Tie vote on a Point of Order

[Guest Edgar]

. . . you're just trying to egg me on by omitting the final "s" in "Chris's".

When I was growing up (to the extent that I ever did, of course), the world was divided between those who said "Jones Beach" and those peculiar folks (they may have also been Democrats) who said, "Jones's Beach" (as in, "Keeping up with the Joneses").

[Dan Honemann]

When I was growing up (to the extent that I ever did, of course), the world was divided between those who said "Jones Beach" and those peculiar folks (they may have also been Democrats) who said, "Jones's Beach" (as in, "Keeping up with the Joneses").

Hopefully you have read Mr. Tesser's recent screed on the subject, and taken it all to heart (as have I).

[Tim Wynn]

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.

This parallels what I was saying in the second paragraph of post #12: if the motion is not ruled out of order (either by the chair or the assembly), it must be allowed.

However, it seems that, under the rules of RONR, if the assembly actually votes on the admissibility of a motion and fails to find it admissible, it is not admissible. I can't say I have a problem with that logic, especially since, if a motion is allowed to be considered after the assembly has already considered whether or not the motion is in order and after less than a majority found the motion to be in order . . . there's a high probability that its consideration will be entirely a waste of time.