Reasons for Inverse Voting of amendment to motion

[Guest lancelaw]

What is the logic of allowing discussion and voting upon an amended motion or a substitute motion to supersede action on the original motion? Is this discussed anywhere? The maker of the original motion thinks it is unfair that his motion that received a second and is being debated must take a back seat to a motion to amend to substitute the original motion.  Is the rationale for this rule simply to allow the voting members to be aware of other possible amendments before taking action to approve the original? 

[Edgar Guest]

The maker of the original motion thinks it is unfair that his motion that received a second and is being debated must take a back seat to a motion to amend to substitute the original motion.

 

Once a member places a motion before the assembly for consideration it ceases to be "his" motion. Of course he's free to argue debate against any changes but, in the end, that's up to the assembly. The process of amending a pending motion is sometimes referred to as "perfecting" the motion. That is, it takes a motion that might have been defeated and turns it into something that a majority can agree with.

 

If the maker of a motion adopts a "take it or leave it" approach (aka "it's my way or the highway"), he's likely to become well-acquainted with defeat.

 

By the way, there's no such thing as "inverse voting".

[Weldon Merritt]

Agreeing with Mr, Guest, I will add that if the motion to amend by substitution is handled properly, both the original main motion and the proposed substitute are open to perfection by secondary amendment before the motion to substitute is voted on. And while not required, perfection of the original main motion often is handled first, and then perfection of the proposed substitute, before the substitute is voted on. See RONR, p.p. 153-162 for a thorough discussion of amending by substitution.

[Timothy]

Generally, amendments and substitutes don't start showing up unless someone doesn't like the original motion. Handling those first is a more convenient way for people to determine if they like the new wording before voting on the original motion. If the original motion was voted down on the promise that someone might be able to offer a better motion, it would be more difficult to get back to the original motion if they determined they didn't like the amendment or substitute. But they always have the option of voting against the amendment or the substitute to get back to the original motion.

[Guest Nancy N.]

Once a member places a motion before the assembly for consideration it ceases to be "his" motion. Of course he's free to argue debate against any changes but, in the end, that's up to the assembly. The process of amending a pending motion is sometimes referred to as "perfecting" the motion. That is, it takes a motion that might have been defeated and turns it into something that a majority can agree with.

 

If the maker of a motion adopts a "take it or leave it" approach (aka "it's my way or the highway"), he's likely to become well-acquainted with defeat.

 

I agree, and well said.

 

By the way, there's no such thing as "inverse voting".

 

You sure about this?  (Not that I've ever heard of it, either.  But I'd hesitate to say there's no such thing. Before 1938, nobody had seen a live coelacanth.  Well, not outside of Kim Goldsworthy's bathtub.)

[Guest Nancy N.]

(Just kidding about Kim Goldsworthy's bathtub.)

[Kim Goldsworthy]

(Just kidding about Kim Goldsworthy's bathtub.)

Hello?

[Edgar Guest]

By the way, there's no such thing as "inverse voting".

 

You sure about this?  (Not that I've ever heard of it, either.  But I'd hesitate to say there's no such thing. 

 

What I should have said (and what I'd like to think I meant) was that there's no such thing as "inverse voting" in RONR-Land. But, yes, making statements about what doesn't exist is imprudent.

[jstackpo]

There is certainly a (profound) lack of evidence that "inverse voting" exists. 

 

Except, of course, for the OP's posting  --  maybe he/she (no evidence about that either) could tell us what the term means to his organization.

[Edgar Guest]

My throat is increasingly dry.

I'm so bored I think I could cry.

When next it's my turn,

I'll move to adjourn,

And be the first to vote "Aye!".

 

In verse voting?

[Josh Martin]

There is certainly a (profound) lack of evidence that "inverse voting" exists. 

 

Except, of course, for the OP's posting  --  maybe he/she (no evidence about that either) could tell us what the term means to his organization.

 

Well, given the OP's question, I suspect what the poster means by "inverse voting" is that the motion to Amend is voted on first, although it is made after the main motion.

[Richard Brown]

Well, given the OP's question, I suspect what the poster means by "inverse voting" is that the motion to Amend is voted on first, although it is made after the main motion.

 

I think Josh has it right.  As usual. 

 

But, then, I think most of us slowly came to the same conclusion.  It's a term I had never heard of, either. 

[Guest Guest]

 What I meant was inverse order, such that amended motions are voted on first, then followed by the original motion. I'm dealing with a board member who seeks to change the rules and apparently claims ownership of his original motions and is angry that discussion and vote of his motion must follow the amendment.  Just looking for reasons behind the rule, which I assume is simply to allow improvement of the motion and to delay consideration of of the original imperfect motion pending an opportunity for amendment. Guess I've answered my own question. Thanks for the humor, Edgar. 

[Edgar Guest]

What I meant was inverse order, such that amended motions are voted on first, then followed by the original motion.

 

Well, as I'm sure you now realize, it's the proposed amendment (to the main motion) that's voted on first, not the amended main motion (which might end up not being amended at all). In other words, adopting an amendment to the main motion is not the same as adopting the main motion (whether amended or not).

 

Edited to add: It's possible to do this in the "right" order. In other words, you could adopt the main motion as originally proposed and then, at a later date, amend it. But the voting threshold is higher for amending something that was previously adopted (ASPA) than it would have been to amend it while it was still being considered.

 

In any event, in RONR-Land, very little is carved in stone.

[Gary Novosielski]

 What I meant was inverse order, such that amended motions are voted on first, then followed by the original motion. I'm dealing with a board member who seeks to change the rules and apparently claims ownership of his original motions and is angry that discussion and vote of his motion must follow the amendment.  Just looking for reasons behind the rule, which I assume is simply to allow improvement of the motion and to delay consideration of of the original imperfect motion pending an opportunity for amendment. Guess I've answered my own question. Thanks for the humor, Edgar. 

 

Well, it's not quite true that discussion of his motion must follow the amendment.  Some discussion can take place first, until someone realizes that the motion might be better if amended, and so moves (with a second) to amend it.  At that point discussion shifts from the discussion of the main motion to discussion of the advisability of making the change.  That amendment might pass, or it might not, but that vote has to take place before we know how to handle the main motion.

 

If the amendment passes, then discussion of the newly changed motion is the only discussion that would make sense.  There's no point in discussing the original, since a majority wanted to amend it.  They still may be against the entire idea, but it's the motion as amended that is now up for discussion.  Those who were against the amendment might still be in favor of passage of the motion as it is now, but some may not.

 

But if the amendment didn't pass, the original motion remains unchanged, and there's an additional opportunity to discuss the motion as originally moved.  Those who favored the amendment may or may not still be in favor of the original motion.

 

But either way, the only way to see if the motion has majority support is to take a final vote on the motion as (possibly) amended, and it should be clear that it can only happen at the very end, after all amendments are disposed of, one by one.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

 . . . and is angry that discussion and vote of his motion must follow the amendment.  

Just looking for reasons behind the rule, which I assume is simply to allow improvement of the motion and to delay consideration of of the original imperfect motion pending an opportunity for amendment.

Show your colleague RONR page 60. -- See "precedence".

 

Tell your colleague that the parliamentary motions which directly apply to a main motion have a RANKING.

Say that the main motion has the lowest RANK, and the subsidiary motions have a higher RANK.

The higher ranked motions take precedence.

 

Motions can be nested.

Motions are un-nested in ranked order.

 

That won't make your colleague un-angry.

But it will shut him up for a minute or two.