Rules protecting the Minority

[mkpollo]

I have been told that this rule is to protect the minority from being excluded from debate.

if the minority is participating and even making changes to the items being discussed, why can't the rules not be suspended to move forward with changes.

In my circumstance; the minority is actively participating and simply using this rule to intentionally hold our organization hostage.

 

 

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 1/19/2024 at 1:15 PM, mkpollo said:

I have been told that this rule is to protect the minority from being excluded from debate.

What rule? 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 1/19/2024 at 1:15 PM, mkpollo said:

I have been told that this rule is to protect the minority from being excluded from debate.

if the minority is participating and even making changes to the items being discussed, why can't the rules not be suspended to move forward with changes.

In my circumstance; the minority is actively participating and simply using this rule to intentionally hold our organization hostage.

 

 

It's not clear what rule you're talking about.  Was this intended to be part of some other thread?

[Rob Elsman]

Other than rules that embody fundamental principles of parliamentary law or rules that protect the basic rights of individuals, rules of order that protect the parliamentary rights of a minority can be suspended by a vote greater than a majority vote.  Often (but not always), the vote required is a two-thirds vote.  Thus, it will be seen that a minority of a particularly small size cannot "...hold our organization hostage".  Limits to the parliamentary rights that protect a minority of a larger size will prevent such a larger minority from "...[holding] our organization hostage]".  The upshot is that proper parliamentary procedure carefully balances the rights of the majority and the minority in such a way as to foster the deliberative process while preventing a minority from "...[holding] our organization hostage".

[Josh Martin]

On 1/19/2024 at 12:15 PM, mkpollo said:

I have been told that this rule is to protect the minority from being excluded from debate.

if the minority is participating and even making changes to the items being discussed, why can't the rules not be suspended to move forward with changes.

In my circumstance; the minority is actively participating and simply using this rule to intentionally hold our organization hostage.

If you could explain what rule you are talking about, that would be helpful.

Speaking generally, rules of order may be suspended by a 2/3 vote. But there are exceptions, so I can't say for certain whether (or how) this rule may be suspended (or what other solutions there may be) without knowing what rule you are talking about.

Edited January 21, 2024 at 06:41 PM by Josh Martin

[laser158689]

See the motion Previous Question (§16) to end discussion/amendments and vote on the motion.  Requires a two-thirds vote.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 1/24/2024 at 11:13 AM, laser158689 said:

See the motion Previous Question (§16) to end discussion/amendments and vote on the motion.  Requires a two-thirds vote.

Yes, that rule is designed to protect a minority of more than one third from being prevented from debating an issue even though a majority may wish to cut off debate.  But it can't be used by the minority to "hold the organization hostage" because it only preserves their right to debate, not the right to have their way. 

Unlike the U.S. Senate, debate in an ordinary society cannot last indefinitely.  Once everyone who wishes to do so has spoken on an issue twice, the chair will put the question, and the majority will prevail.

While it might be possible to suspend the rule that requires a two-thirds vote to cut off debate, suspending a rule also requires a two-thirds vote, so it's unlikely to succeed.

[laser158689]

@Gary Novosielski I suggested Previous Motion as a solution to the OP's problem, not the "Rules protecting the Minority".

  

Edited January 24, 2024 at 10:09 PM by laser158689

[Josh Martin]

On 1/24/2024 at 4:07 PM, laser158689 said:

@Gary Novosielski I suggested Previous Motion as a solution to the OP's problem, not the "Rules protecting the Minority".  

I think it is difficult for us to provide a solution to the OP's problem, because I don't think we actually know what the OP's problem is yet.

The OP states that he has been told that "this rule is to protect the minority from being excluded from debate," and then suggests that "this rule" is being used "to intentionally hold our organization hostage." But the OP has not made clear what "this rule" is referring to.

Edited January 24, 2024 at 10:56 PM by Josh Martin

[Gary Novosielski]

On 1/24/2024 at 5:07 PM, laser158689 said:

@Gary Novosielski I suggested Previous Motion as a solution to the OP's problem, not the "Rules protecting the Minority".

  

I assume you mean the Previous Question, and yes, it might be a solution, but I agree with @Josh Martin that we have no clear picture of what the problem is.  Even so, the vote threshold of the PQ is an example of a rule protecting a minority of a certain size.

As far as the OP's "problem" is concerned, if the situation is such that the minority is actively participating in the consideration of a question, then they are doing just what RONR intends.  The right to attempt to change the minds of the majority through the deliberative process is the primary right of the minority that the rules seek to protect.