Changing the voting threshold

[Drake Savory]

Any non-standard voting threshold should be in the bylaws or special rules of order (48:10). However this is not a requirement as it is not "must" be in the bylaws.  44:7 also talks about modifying the vote threshold through rule, but again does not require that rule in the bylaws or special rules of order.  To throw a complication in there, it is basic parliamentary law to change an action requires a larger threshold than taking the action to begin with (xlix - l).  Already there would be a problem if through special rule an action requires 80% of the vote yet could be rescinded by a 2/3 vote.  

So here is the question.  As part of a main motion, is it in order for a member to move to Suspend the Rules and require a unanimous vote?  

[Josh Martin]

On 10/15/2023 at 10:58 PM, Drake Savory said:

As part of a main motion, is it in order for a member to move to Suspend the Rules and require a unanimous vote? 

The assembly may Suspend the Rules to require a higher vote for a particular motion. I am not inclined to think, however, that this may be done as part of the same motion that the member proposes to have a higher vote threshold for. A separate motion to Suspend the Rules would be needed. Such a motion would need to be adopted prior to the vote being taken on the main motion.

Including it in the same motion doesn't really seem to work, because the higher vote threshold would not be required until the motion to Suspend the Rules is adopted - but by that point, the main motion is also adopted.

[Rob Elsman]

If my memory serves me correctly, the question whether a subsidiary motion, Amend, can include language that elevates the vote requirement for its own adoption has been previously raised on this forum or the old forum.  My recollection (and I do not want to put words into his mouth) is that Mr. Honemann was of the opinion that it could, and the language would be effective as to the motion's upcoming vote.

Instead of this, I suggest that the best parliamentary action is for the motion to be adopted (on a narrow majority vote) and for a member who voted on the affirmative side to make the motion, Reconsider.  If Reconsider is debatable, the maker can explain that there are good reasons for rejecting the motion upon reconsideration, since the good of the society requires, in his opinion, that what the motion proposes should only be done if there were broader support.

Proceeding in this way avoids tinkering with the "basic principle of decision in a deliberative assembly" discussed in RONR (12th ed.) 1:6 and does not require a suspension of any rule.

Edited October 16, 2023 at 04:53 PM by Rob Elsman

[Josh Martin]

On 10/16/2023 at 11:16 AM, Rob Elsman said:

If my memory serves me correctly, the question whether a subsidiary motion, Amend, can include language that elevates the vote requirement for its own adoption has been previously raised on this forum or the old forum.  My recollection (and I do not want to put words into his mouth) is that Mr. Honemann was of the opinion that it could, and the language would be effective as to the motion's upcoming vote.

My recollection of this issue was that the language would not affect whether the motion was actually adopted (which could only be done through a suspension of the rules), but would instead provide that the motion would not be carried out if it was adopted by less than the specified vote threshold.

Suppose, for example, it is moved "To paint the barn red, provided that at least 2/3 vote in the affirmative on this motion." If such a motion receives a majority in the affirmative, but less than 2/3, the motion is adopted, but by its own terms, the motion specifies that the barn shall not be painted red.

Of course, since this is simply language in the motion, and not the result of a rule or a suspension of the rules, the "provided that at least 2/3 vote in the affirmative on this motion" clause could be removed the same as any other language, by means of a subsidiary motion to Amend prior to its adoption, or by means of a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted after adoption.

I do not think a motion can contain within itself language that would actually raise the threshold for its own adoption.

I concur entirely that all of these shenanigans are not really good ideas, and if the assembly's preference is not to proceed with a motion unless there is broader support, the strategy you have outlined is preferable.

[Rob Elsman]

Mr. Honemann, can you refresh the memories of us all? 😀

[Dan Honemann]

On 10/16/2023 at 12:34 PM, Rob Elsman said:

Mr. Honemann, can you refresh the memories of us all? 😀

Nope.

[Rob Elsman]

Thank you for trying, anyway.

[Drake Savory]

So it sounds like it could be done through an amendment adopted by majority vote or Suspend the Rules by 2/3 vote. 

[Rob Elsman]

I did not intend to leave the impression that this was an "either/or" choice between two equally good options. If I did, I apologize.

[Drake Savory]

I was using the inclusive OR there

[Rob Elsman]

X or Y or both? That does not make any sense.

[Josh Martin]

On 10/16/2023 at 4:36 PM, Drake Savory said:

So it sounds like it could be done through an amendment adopted by majority vote or Suspend the Rules by 2/3 vote. 

Yes, I think this is correct, although there is a nuanced (but important) distinction between these scenarios.

• If it is done as an amendment to the main motion, this does not in fact change the threshold for adoption of the motion, but rather provides that the motion (even if adopted) is not carried out unless the higher threshold is reached.
• If it is done through a motion to Suspend the Rules, then this actually changes the threshold for adoption.

In my view, both of these options are very bad ideas, and I concur that the strategy outlined by Mr. Elsman is preferable, in the event the majority believes that a particular motion should not be undertaken unless there is broader support.

Edited October 17, 2023 at 02:04 AM by Josh Martin

[Richard Brown]

If I understand the question correctly, I disagree with Mr. Martin. It is my opinion that the motion to paint the barn red could include a motion to suspend the rules and require a higher vote threshold. It is similar to making a motion to suspend the rules and adopt a motion to do something when that particular motion would otherwise be out of order at that point in the meeting.  
 

In this case, motion could be worded as follows: “I move that we suspend the rules and adopt by the unanimous vote of all members present a motion to paint the barn red“.  
 

it could probably also be made in this form: “I move that we paint the clubhouse red, and that we suspend the rules and require that this motion be adopted by the unanimous vote of all members present“.
 

Since the motion includes the motion to suspend the rules, it is not debatable and there would simply be an upper down vote and it would require the unanimous vote of all members present to adopt the motion to paint the barn red.. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 10/16/2023 at 10:09 PM, Richard Brown said:

In this case, motion could be worded as follows: “I move that we suspend the rules and adopt by the unanimous vote of all members present a motion to paint the barn red“.  

I don't think that works. A motion to Suspend the Rules and Adopt requires a two-thirds vote to pass.  Adding words within the motion doesn't change that.  Nor does it make the vote unanimous, which can only occur by an actual unanimous vote.

[Dan Honemann]

While a main motion is pending, a motion can be made "that a unanimous vote shall be required for the adoption of this motion." This incidental motion requires a two-thirds vote for its adoption, and if it is adopted, a unanimous vote will be required for the adoption of the pending main motion.  General Robert himself said so in PL Q&A Nos. 323 and 324 (PL p. 518).

I think the same result can be obtained by the adoption of a proviso, as Mr. Martin has suggested, such as "... provided, however, that this motion shall not take effect unless it is adopted by a unanimous vote."  The adoption of such a proviso requires only a majority vote.  As I now recall, I suggested the use of this method quite some time ago, and it wasn't accepted with a great deal of enthusiasm (but I still think it's right).  🙂

[Gary Novosielski]

On 10/17/2023 at 9:17 AM, Dan Honemann said:

While a main motion is pending, a motion can be made "that a unanimous vote shall be required for the adoption of this motion." This incidental motion requires a two-thirds vote for its adoption, and if it is adopted, a unanimous vote will be required for the adoption of the pending main motion.  General Robert himself said so in PL Q&A Nos. 323 and 324 (PL p. 518).

I think the same result can be obtained by the adoption of a proviso, as Mr. Martin has suggested, such as "... provided, however, that this motion shall not take effect unless it is adopted by a unanimous vote."  The adoption of such a proviso requires only a majority vote.  As I now recall, I suggested the use of this method quite some time ago, and it wasn't accepted with a great deal of enthusiasm (but I still think it's right).  🙂

But what is weird, for lack of a better word, is that if the motion gets majority approval that is less than unanimous, it means that the motion has been adopted, yet cannot go into effect.  And unless rescinded, it would remain in a superposition of states--on the books but not in effect--a sort of Schrödinger's Resolution, both alive and dead simultaneously, waiting for a unanimous vote that will never come.  Is there no way to clean this up and ensure that zombie motions can simply be declared dead?

[Dan Honemann]

On 10/17/2023 at 12:54 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

But what is weird, for lack of a better word, is that if the motion gets majority approval that is less than unanimous, it means that the motion has been adopted, yet cannot go into effect.  And unless rescinded, it would remain in a superposition of states--on the books but not in effect--a sort of Schrödinger's Resolution, both alive and dead simultaneously, waiting for a unanimous vote that will never come.  Is there no way to clean this up and ensure that zombie motions can simply be declared dead?

By my standards, adoption of a motion subject to a proviso that it shall never go into effect is the equivalent of rejection of that motion. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 10/17/2023 at 1:36 PM, Dan Honemann said:

By my standards, adoption of a motion subject to a proviso that it shall never go into effect is the equivalent of rejection of that motion. 

Those standards are good enough for me--retroactive frivolousness, of a sort, if not downright frivolity.

[Gregory Carlson]

On 10/17/2023 at 7:17 AM, Dan Honemann said:

While a main motion is pending, a motion can be made "that a unanimous vote shall be required for the adoption of this motion." This incidental motion requires a two-thirds vote for its adoption, and if it is adopted, a unanimous vote will be required for the adoption of the pending main motion.  General Robert himself said so in PL Q&A Nos. 323 and 324 (PL p. 518).

I think the same result can be obtained by the adoption of a proviso, as Mr. Martin has suggested, such as "... provided, however, that this motion shall not take effect unless it is adopted by a unanimous vote."  The adoption of such a proviso requires only a majority vote.  As I now recall, I suggested the use of this method quite some time ago, and it wasn't accepted with a great deal of enthusiasm (but I still think it's right).  🙂

I very much prefer this idea to the idea of combining/including/merging a main motion with a secondary motion.  I would add that a motion that included a phrase such as "this motion shall require a vote of ___ for adoption" would be susceptible to a division of the question anyway, and it is better to consider the questions separately for all practical purposes.

Edited October 18, 2023 at 07:17 AM by Gregory Carlson

[Atul Kapur]

Unless I am misunderstanding something, I don't see how "this motion shall require a vote of ___ for adoption" could properly be divided from the other part of the main motion it is attached to. It cannot stand alone.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 10/18/2023 at 6:51 AM, Atul Kapur said:

Unless I am misunderstanding something, I don't see how "this motion shall require a vote of ___ for adoption" could properly be divided from the other part of the main motion it is attached to. It cannot stand alone.

I agree.  The phrase "this motion" supports that view.

[Richard Brown]

On 10/18/2023 at 5:51 AM, Atul Kapur said:

Unless I am misunderstanding something, I don't see how "this motion shall require a vote of ___ for adoption" could properly be divided from the other part of the main motion it is attached to. It cannot stand alone.

I agree.

[Dan Honemann]

The question originally asked was:  "As part of a main motion, is it in order for a member to move to Suspend the Rules and require a unanimous vote?"  As Mr. Martin stated in the first response posted to this question, the answer is no.

If a member wishes to have some action taken, but only if no member objects, then he may seek unanimous consent to the taking of such action, without making any motion at all (4:58-63).  He may (and probably should) preface this request for unanimous consent by making a very brief statement to the effect that he wishes to see this action taken only if no one objects, and why this is so (43:31).  

 

[Wright Stuff]

Assuming the 2/3 vote requirement is in the bylaws, which it is in ours, how can this rule be suspended? I’m looking at the last sentence of 2:21. Two days ago I understood that bylaws can’t be suspended. Now I’m learning that there are exceptions to the rule, but I have yet to find a list of the exceptions. 

[Joshua Katz]

There are two exceptions: 

1. If the bylaws themselves provide for suspension.

2. When a bylaws provision is clearly in the nature of a rule of order.