"surveying" members prior to a vote

[Guest Rob Bergeron]

It seems to me that the practice of conducting a one-by-one verbal survey during discussion and prior to a vote about how each member plans to vote is not in line with RROO, but I cannot find anything written to that effect in the 11th edition. The consistent result seems to be peer-pressured unanimous votes. Can anyone confirm/help me? I would really appreciate it!     

[Hieu H. Huynh]

See "Straw Polls Not In Order" in RONR 11th ed., p. 429.

[Tom Coronite]

Is what's described by the OP a straw poll or someone "politicking"?

[jstackpo]

If the polling is taking place in a meeting, then it is clearly an improper straw poll.

 

Outside a meeting, all bets are off.

[Gary Novosielski]

Nope, not in order.

[Steven Britton]

If the polling is taking place in a meeting, then it is clearly an improper straw poll.

 

Outside a meeting, all bets are off.

However, if you really want a straw pole, move to commit the item of business to a Committee of the Whole, or a Quasi Committee of the Whole. When the Committee Rises and Reports the outcome of the poll, the assembly is free to take the item-up - for real - a second time.

[Gary c Tesser]

However, if you really want a straw pole, move to commit the item of business to a Committee of the Whole, or a Quasi Committee of the Whole. When the Committee Rises and Reports the outcome of the poll, the assembly is free to take the item-up - for real - a second time.

 

In what way would that help, exactly?  (Or even more or less.)

[Gary c Tesser]

It seems to me that the practice of conducting a one-by-one verbal survey during discussion and prior to a vote about how each member plans to vote is not in line with RROO, but I cannot find anything written to that effect in the 11th edition. The consistent result seems to be peer-pressured unanimous votes. Can anyone confirm/help me? I would really appreciate it!     

 

It occurs to me that if debate is conducted in the normal, real way, where anyone who has something to say says it (for up to ten minutes) and then sits down, and the next person rises, has his say, and sits down, this problem cannot easily come up.

 

(If people rise to debate and merely say how they're going to vote, pretty soon somebody's gotta get weary of the nonsense and move the Previous Question, to cut off debate by a 2/3 vote.

 

(But maybe not, years ago, in the Lunarians, there were two or three members who would rise and just say they agreed with what Stuart* just said.)

 

_______

 

*Always Stuart.  Dang Stuart.  Never me.  Snif sob.

[Weldon Merritt]

In what way would that help, exactly?  (Or even more or less.)

 

I don't know that Mr. Britton is saying that it would help. He is just saying how it coud be done if the assembly really wants to do it.

[Gödel Fan]

If someone is on the negative side, the typical way to test your strength is a motion to postpone indefinitely.  This allows you to guess you're going to be on the losing side, and then do things like vote with the side that will likely prevail so you can move to reconsider.  This is an alternative way to gain the information sought without conducting a straw poll.

 

Or, if you want something done, you can get a feel for your position by moving something more extreme (assuming you'd find the more extreme thing acceptable also.)  This also has the benefit of making what you want to do seem tame by comparison.  I killed a piece of legislation this way once...