Vote of Members Present

[Dan Honemann]

This thread provides additional evidence for the soundness of the statement in RONR (11th ed.), p. 403, ll. 13-1, that "Voting requirements based on the number of members present . . . while possible, are generally undesirable."

 

It is perhaps worth observing that the "intrinsically irrelevant" exception on page 45 is an exception to the rule that "The chair must always call for the negative vote . . . ."(emphasis added).  If the chair chooses to call for the negative vote in such a circumstance, I doubt that a point of order against calling for the negative vote would be well taken. (On the other hand, it is certainly true that if the chair does not call for the negative vote when the voting requirement is based on the number of members present, a point of order that the chair should do so to preserve the possibility of reconsideration would also not be well taken.  In context, what the "negative vote is intrinsically irrelevant" to is determining whether the motion in question is or is not adopted.)

 

But, in context, what the "negative vote is intrinsically irrelevant" to is not solely a determination of whether the motion in question is or is not adopted, because, if that were the case, reference would not be made only to the case in which the affirmative votes are sufficient for adoption.

 

In cases where the affirmative votes are not sufficient for adoption, the negative vote continues to be intrinsically irrelevant in determining whether the motion in question is or is not adopted, but it is not completely irrelevant, since only members who vote on the prevailing side are entitled to move to reconsider.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Suggestion.

 

Then let the 12th edition say,

not "... who voted on the prevailing side,"

but rather, "... who were counted among the prevailing side."

 

That is, take the act of VOTING (of the negative) out of the equasion completely. -- Since RONR's page 403 does not allow for a negative vote to be conducted at all.

 

Only measure the act of COUNTING (of the negative). -- Which page 403 does indirectly allow, via ordinary arithmetic subtraction (i.e., total members present minus the affirmative).

 

Reason #1: "Counting the negative" may result in a variable integer, each time the chair cajoles the passive membership for an active response. (Some members change from apathy to antagonism, or vice-versa, when re-prompted for their vote.)

 

Reason #2: "Counting those who contributed to the non-affirmative side" is an integer firmly fixed when counting the affirmative -- once! -- And that number won't change, (except if the chair were to re-count the affirmative side, again.)

(I assuming no one leaves the room or enters the room for those few seconds.)

 

[Dan Honemann]

That is, take the act of VOTING (of the negative) out of the equasion completely. -- Since RONR's page 403 does not allow for a negative vote to be conducted at all.

 

Nothing on page 403 (or anywhere else in RONR) prohibits the presiding officer from calling for the negative vote in instances where the voting requirement is based on the number of members present.

[Rev Ed]

I would hope that not calling for negative votes would be a very rare occurrence as it deprives (or at least might deprive) some members of the opportunity (perhaps the right) to express their opinion by voting, which RONR says is their duty (p.407).

 

Also, if I recall correctly, if a member truly wants to vote no, then if the Chairman forgets to ask for no votes, that the member would be in his/her rights to raise a Point of Order - as this does infringe on the member's right to vote no.

[Josh Martin]

Also, if I recall correctly, if a member truly wants to vote no, then if the Chairman forgets to ask for no votes, that the member would be in his/her rights to raise a Point of Order - as this does infringe on the member's right to vote no.

 

Generally, yes, but based on the preceding discussion, it would seem that this does not apply in cases where the vote is based on a proportion of the members present - at least, certainly not in cases where there are enough votes in the affirmative for the motion to be adopted.

[Gary Novosielski]

In its current form, the actual rule in the House is,

"When a motion has been carried or lost, it shall be in order on the same or succeeding day for a Member on the prevailing side of the question to enter a motion for the reconsideration thereof."

 

That's what the rule says but, in practice, in the same breath as he announces the result of the vote, the chair will typically assume a motion to reconsider, and further assume (without objection) unanimous consent to lay that motion to reconsider upon the table.  It's my understanding that the purpose of this is to make reconsideration a practical impossibility, since by House rules, tabling a motion essentially kills it.

[Dan Honemann]

That's what the rule says but, in practice, in the same breath as he announces the result of the vote, the chair will typically assume a motion to reconsider, and further assume (without objection) unanimous consent to lay that motion to reconsider upon the table.  It's my understanding that the purpose of this is to make reconsideration a practical impossibility, since by House rules, tabling a motion essentially kills it.

 

However, since this never happens in connection with the announcement of the result of the vote on a demand for the yeas and nays, it is completely irrelevant to what Shmuel was discussing.