Is this situation "objecting to unanimous consent" or "division" or both?

[user]

The chair attempted to pass a motion by unanimous consent. One member proposed that we have a vote on this item (this was the language they used; it wasn't any more formal than this).

I assume this is considered objecting to unanimous consent.

However, I also heard someone else consider this to be a "division". However, I'm not sure this exactly fits the definition of "division".

Is it objecting to unanimous consent or division or is it both of those?

Thanks

[Atul Kapur]

It sounds like an objection to unanimous consent, because it's too early to call for a division.

The next step is for the chair to state the question, allow debate (if it is a debatable question) and then put the question to a vote.

Assuming the chair proceeds with a voice vote or show of hands, then someone can call for a division if they disagree with the chair's declaration of the result or believe the result is close or unrepresentative.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 8/28/2022 at 11:11 PM, user said:

The chair attempted to pass a motion by unanimous consent. One member proposed that we have a vote on this item (this was the language they used; it wasn't any more formal than this).

I assume this is considered objecting to unanimous consent.

However, I also heard someone else consider this to be a "division". However, I'm not sure this exactly fits the definition of "division".

Is it objecting to unanimous consent or division or is it both of those?

Thanks

Although the typical language is "I object," saying that there should be a vote is essentially calling for the motion to be handled in the regular manner, the same as "I object."  Calling for a vote is a denial of unanimous consent.  It does not fit the intent or effect of a Division.

[user]

Thank you!