less than a majority on vote

[Guest God's Child]

An organization I belong to is about to take a ballot vote on an issue with three choices. It takes a majority to pass. I understand a majority is more than 50% of the votes cast. It is highly possible no choice will receive a majority. What happens next? If we revote, how many times do we revote? When we are tired of revoting, what happens next?

[hmtcastle]

What happens next? If we revote, how many times do we revote? When we are tired of revoting, what happens next?

If this were an election, you'd keep voting until someone was elected. If some get tired and leave, the resulting vote will change.

But voting on three choices may not be the best method to use.

You might find that the discussion on this topic is relevant to your question.

[jstackpo]

If you have three mutually exclusive choices that is an election, I guess. You are just not electing a person to an office, but you are making come other kind of (three-way) choice.

And as Mr. M. notes, you vote until you drop.

[Gary Novosielski]

And as Mr. M. notes, you vote until you drop.

If by drop you mean "achieve a majority". Otherwise, after you drop, you continue to vote.

Note: "Dropping" should not be confused with "obtaining the floor", even though... never mind.

[Guest God's Child]

This is an issue, not an election.

It is a special called meeting to specifically discuss one issue. We have been notified by mail, the issue has been presented, and the three choices listed. Can anything about this motion (that is coming out of committee) be revised at the meeting? My concern is changing the content and choices that were sent out by mail. Is it legal/ethical to change that at the meeting or does it have to go forward as presented by mail?

Is my best option to make a motion before the vote starts to postpone indefinitely and give my explanation during debate of what constitutes a majority and the mess we will be in if a majority is not reached on the first ballot?

[tctheatc]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see what you might be in as "a mess". You'd vote again.

What would "your explanation" of what a majority is entail? It ain't rocket surgery, it's pretty simple.

If your local procedures call for this type of a scenario, that is a vote on 3 choices, then I guess that's what you do. You'll get a (majority) winner.....eventually.

[hmtcastle]

Is it legal/ethical to change that at the meeting or does it have to go forward as presented by mail?

Changes that fall "within the scope of the notice" are permitted. Without knowing the exact wording of the notice, it's hard to be more specific.

Is my best option to make a motion before the vote starts to postpone indefinitely and give my explanation during debate of what constitutes a majority and the mess we will be in if a majority is not reached on the first ballot?

Postponing indefinitely essentially kills the question and would seem inappropriate, though not improper, at a special meeting since special meetings are called to address an issue that can't wait until the next regular meeting.

But not achieving a majority vote on the first ballot won't necessarily create a "mess". And you can avoid that problem altogether if, instead of voting on one of three choices, you "perfect" the main motion by the process described in the topic to which I provided a link.

[Gary Novosielski]

This is an issue, not an election.

It is a special called meeting to specifically discuss one issue. We have been notified by mail, the issue has been presented, and the three choices listed. Can anything about this motion (that is coming out of committee) be revised at the meeting? My concern is changing the content and choices that were sent out by mail. Is it legal/ethical to change that at the meeting or does it have to go forward as presented by mail?

Is my best option to make a motion before the vote starts to postpone indefinitely and give my explanation during debate of what constitutes a majority and the mess we will be in if a majority is not reached on the first ballot?

If it were an issue, rather than an "election" then the two possible votes would be Aye and No. So it's an election.

Your best possible option might be to raise a point of order that a motion on an issue may not present three possible choices and is therefore not in order.

Then study §12, Amend, to see how properly to handle the process of getting it into a form suitable for voting on. The motion coming out of committee is only a recommendation. You can and should make all the necessary repairs to it before voting on it.

[Josh Martin]

This is an issue, not an election.

We're going to need more information on the nature of these "options" to definitively answer your questions, although based on the facts provided, I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Mountcastle and Mr. Novosielski. It seems to me that the options are fully independent main motions, and if that is the case, "multiple-choice" voting is out of order.

[Guest God's Child]

We have never voted on anything like this before. On issues we either vote yes or no. A majority always wins or a tie occurs and the moderator breaks the tie. Even that never happens. There is always a majority.

Not this time. And this is a highly emotional issue.

Our choices are:

Yes without stipulation

Yes with one stipulation

No

The stipulation is extremely volatile.

I feel there will be a need to explain majority because there will be those that think the choice with the most votes wins. You and I know that is a plurality, not a majority.

I think we could vote for a week and never achieve a majority. What we will achieve is hurt feelings, anger, bitterness, and a split group.

That's why I am wondering if it would be best to make a motion to postpone indefinitely. This issue needs time and work.

[Josh Martin]

On issues we either vote yes or no.

And that is the proper procedure here as well.

.

Our choices are:

Yes without stipulation

Yes with one stipulation

No

The stipulation is extremely volatile.

This voting procedure is out of order. The proper procedure would be for someone to make the motion either with (or without) the stipulation, whichever he prefers. If another member wishes, he can move to amend the motion by adding (or removing) the stipulation. Other amendments would also be in order. The amendments would be voted on first - yes or no, majority vote rules. If the amendments are adopted, they are incorporated into the motion. The final motion as read (or as amended) would be voted on yes or no as well, majority vote rules.

I feel there will be a need to explain majority because there will be those that think the choice with the most votes wins. You and I know that is a plurality, not a majority.

Well, if you handle the motion properly you don't need to worry about that (this time).

That's why I am wondering if it would be best to make a motion to postpone indefinitely. This issue needs time and work.

You can make a motion to Postpone Indefinitely, Postpone Definitely, or Refer it back to committee if you like, but that may not be necessary if it's handled properly.

Can anything about this motion (that is coming out of committee) be revised at the meeting?

Unless a previous notice requirement is involved, yes, anything about the motion can be changed.

Is it legal/ethical to change that at the meeting or does it have to go forward as presented by mail?

It is proper to change it under RONR. Legal questions should be directed to a lawyer, and ethical questions are up to each member's conscience.

Is my best option to make a motion before the vote starts to postpone indefinitely and give my explanation during debate of what constitutes a majority and the mess we will be in if a majority is not reached on the first ballot?

Your best option is to make a Point of Order that voting in the way proposed is improper, and explain the proper procedure. After that's taken care of, you can move to Postpone Indefinitely if you want. No need to worry about the definition of majority as that pesky multiple choice voting will be eliminated if you follow proper procedure.

[hmtcastle]

Our choices are:

Yes without stipulation

Yes with one stipulation

No

The preferred method would be to first make the main motion. Then make a motion to amend it by adding the stipulation. The stipulation will either be accepted or rejected. Then you return to the consideration of the main motion, either in its original form or with the added stipulation.

[Gary Novosielski]

We have never voted on anything like this before. On issues we either vote yes or no. A majority always wins or a tie occurs and the moderator breaks the tie. Even that never happens. There is always a majority.

Not this time. And this is a highly emotional issue.

Our choices are:

Yes without stipulation

Yes with one stipulation

No

The stipulation is extremely volatile.

I feel there will be a need to explain majority because there will be those that think the choice with the most votes wins. You and I know that is a plurality, not a majority.

I think we could vote for a week and never achieve a majority. What we will achieve is hurt feelings, anger, bitterness, and a split group.

That's why I am wondering if it would be best to make a motion to postpone indefinitely. This issue needs time and work.

It's not in order to present a question in that form. You need to do one of two things:

1. Amend the motion first, to get it into the form most people want to vote on: I.e., move the motion without the stipulation; then have someone move to amend it by adding the stipulation, and see if the amendment is agreed to by a majority. Then, with the wording now decided, you vote Aye or No on the main motion.

-or-

2. Move the motion with no stipulation, and see if it passes. If it does, then you have your majority. If it does not, then move the motion with the stipulation, which (let us presume based on its controversial nature) presents a substantially different question to the assembly, and would therefore be in order, and see if it passes. If it does, you have your majority. If not, you have your "No".

The way your committee is proposing to vote is not in order, and I think you're beginning to see why.

[Josh Martin]

The preferred method would be to first make the main motion. Then make a motion to amend it by adding the stipulation. The stipulation will either be accepted or rejected. Then you return to the consideration of the main motion, either in its original form or with the added stipulation.

It's not just the preferred method, it is the only method which is on order. It is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that only one question can be considered at a time. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 56, lines 20-25)

[Gary Novosielski]

It's not just the preferred method, it is the only method which is on order. It is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that only one question can be considered at a time. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 56, lines 20-25)

Using the second method I proposed would not violate that principle, since only one question is being considered at a time. But I don't like it either. It depends heavily on exactly what this "stipulation" consists of, and whether it would truly present a substantially different question.

[Guest God's Child]

You guys are great.

Here's the problem. We are voting on whether to become involved in a program outside our organization.

Our choices are:

Yes, we want to be involved in the program and will include registered sex offenders.

Yes, we want to be involved in the program but we will not include registered sex offenders.

No, we do not want to be involved in the program.

Like I said, it's volatile.

Here's what I'm now thinking.

Amend the motion to be whether we will be involved with the program.

If the ayes are in majority, we make another motion on whether we include registered sex offenders.

If the noes are in the majority, there is no need for the another vote.

How's that?

[hmtcastle]

Here's what I'm now thinking.

Amend the motion to be whether we will be involved with the program.

If the ayes are in majority, we make another motion on whether we include registered sex offenders.

If the noes are in the majority, there is no need for the another vote.

How's that?

Make a (main) motion to be involved with the program excluding registered sex offenders. During debate, make a motion to amend that motion by changing "excluding" to "including". Debate and vote on the amendment. Then continue debating the main motion (either in its original form or as amended). Then vote on the main motion.

[Gary Novosielski]

You guys are great.

Here's the problem. We are voting on whether to become involved in a program outside our organization.

Our choices are:

Yes, we want to be involved in the program and will include registered sex offenders.

Yes, we want to be involved in the program but we will not include registered sex offenders.

No, we do not want to be involved in the program.

Like I said, it's volatile.

Here's what I'm now thinking.

Amend the motion to be whether we will be involved with the program.

If the ayes are in majority, we make another motion on whether we include registered sex offenders.

If the noes are in the majority, there is no need for the another vote.

How's that?

Not as good as doing it the way RONR specifies. Here's why:

If you do it this way, you're asking people to support the idea of being involved in the program before they can be sure what they're actually supporting. And that may make the difference to some, while others might support it either way, and still others don't want to be involved, no matter what.

The time-honored method in RONR solves that. First amend the motion so that it says what most people want it to say. They're not committing to support it during the amendment process, they're just voting on what the language of the motion ought to be. For all you know, during debate, someone will come up with a fantastic compromise or outside-the-box solution that nobody would have thought of. Don't be afraid of debate. Debate is your friend, and is the nursery of new ideas. Debate need not be divisive; properly handled, it is unifying. Concentrate on the task: to make the motion as good as you can make it before the final vote on it takes place.

Once perfected, everyone has a clear idea of what the motion is, and can decide whether to support it, or not. Either way, a majority will agree with the decision.

[Guest God's Child]

Got it, Mr. Mountcastle and I thank you. It finally makes sense.

Here is what I am going to try and do.

The motion will come out of committee that will include all three choices.

I will rise to a point of order because the motion deals with more than one issue.

I will then make a motion to become involved in the program without registered sex offenders.

During debate I will make a motion to amend and change "without" to "with".

Debate will occur on without or with and a vote will be taken on the amendment.

Then the main motion will be debated and voted on and the choice will be involvement in the program according to the result of the amendment (with or without RSOs) or not being involved in the program at all.

How's that?!

[jstackpo]

Getting closer...

The critical item is the form that the motion has when it comes out of committee. If the committee has been assigned (in the motion that established the committee) the job of producing a (new-?) motion, then what the committee moves will be what you will have to work with subsequently.

OTOH, if the committee makes some sort of fuzzy recommendation saying "pick one", or the like, then your way will work.

Maybe you can get to a committee meeting and try, after some parliamentary education, to get the members to propose a motion in the simple form: "On behalf of the committee, I move that the [blank] association become involved with [whatever], excluding sex offenders". In the committee report, the committee could explain that an amendment to strike out "excluding" and insert "including" would be perfectly proper but the committee felt that the motion with "excluding" was the best way to start the discussion.

[Josh Martin]

I will then make a motion to become involved in the program without registered sex offenders.

During debate I will make a motion to amend and change "without" to "with".

This doesn't make any sense. You should make the motion you are in favor of, and someone else can move to amend it if he wants to.

Although I agree with Dr. Stackpole that it would be preferable if the committee actually provided a recommendation in proper form.

[David A Foulkes]

I will then make a motion to become involved in the program without registered sex offenders.

During debate I will make a motion to amend and change "without" to "with".

This doesn't make any sense. You should make the motion you are in favor of, and someone else can move to amend it if he wants to.

Well, I think it makes sense in a way. Our poster is simply trying to do all the steps required to make sure they get done (and hopefully) right. It may not be advisable, sure, but is there anything that prevents the maker of a main motion from making a motion to amend his own motion? (perhaps a footnote I missed? )

[hmtcastle]

This doesn't make any sense. You should make the motion you are in favor of, and someone else can move to amend it if he wants to.

I'm afraid my simplified explanation of the process may have suggested that the OP should be making all these motions. As noted, the motion might come out of a committee report but, in any case, it would not be improper, or even unlikely, for the same person to make the main motion and also, after being persuaded by the ensuing debate, to make a motion to substantially amend it. That might even convince others of the willingness of some members to compromise. In fact, it could even be a pre-meditated political strategy. "Wow, if Joe is willing to compromise on this issue -- and he's the one who made the motion -- maybe we should give this idea a chance."

[Dan Honemann]

I'm afraid my simplified explanation of the process may have suggested that the OP should be making all these motions. As noted, the motion might come out of a committee report but, in any case, it would not be improper, or even unlikely, for the same person to make the main motion and also, after being persuaded by the ensuing debate, to make a motion to substantially amend it. That might even convince others of the willingness of some members to compromise. In fact, it could even be a pre-meditated political strategy. "Wow, if Joe is willing to compromise on this issue -- and he's the one who made the motion -- maybe we should give this idea a chance."

In a case such as this, it would be best for the maker of the main motion to request leave to modify it (see RONR, 10th ed., p. 283-2287).

[David A Foulkes]

(see RONR, 10th ed., p. 283-2287).

Which is one of the longest sections in The Book. Better put a pot on.