Counted Standing Vote

[Tomm]

Reading thru the new 3rd edition of RONR in Brief; on page 73 "Illustration: Voice, Standing,and Counted Vote."

Why was a "second" required when MEMBER C requested a counted vote but no "second" was required for a call for a "Division."

Being that a"Vote" is such a fundamental right and important principle within parliamentary procedure, it seems to me that a call to verify the accuracy of a vote should never require a "second." Failure to verify would always leave the results of the vote in doubt and question the integrity of the Chair!.

[Richard Brown]

27 minutes ago, Tomm said:

Reading thru the new 3rd edition of RONR in Brief; on page 73 "Illustration: Voice, Standing,and Counted Vote."

Why was a "second" required when MEMBER C requested a counted vote but no "second" was required for a call for a "Division."

Being that a"Vote" is such a fundamental right and important principle within parliamentary procedure, it seems to me that a call to verify the accuracy of a vote should never require a "second." Failure to verify would always leave the results of the vote in doubt and question the integrity of the Chair!.

RONR is specific that any member may demand a division of the assembly.  No second is necessary.  See RONR (12th ed.) Section 4:50.

RONR is also specific that a counted vote may be ordered by the chair or may be ordered by the assembly upon by a majority vote.  Unlike the right of a single member to demand a division, the assembly may order a counted vote only upon a motion which, just as with most other motions, requires a second.  See RONR (12th ed.) Section 4:53.

Edited September 6, 2020 at 05:15 PM by Richard Brown
Added 12th edition citation to first sentence.

[Atul Kapur]

33 minutes ago, Tomm said:

Being that a"Vote" is such a fundamental right and important principle within parliamentary procedure, it seems to me that a call to verify the accuracy of a vote should never require a "second." Failure to verify would always leave the results of the vote in doubt and question the integrity of the Chair!.

A call to verify the vote by an uncounted rising vote is the right of any individual member.

"Any member, by demanding a Division (29), can require a voice vote or a vote by show of hands to be retaken as a rising vote—but no individual member can compel it to be counted."
RONR (12th ed.) 45:14

I understand it as a balance between the rights of an individual member and the right of the assembly not to have unnecessary delays due to calls for counted votes (which are much more time-consuming) when the results are clear. RONR (12th ed.) p. xlix

[Weldon Merritt]

1 hour ago, Atul Kapur said:

I understand it as a balance between the rights of an individual member and the right of the assembly not to have unnecessary delays due to calls for counted votes (which are much more time-consuming) when the results are clear. RONR (12th ed.) p. xlix

I agree, And if the results aren't clear, even after a Division of the Assembly, the motion for a counted vote almost certainly will be seconded.

[Rob Elsman]

After the chair has announced the result of a vote which is beyond any reasonable doubt, a motion to count the vote is not in order on account that it is dilatory.  This is true whether there is a second for the motion or not.

[Atul Kapur]

Perhaps, but the chair should consider whether it would be faster to just hold the uncounted vote on the motion to count the vote than to rule it dilatory and deal with the point of order that arises.

[Tomm]

6 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

A call to verify the vote by an uncounted rising vote is the right of any individual member.

So then, is the method of that verification to actually end-up becoming a counted vote? 

[Atul Kapur]

No, the method of verification is an uncounted rising vote.

As the section I cited (45:14) says, a member can demand that a voice vote or a show-of-hands vote be verified by an uncounted rising vote. This is done by calling for a "Division" of the assembly. Very often, things end here.

If the member is still in doubt of the result after that, the member can make a motion to have a counted vote. But this motion must be seconded and requires a majority vote in favour to be adopted.

[Tomm]

9 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

If the member is still in doubt of the result after that, the member can make a motion to have a counted vote. But this motion must be seconded and requires a majority vote in favour to be adopted.

Roger-That, but it just seems to me that leaving a vote in question because nobody called a "second" is more dilatory than a so-called time-consuming count? But I guess that's just me! 😞

I respect everybody's opinion on this, thanks! It is what it is if you go by the book!

[Weldon Merritt]

7 minutes ago, Tomm said:

Roger-That, but it just seems to me that leaving a vote in question because nobody called a "second" is more dilatory than a so-called time-consuming count? But I guess that's just me! 😞

Since "dilatory, " by definition, means "tending to delay," it is hard to see how not conducting a counted vote could be more dilatory than conducting it. And if no one is willing to second a motion for a counted vote, then it would seem pretty apparent that no one other than the mover thinks the vote is "in question."

12 minutes ago, Tomm said:

I respect everybody's opinion on this, thanks! It is what it is if you go by the book!

If you think this really is a legitimate concern, you are free to move adoption of a Special Rule of Order requiring a counted vote on demand of a single member. I personally would not vote in favor of  such a rule, if I were a member of your organization, but nothing is stopping you from proposing it.

[Atul Kapur]

35 minutes ago, Tomm said:

Roger-That, but it just seems to me that leaving a vote in question because nobody called a "second" is more dilatory than a so-called time-consuming count? But I guess that's just me!

One, please note Mr. Merritt's explanation of "dilatory," which I agree with (and, therefore, disagree with you).

Two, if you don't get a second for the motion, that effectively means that every person except you is satisfied that the vote was declared correctly. In other words, you are the only person who still thinks the result is in question. At that point, I think it's reasonable to move on.

[Tomm]

1 hour ago, Atul Kapur said:

One, please note Mr. Merritt's explanation of "dilatory," which I agree with (and, therefore, disagree with you).

You are of course correct. I incorrectly used the term "dilatory" when I was really eluding to an unverified vote result as being "detrimental."

[Weldon Merritt]

14 hours ago, Tomm said:

You are of course correct. I incorrectly used the term "dilatory" when I was really eluding to an unverified vote result as being "detrimental."

OK; we all occasionally inadvertently use the wrong term. But please note the second paragraph of Dr. Kapur's  post:

15 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

Two, if you don't get a second for the motion, that effectively means that every person except you is satisfied that the vote was declared correctly. In other words, you are the only person who still thinks the result is in question. At that point, I think it's reasonable to move on.

 I, too, "think it's reasonable to move on," including with this conversation. It should be obvious to you by now that no one on this forum is likely to agree with you. 

Edited September 7, 2020 at 06:35 PM by Weldon Merritt
Edite to corect a typo.

[Josh Martin]

13 hours ago, Tomm said:

Roger-That, but it just seems to me that leaving a vote in question because nobody called a "second" is more dilatory than a so-called time-consuming count? But I guess that's just me! 😞

I respect everybody's opinion on this, thanks! It is what it is if you go by the book!

I would keep in mind that RONR is written for all sorts of assemblies, up to and including large conventions with hundreds or even thousands of members. So it is indeed the case that a counted vote can be extremely time-consuming, depending on the size of the assembly. This is why a counted vote cannot be demanded by a single member.

It should also be noted that the chair has the right (and duty) to ensure the accuracy of a vote on his own initiative and authority, up to and including ordering a counted vote. One hopes that the assembly has elected a chairman who takes this duty seriously. As a result, there rarely should be any need for a Division of the Assembly or a motion for a counted vote, as the chair will order these things on his own as needed. Alternately, the assembly itself may order a counted vote. A motion for a counted vote requires a second and a majority vote for adoption.

These procedures are discussed in more detail in RONR (12th ed.) 4:38-42, 27:1-15, 30:6.

I concur with my colleagues that the requirement of a second for a counted vote does not seem especially onerous. If the result of a vote is close enough that it is truly in doubt, I presume that getting two people to request a count will be simple enough. I generally would assume that even getting a majority to vote in favor of a count would be simple enough if the result is truly in doubt, since the assembly will want to ensure there is an accurate count. (Also, as noted previously, the chair should generally order these things in the first place if the result is truly in doubt.) If an assembly wishes, it may adopt its own special rules of order on this matter.

Edited September 7, 2020 at 03:44 PM by Josh Martin

[Tomm]

3 hours ago, Weldon Merritt said:

OK; we all occasionally inadvertently use the wrong term. But please not the second paragraph of Dr. Kapur's  post:

To Mr. Merritt;

I apologize if I violated any  forum rules but please explain what was/is the infraction caused by using Dr. Kapur's post? I personally apologize to Dr. Kapur as well!

[Atul Kapur]

Nothing to apologize for.

I believe that Mr. Merritt meant to say, "note" my second paragraph.

And, Weldon, you've managed to create a second meaning of "falling into a not hole" 😀

 

[Gary Novosielski]

16 hours ago, Tomm said:

Roger-That, but it just seems to me that leaving a vote in question because nobody called a "second" is more dilatory than a so-called time-consuming count? But I guess that's just me! 😞

I respect everybody's opinion on this, thanks! It is what it is if you go by the book!

If there is a motion for a counted vote, the chair will often simply take the initiative to hold it, if the result is even slightly in doubt. If not, the chair should at least ask if there is a second to the motion.  If there still is none, then apparently only one person in the assembly believes the result to be in doubt.  If the vote was at all close, surely there would be a second person.  I'd bet that if a motion for a counted vote failed to get majority support, the original vote was most probably quite lopsided.

[Weldon Merritt]

56 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

Nothing to apologize for.

I believe that Mr. Merritt meant to say, "note" my second paragraph.

And, Weldon, you've managed to create a second meaning of "falling into a not hole" 😀

 

Yes, that's correct, and I have now corrected the typo. So of course there is noting for Tomm to apologize for. If anything, I should apologize for the confusion caused by my "not" hole.

I guess that was a prime example of what I meant when I said that "we all occasionally inadvertently use the wrong term."🙂

[Tomm]

Understanding all the explanations previous stated and not attempting too beat a dead horse, but one last question; if no one in the assembly called a "second" could the chairman take advantage as his/her right as a member and call the "second" or would that be out of order. I assume to do so he/she would have to relinquish the chair first?  

[Gary Novosielski]

That would not be necessary or advisable.  The chair already has the authority to take a counted vote without waiting for either a motion or a second, without relinquishing the chair.

[Josh Martin]

20 hours ago, Tomm said:

Understanding all the explanations previous stated and not attempting too beat a dead horse, but one last question; if no one in the assembly called a "second" could the chairman take advantage as his/her right as a member and call the "second" or would that be out of order. I assume to do so he/she would have to relinquish the chair first?  

In the particular instance described here, there would be no reason for the chairman to do so. As has been previously explained several times, the chairman has the authority to order a counted vote on his own initiative. If the chairman believes the vote should be counted, the chairman can and should simply order that a counted vote be taken.

As a general matter, assuming the assembly is not using the rules for committees or small boards (in which event seconds are not required anyway), if the chairman wishes to second a motion because the chairman wishes to exercise his rights as an individual member for the motion to be considered, the chairman should indeed relinquish the chair in order to do so.

On the other hand, the chairman also has latitude in stating the question on a motion without a second, although this should be done due to the chairman's judgment that the motion already clearly appears to have support to be considered, or due the chair attempting to facilitate routine business, rather than the chairman's personal desires as to whether the motion should be considered. See RONR (12th ed.) 4:12-13.