2/3rds verses simple majority

[Guest phil westcott]

a motion is made that only requires a simple majority.

can a motion from the floor for a 2/3 be ruled out of order by the maker?

[jstackpo]

Well, not by the maker, but the maker can raise a point of order that upping the vote requirement is improper (which it is) and the chair can (and should) rule the "upping" motion out of order.

[Guest Guest]

please let me try again, as a condition of a motion it is stipulated that any motion from the floor to raise the requirement to 2/3 rds will be ruled out of order by the moderator. The motion was to sell a piece of organization property. Under state law only a simple majority is required but a super majority is not precluded. Same answer?

[George Mervosh]

please let me try again, as a condition of a motion it is stipulated that any motion from the floor to raise the requirement to 2/3 rds will be ruled out of order by the moderator. The motion was to sell a piece of organization property. Under state law only a simple majority is required but a super majority is not precluded. Same answer?

Oh goodness I hope the state law doesn't use the word "simple".......but no matter, no motion is in order that conflicts with a procedural rule in statute. RONR (11th ed.) p. 263. I don't know if this motion conflicts with it, but that's the rule in RONR.

If state statute didn't govern the matter, we might have a different answer.

[Guest Edgar]

. . . as a condition of a motion it is stipulated that any motion from the floor to raise the requirement to 2/3 rds will be ruled out of order by the moderator.

Who is making this "stipulation" and on what authority?

[Trina]

please let me try again, as a condition of a motion it is stipulated that any motion from the floor to raise the requirement to 2/3 rds will be ruled out of order by the moderator. The motion was to sell a piece of organization property. Under state law only a simple majority is required but a super majority is not precluded. Same answer?

You may want to read this earlier thread for a somewhat related discussion:

However, your statement that 'as a condition of a motion it is stipulated...' is a bit puzzling -- I echo Edgar's questions.

[tctheatc]

So just to clarify in my own mind (and forgive me if this is terrifically obvious):

A motion to do such and such and require a 2/3 vote to pass (where normally a majority is required) is out of order,

But a motion to suspend the rule requiring a majority and instead requiring a 2/3 vote, made before the original motion is voted on, is proper?

(leaving out of the discussion for now the possibility that a law exists governing the voting threshold)

[Gary Novosielski]

please let me try again, as a condition of a motion it is stipulated that any motion from the floor to raise the requirement to 2/3 rds will be ruled out of order by the moderator. The motion was to sell a piece of organization property. Under state law only a simple majority is required but a super majority is not precluded. Same answer?

Any motion to raise the requirement for passing Proposal A would amount to a motion to Suspend the Rules, and would itself require a 2/3 vote. Since those who favor Proposal A would presumably vote against the higher threshold, if they were in the majority, the motion to raise the threshold would surely fail. If they were not in the majority, Proposal A itself would surely fail.

So while possible, it would no doubt be pointless.

[jstackpo]

And embedding the 2/3 requirement in the motion to do something is a logical conundrum. Since the motion to do something hasn't yet been adopted (prior to the vote) the 2/3 vote requirement doesn't exist either. Carts and Horses.