Limiting the Right to "Partially Abstain"

[Dan Honemann]

In the newest edition of the National Parliamentarian (coming to a mailbox near you), the Parliamentary Research Team, without dissent, seems to agree wholeheartedly with J.J.'s position on this matter. See Q&A 16 "Compel A Vote"

See what you think when you read it.

George, there can be no doubt but that such opinions are entitled to a great deal of consideration and respect. However, in this particular instance I think that Josh Martin, Gary Novosielski, Bruce Lages, and the others who have posted similar responses, have got it right.

Perhaps we can bring this issue up for discussion again at the next Advanced Seminar. In the meantime, my suggestion would be to award the 2FP Trophy to Josh, Gary, Bruce, et al. on this one, and let it go at that.

[Guest George Mervosh]

I agree with all of the gentlemen you mentioned. It was the timing of the question in the NP and their very interesting response that caused me to point it out.

[Burke Balch]

It will come as no surprise, I am sure, that there are on occasion some slight differences in interpretive opinion even among members of the RONR Authorship Team. I have, of course, the greatest respect for the distinguished moderator, who is senior to me on the authorship team, and for his views on this as on all parliamentary questions; I have no intent of challenging them here. I note only that as a member of the Parliamentary Research Team that authored the National Parliamentarian Q&A 16 "Compel a Vote," I personally continue to believe its interpretation of the relevant language in the current 11th edition to be correct.