Suspend Rules to Increase Size of Majority Required to Pass a Motion

[Dan Honemann]

I would think that if a motion is made "to do X; provided, however, that this motion shall not become effective unless it is adopted by a three-fourths vote", then:

 

If this motion is defeated, it is defeated.

 

If this motion, with its proviso, is adopted by less than a three-fourths vote, it is adopted but will not go into effect because the assembly has agreed that it is not to become effective under such circumstances.

 

If this motion, with its proviso, is adopted by a three-fourths vote, it is adopted and will go into effect.

[J. J.]

 

If this motion, with its proviso, is adopted by less than a three-fourths vote, it is adopted but will not go into effect because the assembly has agreed that it is not to become effective under such circumstances.

 

My problem with that is that it is similar to a motion not to do something, if the total vote is equal to or above a majority and below a 3/4 vote.

 

There would also be, at least to an extent, the hand tying effect in future sessions.

 

For an example, this motion is made at the June 2013 monthly meeting, "That the society endorse John Smith in the 2014 State Senate election, provided that this motion receives a 3/4 vote."  The vote is taken and the result 70 in favor 34 against. 

 

The motion receives more than a majority vote, so it is adopted.  The effect of the motion is that John Smith is not endorsed.

 

At the October 2013 meeting, "That the society endorse John Smith in the 2014 State Senate election."  Is that motion in order, because the society has not endorsed John Smith?  Is it out of order, because a motion, because the society has adopted a motion on the subject?  If so, doesn't that change the vote total needed to endorse John Smith?

 

I think that this would create the problems envisioned on pp. 104-5.

[Dan Honemann]

My problem with that is that it is similar to a motion not to do something, if the total vote is equal to or above a majority and below a 3/4 vote.

 

There would also be, at least to an extent, the hand tying effect in future sessions.

 

For an example, this motion is made at the June 2013 monthly meeting, "That the society endorse John Smith in the 2014 State Senate election, provided that this motion receives a 3/4 vote."  The vote is taken and the result 70 in favor 34 against. 

 

The motion receives more than a majority vote, so it is adopted.  The effect of the motion is that John Smith is not endorsed.

 

At the October 2013 meeting, "That the society endorse John Smith in the 2014 State Senate election."  Is that motion in order, because the society has not endorsed John Smith?  Is it out of order, because a motion, because the society has adopted a motion on the subject?  If so, doesn't that change the vote total needed to endorse John Smith?

 

I think that this would create the problems envisioned on pp. 104-5.

 

RONR frowns upon negatively-worded motions because of the confusion which may occur in the minds of voters as to the effect of a negative vote. I don't think this has any bearing upon what we are currently discussing.

 

With respect to the scenario you described, my own view of it is that, at the October meeting, a motion "That the society endorse John Smith in the 2014 State Senate election" is in order and will require only a majority vote for its adoption, since the proviso appended to the motion made and voted on during the June meeting related to the vote on that motion only, and not to any renewal of it.

[J. J.]

RONR frowns upon negatively-worded motions because of the confusion which may occur in the minds of voters as to the effect of a negative vote. I don't think this has any bearing upon what we are currently discussing.

 

With respect to the scenario you described, my own view of it is that, at the October meeting, a motion "That the society endorse John Smith in the 2014 State Senate election" is in order and will require only a majority vote for its adoption, since the proviso appended to the motion made and voted on during the June meeting related to the vote on that motion only, and not to any renewal of it.

 

I think the analogy with negatively-worded motions is valid, because the society has a adopted a motion, in the case described, that has the effect of adopting a motion that says, "the society does not endorse John Smith in the 2014 State Senate election."  That said, it is probably not out of order.

 

My problem, with the October motion, "That the society endorse John Smith in the 2014 State Senate election," is that it conflicts with the motion that was adopted in June, "That the society endorse John Smith in the 2014 State Senate election, provided that this motion receives a 3/4 vote."

 

One question that I would have is, suppose that the society adopted the motion in June, "That the society not endorse John Smith in the 2014 State Senate election."  Would the motion in October, "That the society endorse John Smith in the 2014 State Senate election," conflict with that motion and require the vote needed to R/ASPA in order to adopt.

 

BTW:  This conversation is probably another good reason why adding this provision is not a good idea. 

[Dan Honemann]

In my opinion, if the society adopts a motion in June "That the society will not endorse John Smith in the 2014 State Senate election.", this motion, which has continuing force and effect, will need to be reversed by the adoption of a motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted in order for the society to endorse John Smith at its October meeting.

 

[J. J.]

In my opinion, if the society adopts a motion in June "That the society will not endorse John Smith in the 2014 State Senate election.", this motion, which has continuing force and effect, will need to be reversed by the adoption of a motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted in order for the society to endorse John Smith at its October meeting.

 

 

I agree.

 

My concern is that the motion, "That the society endorse John Smith in the 2014 State Senate election, provided that this motion receives a 3/4 vote," has the effect of a motion "not to endorse John Smith," if it is adopted by a majority vote, but receives less than a 3/4 vote.  The motion will be in force because it received a majority vote. 

 

It is a situation where the motion, "That the society endorse John Smith in the 2014 State Senate election, provided that this motion receives a 3/4 vote," was adopted (by a majority but by less than a 3/4 vote), but its effect is "That the society will not endorse John Smith in the 2014 State Senate election."  The proviso creates a situation where the motion may be adopted by a majority, but its effects are to prohibit an endorsement of Smith.

 

If the rules were suspended "to require that the motion requires a 3/4 vote to adopt," that would not be an issue.  If the motion does not receive a 3/4 vote, it is defeated, but could be renewed (without the 3/4 vote requirement) at a future session.

[J. J.]

It might be phrasing that I am having the problem with in this.  I don't thing I would have a problem with the motion, "That the society endorse John Smith in the 2014 State Senate election, provided that this motion may only be adopted by a 3/4 vote."  If it doesn't get the 3/4 vote, it is not adopted.  I think the problem I am having is that, as initially worded, motion could be adopted, but not have any effect, except the possible effect of adopting a motion, "That the society will not endorse John Smith in the 2014 State Senate election."

[Dan Honemann]

If a motion, "That the society endorse John Smith in the 2014 State Senate election, provided that this motion receives a 3/4 vote" is adopted by less than a 3/4 vote, then nothing has been adopted that has continuing force and effect. Perhaps if the proviso is worded with greater clarity, such as "provided, however, that this endorsement shall not become effective unless this motion is adopted by a three-fourths vote", it becomes a bit easier to understand, but it really amounts to the same thing.

 

A motion "That the society endorse John Smith in the 2014 State Senate election, provided that this motion may only be adopted by a 3/4 vote" is improper. The vote required for the adoption of a motion cannot be changed in this fashion.

 

 

.

[Gary Novosielski]

Okay, I'll bite.  N/M vote? 

Where N and M are integers?  E.g., a 2/3 vote.  (I'm guessing.)

[J. J.]

If a motion, "That the society endorse John Smith in the 2014 State Senate election, provided that this motion receives a 3/4 vote" is adopted by less than a 3/4 vote, then nothing has been adopted that has continuing force and effect. Perhaps if the proviso is worded with greater clarity, such as "provided, however, that this endorsement shall not become effective unless this motion is adopted by a three-fourths vote", it becomes a bit easier to understand, but it really amounts to the same thing.

 

A motion "That the society endorse John Smith in the 2014 State Senate election, provided that this motion may only be adopted by a 3/4 vote" is improper. The vote required for the adoption of a motion cannot be changed in this fashion.

 

 

.

 

I do not agree on the first paragraph.  The wording may be unclear enough to rule the motion out of order, though you second might be.  I would interpret the first example as a motion that was adopted by a majority, even though the effect required a 3/4 vote.

 

The second one would be similar to an IMM to suspend the rules.  If this motion would say 3/5 instead of 3/4, it would still require a 2/3 vote to adopt in that form.

 

This probably does indicate why the proviso route does have some problems.

[Dan Honemann]

I do not agree on the first paragraph.  The wording may be unclear enough to rule the motion out of order, though you second might be.  I would interpret the first example as a motion that was adopted by a majority, even though the effect required a 3/4 vote.

 

The second one would be similar to an IMM to suspend the rules.  If this motion would say 3/5 instead of 3/4, it would still require a 2/3 vote to adopt in that form.

 

This probably does indicate why the proviso route does have some problems.

 

Your disagreement is duly noted.

[J. J.]

Your disagreement is duly noted.

 

 

It would sufficient to rule the motion out of order as the wording not being clear. 

[Guest Randyl Kent Plampin]

Greetings:

 

Would it make any sense to require all such motions that attempt to change their voting requirement to be preceeded by a motion to Suspend the Rules, something like, "I move to suspend the rules and adopt the motion 'That the society endorse John Smith in the 2014 State Senate election, provided that this motion receives a 3/4 vote'" thereby requiring a 2/3 vote to suspend the rules before the 3/4 vote to pass?

 

If someone wanted to move "That the society endorse John Smith in the 2014 State Senate election, provided that this motion receive one vote"  would not such a motion would run afoul of the majority vote rule and necessarily require a Suspend the Rules request prefixing it or be ruled out of order?

 

Best regards,

Randyl kent Plampin

[Guest Nancy N.]

Greetings:

...

Best regards,

Randyl kent Plampin

What, does he have to write it in Portuguese to get an answer around here?

[Josh Martin]

Would it make any sense to require all such motions that attempt to change their voting requirement to be preceeded by a motion to Suspend the Rules, something like, "I move to suspend the rules and adopt the motion 'That the society endorse John Smith in the 2014 State Senate election, provided that this motion receives a 3/4 vote'" thereby requiring a 2/3 vote to suspend the rules before the 3/4 vote to pass?

 

If someone wanted to move "That the society endorse John Smith in the 2014 State Senate election, provided that this motion receive one vote"  would not such a motion would run afoul of the majority vote rule and necessarily require a Suspend the Rules request prefixing it or be ruled out of order?

 

A motion which specifies that it shall not go into effect unless it is adopted by a higher vote threshold is in order, although as J. J. pointed out, it may not be the best idea. Suspending the rules would likely be preferable. If the motion is adopted by less than a 3/4 vote, it does not take effect.

 

Trying to do the opposite (lowering the voting threshold) would certainly require a suspension of the rules, since if the motion is not adopted, whatever is stated in the main motion about the conditions for the motion taking effect is also not adopted.

[Gary Novosielski]

Greetings:

 

Would it make any sense to require all such motions that attempt to change their voting requirement to be preceeded by a motion to Suspend the Rules, something like, "I move to suspend the rules and adopt the motion 'That the society endorse John Smith in the 2014 State Senate election, provided that this motion receives a 3/4 vote'" thereby requiring a 2/3 vote to suspend the rules before the 3/4 vote to pass?

 

If someone wanted to move "That the society endorse John Smith in the 2014 State Senate election, provided that this motion receive one vote"  would not such a motion would run afoul of the majority vote rule and necessarily require a Suspend the Rules request prefixing it or be ruled out of order?

 

Best regards,

Randyl kent Plampin

Well, yes, but "suspend the rules and pass" removes the opportunity for debate. 

 

And endorsing someone "provided that this motion receives one vote" is fine, as long as it passes by a majority.