Why is the motion to Postpone Indefinitely not dilatory?

[Tim Wynn]

If it's only a handful of members, then the Previous Question will sort this mess right out.

Ten minutes later, of course.

If a determined minority of one-third or greater is involved, keep in mind that even without the motion to Postpone Indefinitely, each member can speak twice per motion per day for up to ten minutes each time. In an assembly of any appreciable size, a determined minority of one-third or greater could keep the assembly busy for a very long time even without Postpone Indefinitely.

Don't believe what is said on tinted page 27 #80. A minority of one third cannot prevent the adoption of a motion to limit or end debate.

[Dan Honemann]

Don't believe what is said on tinted page 27 #80. A minority of one third cannot prevent the adoption of a motion to limit or end debate.

Nothing on tinted page 27, #80, says that a minority of one third can prevent the adoption of a motion to limit or end debate.

[Tim Wynn]

Nothing on tinted page 27, #80, says that a minority of one third can prevent the adoption of a motion to limit or end debate.

Yes, I know. But it makes the mistake of confusing the role of a minority of one third in determining the result of a two-thirds vote. In other words, if a rule protects a minority of one-third, that rule cannot be suspended by a two-thirds vote. Tinted page 27, therefore, must have mistakenly assumed that one third in the negative would defeat a two-thirds vote. For why else would it have excluded it?

[David A Foulkes]

In other words, if a rule protects a minority of one-third, that rule cannot be suspended by a two-thirds vote.

But p. 27 doesn't say this, or am I reading it wrong, or misunderstanding you? Mine says "protects a minority of less than one third"

Edited December 28, 2012 at 10:32 PM by David A Foulkes

[alanh49]

Does the rule against speaking against your own motion apply in this case because if it does no one who supports the main motion can move to it Postpone Indefinitely just to get more debate time and while if you're against the main motion you could do so more likely than not you'd you'd be making it to kill the main motion and not just to get more debate time.

[Tim Wynn]

But p. 27 doesn't say this, or am I reading it wrong, or misunderstanding you? Mine says "protects a minority of less than one third"

Exactly.

[Tim Wynn]

Does the rule against speaking against your own motion apply in this case because if it does no one who supports the main motion can move to it Postpone Indefinitely just to get more debate time and while if you're against the main motion you could do so more likely than not you'd you'd be making it to kill the main motion and not just to get more debate time.

The maker of the main motion can move to Postpone Indefinitely and speak in favor of the main motion during the consideration of its indefinite postponement. Is that what you're asking?

[David A Foulkes]

Exactly.

Well, that clears that up.

[David A Foulkes]

Does the rule against speaking against your own motion apply in this case because if it does no one who supports the main motion can move to it Postpone Indefinitely.....

Well, even if this rule did apply, only the maker is prohibited from speaking against his own motion, but anyone else could even speak for it their first time, and against it the second time in debate.

[alanh49]

The maker of the main motion can move to Postpone Indefinitely and speak in favor of the main motion during the consideration of its indefinite postponement. Is that what you're asking?

Where does RONR say that because on p.393 ll.20-22 it says:

"In debate, the maker of a motion, while he can vote against it, is not allowed to speak against his own motion."

I don't see how speaking in support of the main motion isn't the same as speaking against the motion to Postpone Indefinitely.

[Josh Martin]

Don't believe what is said on tinted page 27 #80. A minority of one third cannot prevent the adoption of a motion to limit or end debate.

Yes, my mistake... I meant to say "a minority of greater than one-third."

Does the rule against speaking against your own motion apply in this case because if it does no one who supports the main motion can move to it Postpone Indefinitely just to get more debate time and while if you're against the main motion you could do so more likely than not you'd you'd be making it to kill the main motion and not just to get more debate time.

Yes, this is part of the reason why I find it highly unlikely that a member would move the motion to Postpone Indefinitely solely to gain more debate time, let alone that this would be obvious.

Where does RONR say that because on p.393 ll.20-22 it says:

"In debate, the maker of a motion, while he can vote against it, is not allowed to speak against his own motion."

I don't see how speaking in support of the main motion isn't the same as speaking against the motion to Postpone Indefinitely.

I don't quite agree. I think a member might conceivably speak in support of the main motion and speak in favor of Postpone Indefinitely. This might happen if, for instance, the member would prefer that the society go on record as supporting a motion but fears this to be unlikely... and thus, makes the motion to Postpone Indefinitely as an alternative to the society going on record as defeating the motion. In this case (or in any similar case), however, the member will not be making the motion to Postpone Indefinitely solely to gain more debate time (which is consistent with your original argument).

Edited December 29, 2012 at 01:03 AM by Josh Martin

[Dan Honemann]

Yes, I know. But it makes the mistake of confusing the role of a minority of one third in determining the result of a two-thirds vote. In other words, if a rule protects a minority of one-third, that rule cannot be suspended by a two-thirds vote. Tinted page 27, therefore, must have mistakenly assumed that one third in the negative would defeat a two-thirds vote. For why else would it have excluded it?

Although there may well be a nit to pick in #80 on tinted page 27, it in no way justifies post #26, since nothing on tinted page 27, #80, says that a minority of one third can prevent the adoption of a motion to limit or end debate.

[Tim Wynn]

Although there may well be a nit to pick in #80 on tinted page 27, it in no way justifies post #26, since nothing on tinted page 27, #80, says that a minority of one third can prevent the adoption of a motion to limit or end debate.

Nit pickers very rarely require justification.

[TheGrandRascal]

Personally, I consider the motion to Postpone Indefinitely to be one of the most obnoxious motions imaginable:

1. It forces a discussion-weary assembly into another entire round of debate.

2. It causes the majority wishing to adopt a measure to be forced to vote for it twice -- once by voting down the Indefinite Postponement, and then again to adopt the actual main motion itself!

3. And, it accomplishes all of this, NOT  by being adopted (which would be bad enough yet acceptable, since the assembly would have voted for it), but merely by being moved and seconded! Thus, it matters not that, in an Assembly of 100 members, that 98 of them wish to adopt the motion and move on -- they are held hostage to the parliamentary maneuvering of the remaining two members!

I consider it highly noteworthy that not all parliamentary authorities include the motion to Postpone Indefinitely; there are some that omit it altogether. I only wish that RONR was one of them.

[Josh Martin]

29 minutes ago, TheGrandRascal said:

Personally, I consider the motion to Postpone Indefinitely to be one of the most obnoxious motions imaginable:

1. It forces a discussion-weary assembly into another entire round of debate.

2. It causes the majority wishing to adopt a measure to be forced to vote for it twice -- once by voting down the Indefinite Postponement, and then again to adopt the actual main motion itself!

3. And, it accomplishes all of this, NOT  by being adopted (which would be bad enough yet acceptable, since the assembly would have voted for it), but merely by being moved and seconded! Thus, it matters not that, in an Assembly of 100 members, that 98 of them wish to adopt the motion and move on -- they are held hostage to the parliamentary maneuvering of the remaining two members!

I consider it highly noteworthy that not all parliamentary authorities include the motion to Postpone Indefinitely; there are some that omit it altogether. I only wish that RONR was one of them.

I think it vastly overstates the issue to suggest that all of this is accomplished even if "an Assembly of 100 members, that 98 of them wish to adopt the motion and move on." The Previous Question may be ordered by a 2/3 vote. So two members are not sufficient to force the assembly "into another entire round of debate."

Additionally, as I have previously noted, if the assembly does indeed have a minority of greater than 1/3 which is willing to use all tools at its disposal to take the maximum amount of time to debate a motion, I don't know that eliminating the motion to Postpone Indefinitely, in itself, would accomplish much to alleviate this. Such an assembly will likely wish to adopt its own special rules of order. The assembly may, if it wishes, adopt special rules of order pertaining to the motion to Postpone Indefinitely, such as providing that the motion is not in order, or perhaps providing that it is not debatable, or such other measures as it desires. I am doubtful, however, that these measures will necessarily be the most effective in addressing this problem.

All of these complaints also seem to focus solely on the use of Postpone Indefinitely by a disgruntled minority and ignore the fact that the motion to Postpone Indefinitely can also be used by the majority to avoid a direct vote on a main motion, which seems to me to be a very useful tool.

Edited February 5, 2021 at 01:51 PM by Josh Martin