'Show of Hands' Question

[Guest e_law]

New student of Roberts Rules here with a quick question. I notice that the rules dictate that, during a 'show of hands', one raises their right hand if he or she is in favour. My question is: is it acceptable for one to raise their left hand instead of their right? 

[jstackpo]

Sure.

And you can raise both if either...

1) You wish to cheat, or

2)  You are carrying a proxy for an absent member.

[Greg Goodwiller, PRP]

Sadly (as a left handed person) that is what it says in RONR in two instances. Fortunately, in both cases RONR is simply giving examples of the form of voting by a show of hands. Personally, I never state it that way. When taking a vote by show of hands, I always say, "all in favor, raise your hand. Opposed, raise your hand."

In a meeting where the chair calls for "right hands," if I had a legitimate reason to object to doing so, I would raise a point of order. I have also witnessed chairs trying to be creative, lighthearted, or whatever use other "signs" - like "all in favor, quack like a duck." I'm not advocating such a practice. I'm just saying that unless someone objects to how the chair puts the question, it doesn't change the legitimacy of the vote.

[Guest e_law]

Thank you all for the helpful responses, but for me a bit of confusion continues. I gather from the latest response of Mr. G, (and again, thank you) that I can use either hand. But if this is so, are there other things that I can ignore in the rules? If so what are they?  Is there a list available anywhere of what can be ignored? 

 

It seems maybe that this "raise your right” stipulation may come from the times and customs of when General Robert's was writing the book. Excuse the nature of this suggestion, but does this perhaps arise from the customs/culture back in those days that the left hand was known to be the "dung" hand - and therefore general Robert’s rightly identified the most appropriate of the two limbs? 

 

If so, as a proud southpaw, it is perhaps time to retire that obligation? It is only a suggestion however, as others would surely know best. 

 

Looking forward to any further information or views on this.

 

Thanks

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

RONR does not prescribe the use of the right hand. As Mr. Goodwiller has pointed out, those are merely examples and if you read them in context, you find that they are not rules at all. So you can put that notion on the heap.

[Weldon Merritt]

5 hours ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said:

you can put that notion on the heap.

Yes, on the "dung heap."

[Gary Novosielski]

15 minutes ago, Weldon Merritt said:

Yes, on the "dung heap."

And use your left hand.

[Guest Guest both_hands]

With respect to the last entry in this thread, and thank-you for that - although there is no imperative language used respecting the application of the right hand (e.g. "shall / must" ) the reader is constructively directed that right hand usage is the method to follow. Why not have “raise a hand now“ - simple  and clear? This “ raise the right hand “(RONRIB p. 189) does not allow much consideration for those who have lost a right hand in accident or military service (let alone the southpaws), and it should be scrapped. 

Respecting the proposition that right hand usage arose due to “dung hand“, being the left hand by culture and practice, that would appear inaccurate. As far back as the 1650’s in England, a process of what was called "benefit of clergy“ allowed that the right hand was to be raised for initial oath taking, and so on. General Robert’s seemingly continued the custom of the day that had long standing.

And perhaps this brings up other matters that should see change in RONR  such as the editing out of titles, such as “Mrs." and “Lady“. In addition the complete elimination of the motions of “orders of the day and postpone indefinitely" would do little damage. But worst of all is the label of “previous question“ for the proposal to "close debate”. 

It seems that 99 out of 100 attendees at meetings have not one clue as to what is occurring when the motion for “previous question“ is called. 

Doing all that please, although not at all so very much, would be a great service - to some of us, both left and right handers!

[jstackpo]

39 minutes ago, Guest Guest both_hands said:

 But worst of all is the label of “previous question“ for the proposal to "close debate”. 

It seems that 99 out of 100 attendees at meetings have not one clue as to what is occurring when the motion for “previous question“ is called.

As has been pointed out many times before (I am sure), adopting the motion for the "Previous Question" includes more that just closing debate as it includes preventing further amendments or other subsidiary motions (except Lay on the Table) - page 197-8.  A simple motion to "close debate" wouldn't accomplish as much.  So until parliamentarians can come up with a better(?) descriptor than "Previous Question", it seems that term of art will have to do.

It has been my experience that those 99 attendees full well know what "PQ" will accomplish; they just use the incorrect term "Call the Question", or the like (usually without getting recognition -- but that is a different problem). 

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

20 hours ago, Weldon Merritt said:

Yes, on the "dung heap."

I see you caught my drift.

[Benjamin Geiger]

If memory serves, the, ahem, other parliamentary authority renamed Previous Question to Close Debate and Vote Immediately. A bit unwieldy, perhaps, but it seems to do the job.

[Guest TRAP]

Mr ." J " , with respect to the post you make above . You seem to suggest that the use of the label " previous question " inherently and by itself  communicates  and coveys information as to aspects  of the proposal that the label " close debate " does not . How this  follows  is  a mystery to me . Indeed ,if these labels  for this manner of proposal  are compared as to which better  conveys the core aspect of the proposal ( bringing discussion  to an end  ) the latter  ( close debate ) seems  by far preferable  ,and  hands down ( whichever hand  raised )  . The  use of the words previous question to invoke this manner of  proposal may, for  some, signal  a desire  that the assembly  travel  backwards to some earlier matter ,   and   confuse as to why the  immediate pending  question  is not about to be addressed .The use of the words " CLOSE DEBATE " ( p. 35  RONRIB -header ) appear to have been   allocated  considerable profile  by the RONRIB  authors - perhaps for that reason (?) . 

Plain language in many instances can work to improve without  any loss of  value . Mr B . above seems to be sympathetic  ,even given the carefully made  " ahem "  for the benefit  of  those who are devoted to  antiquated usages .  

[Gary Novosielski]

Well, when the motion for the Previous Question is taken up, it becomes the immediately pending question, while the question upon which debate is to be closed becomes, you should pardon the expression, the previous question.

[Shmuel Gerber]

With due respect to the self-described southpaws here, I don't see how being left-handed is any impediment to raising the right hand during a vote. In fact, this leaves your dominant hand free to take notes or do some other useful thing while all the righties are stuck just waiting for their votes to be recognized.

I don't know where this practice came from, but I assume it is simply more practical, especially where the members are seated close to each other, than having members possibly randomly jamming their hands into or near each other, like when a right-handed person is seated to the left of a left-handed person at the dinner table.

[Joshua Katz]

1 hour ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

 I don't know where this practice came from, but I assume it is simply more practical, especially where the members are seated close to each other, than having members possibly randomly jamming their hands into or near each other, like when a right-handed person is seated to the left of a left-handed person at the dinner table.

I assumed it was to keep people from raising both their hands.