Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Re-vote


Guest Tom B.

Recommended Posts

At our sportsmans club there was a vote by show of hands to determine if we would add campsites. The first vote was tied, (counted twice). Another discussion ensued and a second vote by show of hands was called for, this time the motion carried, (counted twice). After the second vote was announced and "Motion Carried" was stated, the chair said someone should call for a vote by ballot. Someone did and another vote "by ballot" took place. This vote "overturned" the second vote (32-28). I don't think the "ballot vote" was in-order, if it was wouldn't it have needed a two/thirds majority to overturn the vote that was carried.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At our sportsmans club there was a vote by show of hands to determine if we would add campsites. The first vote was tied, (counted twice).

At that point, the motion failed. It should have been announced that way by the chair, and any further voting on the matter would be out of order, except through a motion to Reconsider (which you surely didn't have).

Another discussion ensued

Why? After the vote, the chair should announce the result and move to the next item of business.

and a second vote by show of hands was called for,

"... an assembly cannot be asked to decide the same, or substantially the same, question twice during one session... " - RONR(10th ed.), p. 325, l. 7-9.

this time the motion carried, (counted twice).

If the result of the first vote was announced by the chair (which it should have been), this motion, which presents the same question as one decided by the assembly, was out of order.

After the second vote was announced and "Motion Carried" was stated, the chair said someone should call for a vote by ballot.

"It is not in order to move that the same question be voted on again under one of the other forms." - RONR(10th ed.), p. 273, l. 33-35

Someone did and another vote "by ballot" took place.

This should have been ruled out of order by the chair.

This vote "overturned" the second vote (32-28).

"Such conflicting motions, if adopted, are null and void unless adopted by the vote required to rescind or amend the motion previously adopted." - RONR(10th ed.), p. 332, l. 22-24

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At that point, the motion failed. It should have been announced that way by the chair, and any further voting on the matter would be out of order, except through a motion to Reconsider (which you surely didn't have).

...

If the result of the first vote was announced by the chair (which it should have been), this motion, which presents the same question as one decided by the assembly, was out of order.

...

This should have been ruled out of order by the chair.

...

Not true.

See page 273, Standard Descriptive Characteristic #1, for motions relating to the polls.

"... When applied to a vote which has just been taken, they can be moved until, but not after, the question on another motion has been stated..."

Note well the key phrase, "a vote which has JUST BEEN TAKEN".

Thus, the first hand vote could well have been completed, and yet another form is in order.

Note also, "... they can be moved UNTIL, but not after, the question on another motion has been stated."

Thus, as long as the next agenda item is not yet pending, it makes no difference that the chair has announced the result of the hand vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Such conflicting motions, if adopted, are null and void unless adopted by the vote required to rescind or amend the motion previously adopted." - RONR(10th ed.), p. 332, l. 22-24

There are no conflicting motions here, as the chair never declared the result of the motion after the first vote. There were certainly errors in procedure, but there was no continuing breach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not true.

See page 273, Standard Descriptive Characteristic #1, for motions relating to the polls.

"... When applied to a vote which has just been taken, they can be moved until, but not after, the question on another motion has been stated..."

Note well the key phrase, "a vote which has JUST BEEN TAKEN".

Thus, the first hand vote could well have been completed, and yet another form is in order.

I have no problem with the first vote being followed by a motion that the vote be taken by ballot, but it is my understanding of the post that the following transpired.

The vote was taken and was counted twice; then

The vote was taken again by show of hands and counted twice; then

The vote was taken again by ballot.

"The object of these motions is to obtain a vote on a question in some form other than by VOICE or DIVISION." - 273, 11-13

Counting is not voice or division. So, having already been taken by a form other than those, it is my interpretation that...

"It is not in order to move that the same question be voted on again under one of the other forms." - 273, 33-35

Page 273 specifically mentions counted and ballot. as being a form of a vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do we know that? I'm operating under the assumption that he did, as I indicated that he should have earlier in my response. It's just an assumption, though.

My mistake. I misread things. It appears that after the second vote, the chair did indeed declare the motion adopted. I still don't think there's a continuing breach here, though. There was no "new motion" made to be in conflict with the first. It was moved to retake the vote by another form. While improper, this would not cause a continuing breach.

"It is not in order to move that the same question be voted on again under one of the other forms." - 273, 33-35

Page 273 specifically mentions counted and ballot. as being a form of a vote.

It does appear that the assembly ordered a counted show of hands vote, and thus the motion for a ballot vote was improper. Violating this rule does not, however, constitute a continuing breach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...