When a vote has three options

[Louise]

If a motion that is before the Association asks them to choose from among three options, and the Bylaws require a majority vote, is there any way to prevent no option being chosen by a majority of the members who cast votes?

 

If we say on the ballot,

 

"Moved that the Association do:

Option A

Option B

Option C"

 

... we may end up with 40, 35 and 25 votes, none of which are a majority.

 

Are we better off to limit ourselves to two options? Or to select one and deal with it?

 

Wait...I seem to remember something about this in RONR at some point...but I can't find it.

 

Do we deal with Option A first? And if it is defeated, we move onto Option B? And then only if is defeated do we move onto Option C? And where is this in RONR?

 

 

 

[jstackpo]

One way is to ...

 

1)  Move to do A   (debate, &c.)

2) Move to amend by striking A, Inserting B  [primary amendment]

3) Move to Strike B, insert C   [secondary amendment]

 

Vote on each question in the reverse order. Majority all but assured at each step.

 

Or  create a blank  :  "I move to do [blank]    (RONR, p. 162)

 

Then vote on filling the blank with A; if majority you are done. 

If not, ditto for B, and then (maybe) C

 

Both methods have defects which can be serious.  But ALL voting methods, with more than two choices, have defects. So just give it a shot.

[Louise]

Thank you, Dr. Stackpole. This is very helpful, and page 162 is exactly what I was thinking of.

[Gary c Tesser]

You might also look at p. 413 or so.  (But talk about perilous....)

[jstackpo]

If the vote is close and more or less evenly distributed among the three choices, quite possibly neither "fill-the-blank" nor "ballot choice" will come up with a majority winner.

 

And, most interestingly, "motion-amend-amend" WILL produce a (false majority) winner.

 

If anybody wants to see how that can be, drop me your e-mail via the internal mail system here.

[Dan Honemann]

It seems to me that this discussion would be more meaningful if Louise would provide us with some idea about the nature of the three options to which she refers. If they are not merely names of persons or places, dates, numbers, or amounts, the device of filing blanks may not be appropriate.

[Louise]

The (camouflaged) options are:

 

Option A: To repair the current ferris wheel, up to a maximum of $4,500.

Option B: To replace the ferris wheel with a used one, up to a maximum of $7,800.

Option B: To replace the ferris wheel with a new one, up to a maximum of $11,200.

 

My mistake. The options are actually:

 

Option A: To approve Capital Budget Option #1

Option B: To approve Capital Budget Option #2

Option C: To approve Capital Budget Option #3

 

 

The only difference among the three capital budget options is the amount allotted for the ferris wheel (as in the struck out portion above).

[Dan Honemann]

The (camouflaged) options are:

 

Option A: To repair the current ferris wheel, up to a maximum of $4,500.

Option B: To replace the ferris wheel with a used one, up to a maximum of $7,800.

Option B: To replace the ferris wheel with a new one, up to a maximum of $11,200.

 

My mistake. The options are actually:

 

Option A: To approve Capital Budget Option #1

Option B: To approve Capital Budget Option #2

Option C: To approve Capital Budget Option #3

 

 

The only difference among the three capital budget options is the amount allotted for the ferris wheel (as in the struck out portion above).

 

I don't think that the device of filing blanks will work in this situation.

[Louise]

Okay, so the best course would be to follow Dr. Stackpole's first suggestion?

 

1) Move to do A (debate etc.)

2) Move to amend by striking A, inserting B

3) Move to strike B, insert C

 

 

Can I also ask why the device of filling blanks wouldn't work in this situation? Is it because each option could be defeated, leaving us without a capital budget?

[Dan Honemann]

Okay, so the best course would be to follow Dr. Stackpole's first suggestion?

 

1) Move to do A (debate etc.)

2) Move to amend by striking A, inserting B

3) Move to strike B, insert C

 

 

Can I also ask why the device of filling blanks wouldn't work in this situation? Is it because each option could be defeated, leaving us without a capital budget?

 

The three options which you mention are motions in themselves, not proposals to fill a blank in a motion already pending.

[Louise]

Gotchya.

 

But what if the motion made was: "Moved to approve Capital Budget Option #___"? Would that work?

[Dan Honemann]

Gotchya.

 

But what if the motion made was: "Moved to approve Capital Budget Option #___"? Would that work?

 

No, this won't work, but nice try.

[jstackpo]

Instead...

 

"I move the entire budget with all figures as printed with the exception of a [blank] amount for the Ferris Wheel".

 

Then in the debate on the individual amounts to put in the blank, explain how each one of the three proposed amounts will be put to use, if adopted.

[George Mervosh]

Instead...

 

"I move the entire budget with all figures as printed with the exception of a [blank] amount for the Ferris Wheel".

 

Then in the debate on the individual amounts to put in the blank, explain how each one of the three proposed amounts will be put to use, if adopted.

 

But the three proposals she listed don't just involve an amount of money.

[jstackpo]

Or...   after the amount is adopted, filling the blank, (the money is the most critical issue, I suspect - i.e., can the association actually afford 4, 7, or 11 Kilobucks), make an amendment by insertion stating which of those three options was (obviously) intended, and instructing the Treasurer to contact the Ferris-Wheel Company.

 

Can one actually buy used Ferris Wheels?  Amazing.

[Louise]

Yes, the money is one of the critical issues. I only wish the amounts the association had to consider were as paltry as 4, 7 or 11 kilobucks.

 

The ferris wheel is a decoy. I have no idea if one can purchase used ones.

 

Can you explain to this novice what the "amendment by insertion stating which of those three options" would look like?

[Josh Martin]

Do we deal with Option A first? And if it is defeated, we move onto Option B? And then only if is defeated do we move onto Option C? And where is this in RONR?

 

Someone should make a motion to adopt one of the proposed budgets. That motion is then subject to debate and amendment.

 

The assembly may, if it wishes, use the device of filling blanks to address the specific issue of the amount allocated toward the "ferris wheel." This would be accomplished by moving to strike the amount for the "ferris wheel" and insert a blank, and the assembly would decide what amount to insert in the blank, after which the budget would be subject to further debate and amendment. The reason you can't adopt "Budget A, Budget B, or Budget C" by filling blanks is because the assembly might also want to change other parts of the budget, or decide not to adopt a budget at all.

 

As for the procedure for filling the blank, what you should do is vote on all of the suggestions (which may well be more than three) in order from the largest amount to the smallest with a "yes" or "no" vote on each, and the first option to receive a majority vote is inserted in the blank.

[Louise]

Thank you, everyone, for your very helpful advice.

 

Am I correct in understanding that the assembly could strike the amount and insert a blank for any of the budget items (not just the ferris wheel) if a motion was made to adopt just one of the proposed budgets?

 

If so, then in essence, what we are ultimately looking at is just one budget with a blank line for the ferris wheel? (Assuming no one moves to strike an amount and insert an blank for any of the other items, that is.)

[Josh Martin]

Am I correct in understanding that the assembly could strike the amount and insert a blank for any of the budget items (not just the ferris wheel) if a motion was made to adopt just one of the proposed budgets?

 

Yes, that is correct. Other amendments are also in order. A member could, for instance, move to strike an amount and insert a new one rather than using the device of filling a blank (although filling a blank is useful if there are many competing proposals for an amount). A member could also rename a budget line item, or strike an item entirely, or add a new item, and so on and so forth. Whoever is proposing the budget is apparently under the impression that there is no disagremeent about anything in the budget but the amount for the ferris wheel, but that may or may not be correct.

 

If so, then in essence, what we are ultimately looking at is just one budget with a blank line for the ferris wheel?

 

Yes.

[Louise]

This makes so much sense.

 

Sheesh. No wonder we were confused the way we were trying to do this!

 

Thank you, thank you, thank you (ad infinitum).

[Louise]

Just a quick update: We followed your suggestion of creating and then filling a blank, and it worked like a charm!

And another note: traditionally the AGMs for this particular organization have been loooooooooong. (We're talking 4.5 to 7 hours long.) Yesterday, we had RONR scripts prepared, and we followed the script pretty faithfully, only speaking to motions that were pending and ruling side discussions out of order etc., and we were finished the meeting - in spite of a heavier-than-usual agenda! - in 2 hours and 35 minutes.

 

We were all amazed, including those of us involved in planning the meeting.

 

Robert's Rules of Order - they do their work well.

 

ETA: Everyone I've spoken with commented on how well-run the meeting was, and how no one felt "shut down" or left out. I'm hoping that sense is unanimous.

[Gary c Tesser]

... And another note: traditionally the AGMs for this particular organization have been loooooooooong. (We're talking 4.5 to 7 hours long.) Yesterday, we had RONR scripts prepared, and we followed the script pretty faithfully, only speaking to motions that were pending and ruling side discussions out of order etc., and we were finished the meeting - in spite of a heavier-than-usual agenda! - in 2 hours and 35 minutes.

 

We were all amazed, including those of us involved in planning the meeting.

 

Robert's Rules of Order - they do their work well.

 

Eous.

 

Well, good on you all.  From that point of view of this often-disillusioned and disappointed cynic and misanthrope, it is indeed a pleasant surprise.

 

... So, Louise.  Now that you have all that freed-up time on your hands, do you come back to the world's premier Internet parliamentary forum and [o]answer some questions, as you used to do, to exemplary if spectacular acclaim?

[Louise]

Ugh. For some reason my computer doesn't let me copy and paste on this forum anymore!

 

In response to your question, Mr. Tesser - one which I am too lazy to retype, although by the time I finish typing in this explanation about my laziness, I may as well have typed in its entirety, but I digress - why, of course I would like to spend more time here, but when I attempt to answer questions, I generally feel like I fail rather miserably. The last thing I want to do is lead anyone astray or make more work for the people here who actually know their RONR inside and out.

 

Right now, though, I have another AGM to head out to (as a member this time - woo hoo! Someone else can do the planning!), so I'll check in again when I return.

[George Mervosh]

but when I attempt to answer questions, I generally feel like I fail rather miserably.

 

That generally goes away after 10-12 years or so, but sometimes it rears its ugly head. 

[Louise]

Snort! Only 10-12 years?

 

Well, that's something to look forward to a mere 10-11 years from now.