Why is the question sustaining the ruling of the chair?

[Joshua Katz]

For what purpose is the question on appeal stated as sustaining, rather than overruling, the ruling of the chair? It produces a fun NAP question (what is the only motion which carries on a tied vote?) but to what end is the rule written this way? 

[Richard Brown]

Beats me, but from a purely logical and procedural standpoint, it seems it would be the reverse: the question would be "shall the ruling of the chair be overturned?"

It seems to me that an appeal from the ruling of the chair is, in essence, a motion to overturn the ruling of the chair and that is the way the question should be put to the assembly. It requires a majority vote to overturn the ruling of the chair, just as with any other motion. The motion would fail on a tie vote, thus sustaining the ruling of the chair.

My best guess as to the reason for the rule is to preserve some sort of presumption that the ruling of the chair is correct. It does seem to be getting things backwards, though.

Good question. I'm curious, too.

[Sid Grice]

Please bear with me, as I am still in the learning phase. Doesn't the entire Robert's Rules manual place a focus on using proper decorum. From what I have read, or more importantly, what I have not, is that each member of an assembly should speak in an affirmative tone. To openly attempt to overrule someone, or something, might place more emphasis on the negative. Instead, keeping with proper decorum, state the positive, and use the voting process to reject (indirectly overruling the previous decision).

[Guest Zev]

Quote

The question must always be put on sustaining the decision of the chair, not on sustaining the appeal. The chair may vote on an appeal. On a tie vote, including the chairman's vote, the decision is sustained, on the theory that the decision of the chair stands until it is reversed by a majority.  

Parliamentary Law, page 152.

Quote

As a general rule, when possible, a main motion should be in the affirmative rather than in the negative form. The objection to the negative form is the liability to confusion in the minds of the voters as to the effect of a negative vote on a negative proposition. In many cases, however, the negative form cannot be avoided, because rejecting the affirmative proposition is not always equivalent to adopting the negative proposition.  

Parliamentary Law, page 10.       

[Joshua Katz]

26 minutes ago, Sid Grice said:

Please bear with me, as I am still in the learning phase. Doesn't the entire Robert's Rules manual place a focus on using proper decorum. From what I have read, or more importantly, what I have not, is that each member of an assembly should speak in an affirmative tone. To openly attempt to overrule someone, or something, might place more emphasis on the negative. Instead, keeping with proper decorum, state the positive, and use the voting process to reject (indirectly overruling the previous decision).

This is an interesting idea. However, I note that sustaining the ruling of the chair seems, at least to me, dangerously close to a motion which, if adopted, will do nothing (but, unlike the more common case, will do something if not adopted!). Decorum and avoiding insult seems like a viable reason. But will the chair be insulted? Will the chair be more insulted by being overruled than by not being sustained? RONR tells us that appealing is no different than disagreeing in debate. I'll think on it.

18 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

Quote

The question must always be put on sustaining the decision of the chair, not on sustaining the appeal. The chair may vote on an appeal. On a tie vote, including the chairman's vote, the decision is sustained, on the theory that the decision of the chair stands until it is reversed by a majority.  

 Parliamentary Law, page 152.

Quote

Yes, but why?

 

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Joshua that always confused me as well and I think there is always a risk of misvotes.

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

Beats me, but from a purely logical and procedural standpoint, it seems it would be the reverse: the question would be "shall the ruling of the chair be overturned?"

It seems to me that an appeal from the ruling of the chair is, in essence, a motion to overturn the ruling of the chair and that is the way the question should be put to the assembly. It requires a majority vote to overturn the ruling of the chair, just as with any other motion. The motion would fail on a tie vote, thus sustaining the ruling of the chair.

My best guess as to the reason for the rule is to preserve some sort of presumption that the ruling of the chair is correct. It does seem to be getting things backwards, though.

Good question. I'm curious, too.

EXACTLY!!!

[Guest Zev]

20 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

Yes, but why?

Quote

While this is the old established parliamentary form and the preferable one, in ordinary societies the question is sometimes put thus: "Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?" This is allowable and may be preferred by many on account of its simplicity. Sometimes the question is stated thus: "Shall the chair be sustained?" The objection to this form is that it is more personal to state the question as one of sustaining the chair, rather than his decision or whether the decision of the chair shall stand as the decision of the assembly.

Parliamentary Law, page 152. I will assume this is the "why" you are referring to.

Quote

In putting the objection to vote, the chair must be careful not to say, "Shall the objection be sustained?" This would reverse the effect of affirmative and negative votes and might cause confusion.

RONR, 11th edition, page 270.

[Joshua Katz]

2 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

Parliamentary Law, page 152. I will assume this is the "why" you are referring to.

Quote

I certainly see why "sustain the ruling of the chair" is better than "sustain the chair" and why the latter is not a good idea. My question is why it isn't "shall the ruling of the chair be overruled?" In addition to Mr. Brown's points about the effects of votes, this would be a motion to do something, rather than to not do something.

3 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

RONR, 11th edition, page 270.

Well, I obviously agree that, given the way it works, the chair should be careful in putting the question to phrase it in a way that makes clear what a positive or negative vote accomplishes. Of course, the way they actually work is confusing. In no other case, for instance, is the question put by the chair (in this case, to sustain the ruling) answered in the affirmative (that is, the ruling is sustained) by a negative vote.

But reading between the lines, I think you might be suggesting an answer I could agree with. That answer boils down to "it's tradition" but with a twist: it is tradition, but we don't deviate from it because we don't want RONR to say the opposite of PL.

[Guest Zev]

4 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

My question is why it isn't "shall the ruling of the chair be overruled?"

Because the motion in this case is in the negative. I vote "yes" in order to disagree with the chair's ruling and "no" in order to agree with his ruling.

17 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

In no other case, for instance, is the question put by the chair (in this case, to sustain the ruling) answered in the affirmative (that is, the ruling is sustained) by a negative vote.

Honestly, I'm not following this. The chair made a ruling and I agree to it by voting "yes," not by voting "no." I must be missing something.

20 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

That answer boils down to "it's tradition" but with a twist: it is tradition, but we don't deviate from it because we don't want RONR to say the opposite of PL.

The General said it was tradition so I assume it pre-dated him by the traditions of Congress and years earlier by Parliament. RONR and PL could not possibly have contradicted each other since they came from the same source.

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

Perhaps it's because "Shall the ruling be overturned?" is a bit too monarchial, as if to say, "How dare this guttersnipe question my decision?"

[Joshua Katz]

3 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

 Honestly, I'm not following this. The chair made a ruling and I agree to it by voting "yes," not by voting "no." I must be missing something.

30 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

That's because I didn't type what I meant, sorry. I meant to say tie vote, not negative vote.

 

4 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

Because the motion in this case is in the negative. I vote "yes" in order to disagree with the chair's ruling and "no" in order to agree with his ruling.

30 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

Yes, because human beings made the choice to do it that way, and to keep it that way. So far as keeping it that way, some of them are on this very message board. Simply describing the way it works doesn't answer my question as to why the book says what it says.

5 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

The General said it was tradition so I assume it pre-dated him by the traditions of Congress and years earlier by Parliament. RONR and PL could not possibly have contradicted each other since they came from the same source.

Well, they came from the same source, but the Newly Revised book is not written by the General. The 11th could have, or the 12th could, change it. But one reason not to change it might be precisely so that it remains consistent with PL.

[Guest Zev]

11 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

Simply describing the way it works doesn't answer my question as to why the book says what it says.

I really do not know the answer to this question. The only hint I can find is the "preferable" on page 152. Perhaps this is just a case of then major Robert putting the various options in front of him, reading what Congress and Parliament did, and making a choice. He did this type of thing with a large number of issues and we live with his world-view and legacy. And we are better off because of it. In the meantime I see nothing that would prevent an assembly from adopting a Special Rule Of Order that stated that "all appeals shall be put in this form, '...' " but I would discourage anyone from doing so. I wonder if the answer could be found in General Robert's papers he left (at the Library of Congress?). Are any of those online?