Voting against your own motion

[Guest Richard Blaine, Jr.]

Is it proper to make a motion which is seconded and then, without amendment, vote against your own amendment? 

[jstackpo]

Yes, perfectly OK.   But you, as the original mover of the motion, cannot speak against it.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

Is it proper to make a motion which is seconded and then, without amendment, vote against your own amendment motion? 

 

Yes, the maker of the motion may vote against it.

[Guest Richard Blaine, Jr.]

I mistyped that.  Can you vote against your own un-amended motion?  (But I assume the answers are the same.)

[Hieu H. Huynh]

I mistyped that.  Can you vote against your own un-amended motion?  (But I assume the answers are the same.)

 

Yes. (I assumed your corrected question in my earlier response)

[Guest Richard Blaine, Jr.]

Thanks, That was my assumption, although it's been 30 years since I've had RR under my fingers (college).  This occurred at a town commission meeting.  I didn't think it was out of order, just a waste of time.

[jstackpo]

Um, what was a "waste of time"?  Presumably there had to be a vote on the motion in any event so no time wasted there  --  was there some (unnecessary and improper) discussion about voting against one's own motion?

[Richard Brown]

I mistyped that.  Can you vote against your own un-amended motion?  (But I assume the answers are the same.)

 

Yes. (I assumed your corrected question in my earlier response)

 

Thanks, That was my assumption, although it's been 30 years since I've had RR under my fingers (college).  This occurred at a town commission meeting.  I didn't think it was out of order, just a waste of time.

I've been typing this so often lately that I probably ought to create a macro so that I can type it with only a couple of keystrokes.  (Can we still create macros that way?)  (Mr. Guest??)

 

The answers you were given are correct according to RONR.  However, since this appears to be a governmental body of some sort, it is quite likely subject to such things as state open meetings (or sunshine) laws and also quite likely has some highly customized special rules of its own.  All such laws and rules will supersede any rules to the contrary in RONR.   Things which are perfectly proper per RONR may not be permissible under the special rules of the body in question.  Those rules are usually available to the public.   As a practical matter,  I doubt that this town commission has a rule that prevents a member from voting against his own motion, but I've seen some strange rules.   If you follow or attend their meetings regularly, you might obtain a copy of whatever special rules of order they might have.

[Josh Martin]

Thanks, That was my assumption, although it's been 30 years since I've had RR under my fingers (college). This occurred at a town commission meeting. I didn't think it was out of order, just a waste of time.

Well, I don't think that, generally speaking, voting against your own motion is a waste of time. Voting against a motion doesn't take any more time than voting for it. I once voted against an unamended motion that I made because, after debate, I was persuaded that it wasn't such a good idea after all.

[Guest Richard Blaine, Jr.]

Yes, this was a town board.  The issue was the appointment of one of two individuals to a board.  Everyone in the room knew the appointment was a forgone conclusion.  It was a bit of a surprise when one member moved to appoint the candidate he was known to oppose.  In the following debate, he spoke in favor of the other candidate and ultimately voted against his own motion.  He then moved to appoint the other person, which passed.

 

Why not simply move to appoint the candidate he favored?  Seemed silly and convoluted and therefore a waste of time.  Somewhat along the lines of a negative motion.  If you don't support something, just leave it to die.

[Edgar Guest]

The issue was the appointment of one of two individuals to a board. . . .  Why not simply move to appoint the candidate he favored?

 

Why not simply hold an election?

[Richard Brown]

Why not simply hold an election?

It's been my experience that most governmental bodies make their appointments pretty much the way this commission did: by a member suggesting a name.... one name.... and then the board/council/commission members vote on that name by the yeas and nays.  That name usually gets confirmed.  If not, then someone suggests a different name and they vote again......with a yes/no vote.

 

In fact, I'm having a hard time recalling an instance of a city council holding an actual election for a member (or members) to a position, board or commission in the sense that we think of ordinary organizations holding elections.  They even go about electing their own officers (chairman and vice-chairman) the same way.   Someone makes a nomination and the members vote yes or no on that nomination.

[Guest Richard Blaine, Jr.]

Why not hold an election?  The town charter specifies that the board fill vacant seats.  In theory, I would support a special election but from a practical standpoint and election would be relatively expensive and voter turnout would be very small -- a situation open to its own sort of mischief. 

 

Tradition in the past has been for the first runner-up in the previous election to fill vacant seats.  But board seats have become too much of a political plum to allow that.  Consequently, getting "your guy" the seat has become contentious politically.  Unfortunately, there is no guidance in either general statute or the town charter for how the board takes nominations or fills seats, only that it does.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

In RONR, a member has the right to vote, the right to not vote (abstain) and the right to change the vote (up until the results are announced). Members are free to act according to their own judgment. If the town does not like how their board votes, they can elect new board members at elections.

[Josh Martin]

Yes, this was a town board. The issue was the appointment of one of two individuals to a board. Everyone in the room knew the appointment was a forgone conclusion. It was a bit of a surprise when one member moved to appoint the candidate he was known to oppose. In the following debate, he spoke in favor of the other candidate and ultimately voted against his own motion. He then moved to appoint the other person, which passed.

Why not simply move to appoint the candidate he favored? Seemed silly and convoluted and therefore a waste of time. Somewhat along the lines of a negative motion. If you don't support something, just leave it to die.

Yes, based on these additional facts, I concur that the motion was a waste of time.

Why not hold an election? The town charter specifies that the board fill vacant seats. In theory, I would support a special election but from a practical standpoint and election would be relatively expensive and voter turnout would be very small -- a situation open to its own sort of mischief.

I don't think that was the sort of election Edgar had in mind. Rather, I believe he was suggesting that the board hold an election, so that each member could vote for the candidate of his choice, rather than voting "yes" or "no" on each candidate.

[Edgar Guest]

It's been my experience that most governmental bodies make their appointments pretty much the way this commission did . . .

 

Which, of course, is not to say it's the best way.

[Guest Richard Blaine, Jr.]

Thanks to all for the input.