how it should be done ("the question should be put so that an affirmative result of the vote will mean that the motion is in order").

Dan, I'm having way too much fun with this now to accept a definitive answer, even if it means that Chris and you and I were correct the whole time.

[Tim Wynn]

Let's try an analogy if it helps (ignore it if it doesn't).

Suppose the patient has a life-threatening infection.

Doctor: "I need to give you some antibiotics to treat this."

Patient: "OK, please do."

Doctor: "Are you allergic to penicillin? If you are allergic, I'll give you a different drug; if not, I'll give you penicillin."

Patient: No thanks.

Doctor: Don't you want to be treated?

Patient: Yes, of course.

Doctor: So, are you allergic or not allergic to penicillin?

Patient: Umm, I'd rather not.

Doctor (starting to suspect the infection has reached the brain already): Arrgh. Take two of these and call me in the morning.

Has the patient answered the doctor's question? Or is what we have here another failure to communicate? (Less brutal than the previous one, I hope.)

This analogy could be improved by having the patient answer "I don't know," which is "in effect" what the assembly is saying when it returns a tie on the question.

Of course, the doctor should be using a Request for Information.

[David A Foulkes]

Doctor: So, are you allergic or not allergic to penicillin?

Patient: Umm, I'd rather not.

So given the possible votes of aye and no, along with abstaining (and passing in a roll call), how do you properly vote "Umm, I'd rather not?"

(p.s. I liked your first version better)

This analogy could be improved by having the patient answer "I don't know," which is "in effect" what the assembly is saying when it returns a tie on the question.

But a proper motion is not "is the amendment germane or is it not germane."

[Tim Wynn]

I don't think this is at all dispositive.

I won't hold it against you. 

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "in effect".

The "in effect" speaks to cases where any nonstandard or murky language is used to put the question. 

 

This is what's known as begging the question. You are asserting the answer without having demonstrated its truth.

Dan's definitive answer will serve as my demonstration. 

[Shmuel Gerber]

So given the possible votes of aye and no, along with abstaining (and passing in a roll call), how do you properly vote "Umm, I'd rather not?"

I'm afraid you've missed the point of the analogy, which is that "no, let's not" (rejecting something) is not the same type of answer as "no, it's not germane" or "no, I'm not allergic".

Anyway, there's little use in expending a lot of mental energy in trying to understand what the question is if you're already satisfied with the answer. Feel free to wallow in certainty while I continue to luxuriate in ambivalence.

[Tim Wynn]

. . . the point of the analogy, which is that "no, let's not" (rejecting something) is not the same type of answer as "no, it's not germane" or "no, I'm not allergic".

If it helps to soothe your ambivalence, try thinking of it as deciding whether or not to RULE the amendment germane, in which case the response "no, let's not" is perfectly valid.

[George Mervosh]

By simple analogy to other motions, a tie vote answers the question in the negative. But I don't think it's entirely logical to either "adopt" or "reject" the question "Is the amendment germane?" (or, for that matter, the question "Is the point of order well taken?").

In Chris' question, the chair is asking the assembly to make a ruling, which he chose not to make.....which is not your garden variety motion.. Is this in line with what you're thinking? Oh heck I'm so confused I don't know what to think, except that everyone's initial guess is correct.

[Shmuel Gerber]

. . . the point of the analogy, which is that "no, let's not" (rejecting something) is not the same type of answer as "no, it's not germane" or "no, I'm not allergic".

If it helps to soothe your ambivalence, try thinking of it as deciding whether or not to RULE the amendment germane, in which case the response "no, let's not" is perfectly valid.

But that's exactly what's at issue here. It's not enough that a negative vote fail to rule that the amendment is germane; it must also actually rule that the amendment is not germane. And that's why there is some ambivalence for me -- at least enough to concede that a genuine question exists -- as to what the result of a tie vote is.

[Shmuel Gerber]

In Chris' question, the chair is asking the assembly to make a ruling, which he chose not to make.....which is not your garden variety motion.. Is this in line with what you're thinking? Oh heck I'm so confused I don't know what to think, except that everyone's initial guess is correct.

George, I think you understand perfectly well what I'm thinking and that I'm just trying to exposit further on the question, without contradicting Dan's answer, and you're just trying to egg me on by omitting the final "s" in "Chris's".

(Fortunately, Dan was quite prescient and supplied a few extra ones before to make up for it.)