Amend the amended motion?

[Guest gshatterhand]

I try to be somewhat familiar with Robert's Rules but something happened at a meeting recently that threw me off. I know there has to be a simple, obvious answer but maybe I can't see the forest for the trees.

A motion was made and seconded to endorse a specific candidate.

A motion was made and seconded to amend the original motion and insert the name of a different candidate.

A motion was then made and seconded to amend the the motion and insert the name of the original candidate. Putting us right back where we started.

How should the chairman(not me)have handled this?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

How should the chairman(not me)have handled this?

That second motion (i.e., to re-insert the identical name) was out of order.

The principle being, you cannot make motion which is identical to voting down what is pending.

You just vote down all attempts to change the name, and thus end up keeping the original name.

[David A Foulkes]

That second motion (i.e., to re-insert the identical name) was out of order.

The principle being, you cannot make motion which is identical to voting down what is pending.

You just vote down all attempts to change the name, and thus end up keeping the original name.

Curious, Mr. G --- would not the first motion to amend have also essentially done this, voting down Candidate A by striking out and inserting Candidate B's name, and thereby it also would be out of order?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

... would not the first motion to amend have also essentially done this, voting down Candidate A by striking out and inserting Candidate B's name, and thereby it also would be out of order?

As I read the original scenario, nothing was voted on.

The original scenario LOOKS LIKE an amendment to an amendment.

If such is not the case, then my answer will not apply.

[Guest gshatterhand]

Yes, it was an amendment to an amendment.

[Josh Martin]

Curious, Mr. G --- would not the first motion to amend have also essentially done this, voting down Candidate A by striking out and inserting Candidate B's name, and thereby it also would be out of order?

No, the first amendment is actually accomplishing something - it is replacing Candidate A with Candidate B. The second amendment accomplishes nothing, since the desired result can be reached simply by voting down the first amendment. But if the first amendment was not made, Candidate B would not be in the picture.