Motion to Reconsider

[Tim Wynn]

... does not preclude the chair from then taking the negative vote.

If page 390 doesn't include the taking of the negative vote (and it doesn't) then the chair ought not violate the plain rule of page 390.

The negative vote is irrelevant. It is truly dilatory.

If you were to count the negative, then to obey page 390, your chair would have to:

(a.) prompt for the affirmative vote.

(b.) count the affirmative vote.

(c.) count (silently) all those members who are present.

(d.) prompt for the negative vote.

(e.) count the negative vote.

If that ain't redundant . . .

I can think of no reason to count the negative vote. (except maybe to check the math )

[Shmuel Gerber]

However, I know of no rule in RONR that prohibits the chair from calling for the negative vote.

Same question for you: So, after the chair takes the affirmative vote and counts the number of members present, he should take the negative vote even though it is intrinsically irrelevant? I don't think so.

Regardless of how many votes there are in the affirmative, the negative vote is intrinsically irrelevant to deciding whether the motion is adopted, because a vote of a majority of the members present requires only a comparison between the number of affirmative votes and the number of members present. The number of negative votes is simply not part of the contest.

[Gary Novosielski]

So, after the chair takes the affirmative vote and counts the number of members present, he should take the negative vote even though it is intrinsically irrelevant? I don't think so.

Okay, how about this: If a sufficient number of votes to pass the motion are cast when he calls for the affirmative, he may declare the motion passed, but if not, he should call for the negative vote, if only to preserve the right of the opponents to reconsider.

Problem solved.

Either that or adopt a special rule of order regarding To Reconsider so that a member may add, "And although I did not vote with the prevailing side, I would have if chair had called for it. But did he? Would he? Noooooooooooo. Not him!"

Or better yet, change the bylaws to strike the words "of those present".

[Josh Martin]

Same question for you: So, after the chair takes the affirmative vote and counts the number of members present, he should take the negative vote even though it is intrinsically irrelevant? I don't think so.

Regardless of how many votes there are in the affirmative, the negative vote is intrinsically irrelevant to deciding whether the motion is adopted, because a vote of a majority of the members present requires only a comparison between the number of affirmative votes and the number of members present. The number of negative votes is simply not part of the contest.

The primary reason I feel the negative vote would be of value would be for inclusion in the minutes, as to guide members on the advisability of addressing the topic in future meetings. As the attendance at meetings fluctuates, and the minds of members change, I believe the negative vote would be quite useful in this regard. The rule on RONR, 10th ed., pg. 453, lines 31-32 states that when a count is ordered, the number of votes on each side should be entered.

[Tim Wynn]

Same question for you: So, after the chair takes the affirmative vote and counts the number of members present, he should take the negative vote even though it is intrinsically irrelevant? I don't think so.

I thought my answer to that question was pretty clearly implied... if an answer was necessary. Actually, I think your question is solidly rhetorical. I'll answer it, though. No, the chair shouldn't.

Regardless of how many votes there are in the affirmative, the negative vote is intrinsically irrelevant to deciding whether the motion is adopted, because a vote of a majority of the members present requires only a comparison between the number of affirmative votes and the number of members present. The number of negative votes is simply not part of the contest.

Didn't RONR say this? Then, didn't you say it? Then, I said it. Then, Mr. Goldsworthy illustrated it. Then, I concurred. Then, you said it, again. Somewhere, in the middle of all this, everyone else said it.

As far as there being no rule prohibiting the taking of a negative vote... no rule prohibits the chair from break dancing while taking a vote, but I don't think he should do that, either. If the chair takes an unnecessary negative vote, on what grounds would you raise a point of order?

[Shmuel Gerber]

Tim, you wrote, "If a vote based on the members present receives enough in the affirmative to adopt the motion, the negative is irrelevant, yet if the motion will be lost, it becomes relevant who voted in the negative, for the sake of eligibility to move to reconsider, which is what this whole topic is about."

My point is that when RONR speaks of the negative vote being "intrinsically irrelevant", I interpret that to mean with respect to the outcome of the vote. The book also gives the procedure for taking a vote requiring a majority of the members present -- first take the affirmative vote, then determine how many members are present -- and it doesn't involve taking the negative vote.

By the way, if a motion has been rejected because less than a majority of the members present voted for it, and if the chair did not call for the negative vote, I think it makes perfect sense to allow any member who was present and did not vote in the affirmative to move to Reconsider.

[hmtcastle]

By the way, if a motion has been rejected because less than a majority of the members present voted for it, and if the chair did not call for the negative vote, I think it makes perfect sense to allow any member who was present and did not vote in the affirmative to move to Reconsider.

It may make perfect sense but the rule requires that the motion to reconsider be made by someone who voted with the prevailing side, not someone whose inaction may have had the same effect.

[Gary Novosielski]

It may make perfect sense but the rule requires that the motion to reconsider be made by someone who voted with the prevailing side, not someone whose inaction may have had the same effect.

It's pretty clear that those who abstain are not eligible to move to Reconsider. By not calling for the negative vote, the chair forces all others present to abstain.

I agree that the negative vote is irrelevant IF there are a sufficient number in the affirmative to pass the motion, but if the motions fails then the negative vote becomes relevant--not to passage, but to the eligibility to move to Reconsider.