Making a motion and voting

[Guest Pam]

If someone makes a motion or seconds a motion, are they then required to vote aye on the motion?

[jstackpo]

No.  

 

The person who made the motion may be convinced by the debate that his motion was a bad idea and then vote "No."

[J. J.]

The person seconding the motion may speak against the motion.

[Guest John Stadnicki]

The person seconding the motion may speak against the motion.

Anyone who seconds the motion is favoured the motion.  If anyone who opposes the motion, one shouldn't second the motion

[Tom Coronite]

Anyone who seconds the motion is favoured the motion.  If anyone who opposes the motion, one shouldn't second the motion

 

That's simply not true.  A person can second a motion he is against simply to have it before the assembly so it can be voted down.

[Guest John Stadnicki]

I have a question  Main motion must be voted.  Amendment to the main motion must also be voted.  If amended motion was voted as favour, must the main motion be voted?  Argument was that if amended motion was voted; the main motion was "automatically" passed.  Is it correct?

[David A Foulkes]

In order of your questions, yes and no, although the main motion may still be postponed, referred to committee, etc before final dispostion at the meeting. 

[Rev Ed]

Even with the making of a motion, this does not mean that the mover is in favour of the motion.  The mover cannot be compelled to debate the motion afterall.  So making a motion, or seconding it, does not mean that either member is actually in favour of the motion.

 

Also, the acceptance of an amendment does not mean that the amended motion will be accepted, just that the amendment is acceptable.  However, approval of an amendment 'might' suggest that the motion will pass.  But, the motion could still technically be defeated - again for the same reason above.  Members may not want the 'amended motion' to pass - in other words they are making a decision not to support the motion and are deciding to accept the consequences of not accepting the motion. 

 

For example, a motion stating, "That the clubhouse roof be replaced" could be defeated.  That would indicate that the majority of members do not want the roof to be replaced.  Amending the motion to change the word 'replaced' to 'repaired' may be passed, but the motion would be amended to read "That the clubhouse roof be repaired" and can be defeated as the members do not want the roof repaired.

[Josh Martin]

Even with the making of a motion, this does not mean that the mover is in favour of the motion.  The mover cannot be compelled to debate the motion afterall.  So making a motion, or seconding it, does not mean that either member is actually in favour of the motion.

 

It is generally assumed that the maker of the motion is in favor of the motion at the time he makes it, although it is certainly possible he'll change his mind. As noted, the seconder may very well oppose the motion from the beginning.

[Guest Edgar]

Even with the making of a motion, this does not mean that the mover is in favour of the motion.

 

A member who makes a motion that the clubhouse be painted blue is, in effect, saying that he thinks the clubhouse should be painted blue.

[DrEntropy]

It is generally assumed that the maker of the motion is in favor of the motion at the time he makes it, although it is certainly possible he'll change his mind. As noted, the seconder may very well oppose the motion from the beginning.

 

This is why the maker of the motion is not permitted to speak against it (RONR page 393). However, if he determines that it is a bad idea after all, he can ask permission to withdraw the motion to express his new opinion. I suppose he could also request permission to speak against it, and this would be treated as any other request (page 292ff).

[Sean Hunt]

This is why the maker of the motion is not permitted to speak against it (RONR page 393). However, if he determines that it is a bad idea after all, he can ask permission to withdraw the motion to express his new opinion. I suppose he could also request permission to speak against it, and this would be treated as any other request (page 292ff).

At the risk of derailing the thread, would it be a request (and hence a majority vote) or a suspension of the rules (and hence a 2/3rds vote)?

[Josh Martin]

I suppose he could also request permission to speak against it, and this would be treated as any other request (page 292ff).

 

A Request for Any Other Privilege cannot be used for this purpose.

 

At the risk of derailing the thread, would it be a request (and hence a majority vote) or a suspension of the rules (and hence a 2/3rds vote)?

 

The latter.

[jstackpo]

It may be a little sneaky, but the (now disillusioned) mover could move to Postpone Indefinitely, and then speak in favor of that motion.

[DrEntropy]

A Request for Any Other Privilege cannot be used for this purpose.

 

 

 

Perhaps I should start another thread, but you seem so sure about this that I would love to hear the reasoning. (Not that I necessarily disagree with your opinion, but it seems like the kinds of things "requests" can be used for is a bit nebulous to me, and not to you)

[Josh Martin]

Perhaps I should start another thread, but you seem so sure about this that I would love to hear the reasoning. (Not that I necessarily disagree with your opinion, but it seems like the kinds of things "requests" can be used for is a bit nebulous to me, and not to you)

 

Oh, Request for Any Other Privilege is a bit nebulous to me as well. I'm not sure exactly what sort of requests would fall under it other than the provided examples (to make remarks or a presentation when no motion is pending). I am fairly certain, however, that Request for Any Other Privilege is not proper when the request conflicts with some parliamentary rule (as is the case here).

[DrEntropy]

Oh, Request for Any Other Privilege is a bit nebulous to me as well. I'm not sure exactly what sort of requests would fall under it other than the provided examples (to make remarks or a presentation when no motion is pending). I am fairly certain, however, that Request for Any Other Privilege is not proper when the request conflicts with some parliamentary rule (as is the case here).

 

Hmm, I suppose I must agree after all. In each other case I could find where a 'request' is appropriate, the text explicitly calls it out in the section where the rule is specified. For example, on page 34 on the subject of not making remarks when no motion is pending, or page 393 on reading papers.