motions

[Guest guest]

Does a motion have to be made to vote?

[hmtcastle]

Does a motion have to be made to vote?

Motions are what you vote on. I'm trying to think of an instance where you'd vote without a motion (if only an implicit motion) pending. Perhaps you have something in mind? Or perhaps someone else will come up with something. Stay tuned.

[Tim Wynn]

Does a motion have to be made to vote?

No, you don't make a motion "to vote on a question."

After a motion is placed before the assembly, and after debate (if debatable), the chair puts it to a vote.

[David A Foulkes]

I don't have my book with me today (I know, how can that be!?!?!) but if it is in a "small" board meeting (about a dozen or fewer in attendance) the process is relaxed a bit. In this case, I believe my reading will lead me to recall that some pre-motion discussion can take place which might lead the chair to "assume a motion" and call for a vote without it having been moved. Otherwise, the motion is step 1 in the process leading to the vote.

I think that even in the case of an assumed motion, the chair "should" state the question as he believes it has developed, and in a manner so it is understood by the members what the result of their vote, either for or against, will be. In a sense, at that moment, there is a motion pending, and perhaps it is the chair who has made it.

It would be good parliamentary practice nonetheless to start with the motion, rather than finding a way around it.

[Tim Wynn]

I don't have my book with me today (I know, how can that be!?!?!) but if it is in a "small" board meeting (about a dozen or fewer in attendance) the process is relaxed a bit. In this case, I believe my reading will lead me to recall that some pre-motion discussion can take place which might lead the chair to "assume a motion" and call for a vote without it having been moved. Otherwise, the motion is step 1 in the process leading to the vote.

I think that even in the case of an assumed motion, the chair "should" state the question as he believes it has developed, and in a manner so it is understood by the members what the result of their vote, either for or against, will be. In a sense, at that moment, there is a motion pending, and perhaps it is the chair who has made it.

It would be good parliamentary practice nonetheless to start with the motion, rather than finding a way around it.

In a small board, a vote can be taken without a motion having been made, but I didn't read the question to be asking that. Who knows?

[hmtcastle]

I didn't read the question to be asking that. Who knows?

Yes, I suppose the question could have been about a motion to vote on the motion (which is what the unfortunately named "Previous Question" is)

[David A Foulkes]

In a small board, a vote can be taken without a motion having been made, but I didn't read the question to be asking that. Who knows?

Okay, some questions, if I may. And I hope they're germane enough.

Would you say that the chair, after lengthy debate on whether to paint the barn red and moving to the vote, has assumed the motion?

In asking for the vote (ie "putting the question"), is the chair implicitly making the motion himself?

Would it be fair to assume that the member who first brought up the topic has "made" the motion?

If in fact no motion has actually been made then, will the minutes simply reflect the "decision" to paint the barn red, and not include "Mr. X moved...."?

[Gary Novosielski]

Does a motion have to be made to vote?

If you do not have a motion, then how will you know what you voted on?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Does a motion have to be made to vote?

Are you referring to a motion whose result is ___ ?:

• stop debate

• proceed to an immediate vote

If that is what you are asking, then see the motion, PREVIOUS QUESTION.

It is in order for a member to make a motion which, upon adoption, will halt debate and compel the chair to "put the question" (i.e., conduct a vote).

***

If you are voting willy-nilly without a motion being pending, then I have no clue what you are doing, nor why.

[Tim Wynn]

Okay, some questions, if I may. And I hope they're germane enough.

Would you say that the chair, after lengthy debate on whether to paint the barn red and moving to the vote, has assumed the motion?

In asking for the vote (ie "putting the question"), is the chair implicitly making the motion himself?

Would it be fair to assume that the member who first brought up the topic has "made" the motion?

If in fact no motion has actually been made then, will the minutes simply reflect the "decision" to paint the barn red, and not include "Mr. X moved...."?

Yes

No

No

See p. 455, l. 4-5. I think an acceptable version would be... After informal discussion, the question put by the chair "that the barn be painted red" was adopted.

[David A Foulkes]

Tim, thanks x 4.