Limiting amendments?

[JimS]

In a couple of weeks, I'll be in a county political convention, whose purpose is to select 30 delegates and 30 alternates to the state convention.  There will be two factions at the county convention, one with a slight, but probably not 2/3, majority.  The majority faction will elect a permanent chair and then move to elect a slate of 60 delegates.  There is a possibility that the minority will offer amendment after amendment to replace the slate, one by one, with alternatives, which with discussion will keep us there all night, probably with the intent to wear out the majority.  I don't see any way to limit such amendments.  Any thoughts on how to move things along?  Again, the majority probably will not have 2/3.  Thanks!

 

Jim

[Chris Harrison]

First, check the convention rules to see if they may help with this problem.  If they don't (and if it isn't possible to adopt a rule addressing this sort of situation) you all may need to deal with the amendments for a while.  First, I would suggest a member in the majority move the Previous Question (RONR pp. 197-209) after it is felt the minority has had a chance to air their concerns.  This will reasonably  gauge whether you all have the 2/3 to force an immediate vote on the amendment and/or "slate" itself.

 

You may not get the 2/3 to start off with but if you are close to it you may be able to wear down (or do a little bit of horse trading with) a few members to get them on your side so what needs to be done gets done and everyone gets home before the moon gets too high in the sky.

[Josh Martin]

In a couple of weeks, I'll be in a county political convention, whose purpose is to select 30 delegates and 30 alternates to the state convention.  There will be two factions at the county convention, one with a slight, but probably not 2/3, majority.  The majority faction will elect a permanent chair and then move to elect a slate of 60 delegates.  There is a possibility that the minority will offer amendment after amendment to replace the slate, one by one, with alternatives, which with discussion will keep us there all night, probably with the intent to wear out the majority.  I don't see any way to limit such amendments.  Any thoughts on how to move things along?  Again, the majority probably will not have 2/3.  Thanks!

 

There is no way to limit amendments if you can't muster a 2/3 vote.

 

I think the majority's best option is to try to reach some sort of compromise with the minority. Perhaps offering to elect say, five or ten delegates of the minority's choosing will do the trick.

[DrEntropy]

What is different about this election that the procedure starting on page 430 in RONR is not followed?   I have not seen this election by resolution method used before, but can see how it can lead to a quagmire as opposed to the standard procedure. Do your convention rules specify this procedure?

[Josh Martin]

What is different about this election that the procedure starting on page 430 in RONR is not followed?   I have not seen this election by resolution method used before, but can see how it can lead to a quagmire as opposed to the standard procedure. Do your convention rules specify this procedure?

 

I've seen election by a motion for committees, for instance, particularly when little opposition is expected. Perhaps this procedure was designed because little opposition is usually expected, and this meeting is the exception. If there is little opposition, this procedure would certainly be much faster that using the recommended election procedures when there are 120 positions to elect (although if there is much opposition, then the recommended election procedures may be faster).