Parliamentary Motions

Here are the parliamentary motions which a council can require on its full-choice preference ballots: A) Continue Discussion, B) No Change, C) The Main Motion, D) Amended Versions of the main motion, and E) Divide the Question to simplify a motion.

Including all of these motions on one ballot speeds voting.  It also reduces parliamentary maneuvers that block the majority's will such as poison-pill amendments or requiring a particular option to win a majority against all others put together.  But it does not reduce the need for discussion or change the rules and order of discussion for parliamentary motions.

A vote to omit the "no change" option from the ballots unfairly puts one policy, the status quo, against all rivals at once, not one at a time.  On the other hand, super-majority rules such as consensus unfairly aid whatever policy happens to be the status quo -- which may have evolved by chance, by managerial fiat or by accommodation to past conditions. 

Such bias should be given only to preserving a constitution.  To amend a constitution through the Pairwise Condorcet rule, a proposal needs a majority over each rival proposal and a super majority of 60% to 75% over the status quo's "No change" option. 

The misuse of the U.S. Senate's filibuster (cloture) rule exposes the danger inherent in super-majority rules that give policy-setting power to minority groups.  It requires a 2/3 vote to end discussion and was intended to protect the right of minority legislators to speak out on major ethical issues.  Unfortunately it was misused in the 1990s to prevent votes on minor policies, appointments and budgets.

Motions to delay a decision are common in legislative discussions.  But a simple majority should have the power to strike those options from the full-choice preference ballot.  That makes a deadlock impossible unless a majority explicitly allows it.

Motions to delay include: F) Table the Proposal blocks discussion until a motion to Take from Table passes, G) Postpone to a Definite Time delays debate to allow further study, H) Refer to Committee should require the committee to study and report, and I) Postpone Indefinitely prevents voting but allows discussion.

The parliamentary Motion To Table a bill poses a great dilemma in democratic decision making.  As stated in Robert's Rules of Order:

“The Object of this motion is to enable the assembly, in order to attend to more urgent business, to lay aside the pending question in such a way that its consideration may be resumed at the will of the assembly as easily as if it were a new question, and in preference to new questions competing with it for consideration.  It is to the interest of the assembly that this object should be attained instantly by a majority vote, and therefore this motion must either apply to, or take precedence of, every debatable motion whatever its rank.

“It [the Motion To Table] is not debatable, and requires only a majority vote, notwithstanding the fact that if not taken from the table the question [main motion] is suppressed.  These are dangerous privileges which are given to no other motion whose adoption would result in final action on a main motion.  There is a great temptation to make an improper use of them, and lay questions on the table for the purpose of instantly suppressing them by a majority vote, instead of using the Previous Question, the legitimate motion to bring the assembly to an immediate vote.  The fundamental principles of parliamentary law require a two-thirds vote for every motion that suppresses a main question for the session without free discussion.  The motion to lay on the table being not debatable, and requiring only a majority vote, and having the highest rank of all subsidiary motions, is in direct conflict with these principles, if used to suppress a question.  If habitually used in this way, it should, like the other motions to suppress without discussion, require a two-thirds vote.”

Tabling lets the council move to a more urgent question.  As soon as they resolve it, the previously tabled question should again be the question before the council.

We can balance majority and minority rights in the discussion: a motion may not be tabled forever over the wishes of a substantial minority, and it cannot be discussed forever over the wishes of a majority; they can move the Previous Question.

These rules prevent reps from avoiding an issue and force them to vote, even if they vote for the "No Change" option or for insignificant change.

Rob's Rules of Order

Tables 1, 2 and 3

Order of Precedence is shown with the dominant motions listed highest.  A new motion may be discussed if its precedence is higher than the current discussion.

Discussion of a motion ends when its allotted time expires, or when a majority of members turn their debate cards from green to red.  All motions on a table may be ranked at once on a full-choice ballot after the table's lowest motion has been discussed.

Members can rank all of a table's motions and their amendments on one ballot.

"Majority" here means a majority over each option on the ballot.  If none of them wins each of its Pairwise contests, then the council has three options:  They may continue discussion.  They may vote for a delay such as "refer to committee" . They may use a Condorcet-completion rule such as Loring One-winner Rule.

Section numbers on the right refer to Robert's Rules of Order.

Tables 4 and 5

Tables 4 and 5 list motions which have no order of precedence.

Discussion of a motion ends when its allotted time expires, or when a majority of the members turn their cards from green to red.  All motions on a table may be ranked at once on a full-choice ballot

Next: full-choice ballots and software to help voters rank combinations of amendments.