rule on voting for one who makes motion

[Guest Chris]

In a meeting a member made a motion and it was seconded and went to discussion. After discussion in voting the member that made the motion voted against the motion. several other members told him he could not vote against a motion he made is this correct or could he change mind up the discussion.

[jstackpo]

Those "other members" are wrong.

 

The maker of a motion may change his mind prior to voting, but he cannot speak against his own motion.

 

For all we know the guy may have made the motion because he wanted the association to clearly go on record as opposed to whatever it was..

[George Mervosh]

Just in case you want something from the book (though "Dr. Stackpole said so" is often times good enough) -  "In debate, the maker of a motion, while he can vote against it, is not allowed to speak against his own motion."  RONR (11th ed.), p. 393

[jstackpo]

Just in case you want something from the book (though "Dr. Stackpole said so" is often times good enough) -  "In debate, the maker of a motion, while he can vote against it, is not allowed to speak against his own motion."  RONR (11th ed.), p. 393

 

"Often"??  Is that the best you can do?

[George Mervosh]

"Often"??  Is that the best you can do?

 

Some misguided assemblies might want more.  

[Josh Martin]

For all we know the guy may have made the motion because he wanted the association to clearly go on record as opposed to whatever it was..

 

But that would be silly, because if that was the member's goal he could have simply moved that the society oppose whatever it was.

 

While this sort of logic applies to the seconder, it is generally assumed that the motion maker is in favor of his own motion at the time he makes it, but it is certainly possible that he will change his mind.

[jstackpo]

But that would be silly, because if that was the member's goal he could have simply moved that the society oppose whatever it was.

 

 

 

Quite possibly, but I suspect, with a little thought, I could dream up a motion for something that could not be "inverted" into a motion to oppose the "something" without making the inverted motion an improper "negative motion", p. 104, 105.

[Rockp2]

Would I be correct saying that once the question was stated by the Chair the motion no longer belongs to the maker but is now owned by the body...therefore when he votes he wouldn't be technically voting against "his" motion, but rather the Board's?

[Tom Coronite]

I don't think so.  Using that same logic one might think, then, that he could speak in debate against "the board's" motion.

[Josh Martin]

Would I be correct saying that once the question was stated by the Chair the motion no longer belongs to the maker but is now owned by the body...therefore when he votes he wouldn't be technically voting against "his" motion, but rather the Board's?

 

You are correct that once the question is stated by the chair, the motion belongs to the assembly, not the maker, but I don't think your conclusion is correct. In some ways, the motion is still "his" motion. The motion maker may not speak against the motion in debate, for instance, and only the motion maker may request to withdraw the motion.

[Rockp2]

You are correct that once the question is stated by the chair, the motion belongs to the assembly, not the maker, but I don't think your conclusion is correct. In some ways, the motion is still "his" motion. The motion maker may not speak against the motion in debate, for instance, and only the motion maker may request to withdraw the motion.

 

Understood that he cannot speak against the motion.  Looking at the OP, it just appears to me that the assembly's reasoning is flawed because they are basing their assumption on since the maker made the motion, he is locked into voting for it.  I was looking at a response that could be used to educate the assembly as to why he can vote against the motion.  I'm looking at the fact that amendments could be made that the maker did not agree with but got outvoted.  Or, possibly during discussion someone pointed out something that the maker didn't realize, and this changed his mind.  He then moves to withdraw the motion and gets voted down.  Any number of reasons I think the maker could have stated to the assembly: "Once the Chair stated the question the motion became the property of everyone sitting here, not mine alone.  I vote No and shall be counted as such."

[Josh Martin]

Understood that he cannot speak against the motion.  Looking at the OP, it just appears to me that the assembly's reasoning is flawed because they are basing their assumption on since the maker made the motion, he is locked into voting for it.  I was looking at a response that could be used to educate the assembly as to why he can vote against the motion.  I'm looking at the fact that amendments could be made that the maker did not agree with but got outvoted.  Or, possibly during discussion someone pointed out something that the maker didn't realize, and this changed his mind.  He then moves to withdraw the motion and gets voted down. Any number of reasons I think the maker could have stated to the assembly: "Once the Chair stated the question the motion became the property of everyone sitting here, not mine alone.  I vote No and shall be counted as such."

 

If you really want the parliamentary reason for why the member may vote against the motion, it's because the member has the right to vote as he pleases, period. It doesn't have anything to do with whose motion it is.

 

As for persuading the other members of the assembly of this fact, I think it would have been more persuasive for the member to just state the perfectly logical reasons you provided (I don't approve of the amendments, I changed my mind, etc.) rather than noting that the motion becomes the property of the assembly after it has been stated by the chair, a detail of parliamentary procedure I doubt most of the members care about.