I am watching, live, the press conference from the canvassing committee in Florida, announcing the one percent recount results. The committee is apparently in session right now, and one of the members has moved for a full recount. The motion was seconded.
There has been much spirited discussion, and the chairman of the commitee is obviously pushing for an advisory opinion from the state.
Now, I think the idea of a 100% manual recount is madness.
However, I’m writing in the Pit now because the IDIOTS on this board apparently have no idea what Robert’s Rules of order are - even though they spent much time trying to pretend they did. One board member repeatedly called for the question - which she kept misstating as “Call for a vote.”
The chairman evidently didn’t know that a call for the question is a preferential, non-debatable motion. He kept trying to continue the debate. When the question has been called and seconded, you must immediately proceed to a vote on whether to, in fact, call the question. You cannot debate it. Eventually, through sheer tenacity on the part of the woman calling for the question, the chairman yielded and called for a vote - and the motion carried; there is evidently going to be a full recount.
That’s unfortunate - but what’s infuriating is the apparent ignorance of officials of the rules of order. How dare they take such jobs - and how dare someone else appoint them to such jobs - if they don’t know Robert’s Rules?
ARGH! Idiots! I am so tired of idiots! And I’m even more irked that the guy on my side of the issue was the biggest idiot!
Unless standing orders had been suspended sufficent to rule the question out of order after repeated procedural motions of this nature had failed. Or there had been a prior procedural motion that that particular speaker no longer be heard. Or… Nah, you’re probably right. People always seem to want to speak to the damn things.
I’ve been trying for a few years to get the people in my fraternity to actually learn the shit. I think all I’ve managed to accomplish is to annoy them a bit. No one cares about these sort of things. Before I graduate, I want to “object to consideration” of a matter, just to surprise people.
On the other hand, I doubt the Palm Beach County Election Election Canvassing Board has much experience conducting heated meetings on live national television at 2 AM surrounded by television crews and “interested parties” who all want to argue. It wasn’t until they actually voted that I realized that only three of the people there were on the board. Who the fuck was the guy telling the quiet woman what to do?
I could not make heads nor tails of who was who, or what was what. It was madness!
This will be a nightmare, to count ALL those ballots. It will take a long time! And of course, when you go through the ballots of one highly Democratic county with a fine-toothed comb - of course Gore will pick up more votes than Bush. It won’t be a truly “accurate” count of all of Florida, just a few selected highly Democratic counties. Which was the point all along.
I wish Bush had requested a hand vote on some highly Republican counties, to balance this whole “fine toothed comb” thing out. But he didn’t, so he didn’t. And that would just drag this torture out even longer…
I will note that their bylaws might not use or even mention “Roberts rules”, and if not, then they have no wieght. Note that both branches of Congress, and most Legislatures have their own rules of order. They rarely follow the “rules” for “calling the question”.
Bricker, I assume by your post, that you went on-line, and got a copy of that Boards Bylaws and saw that it says that they follow “roberts”- before you started calling them 'idiots". You mean you didn’t!?!. Noooo, would a poster jump to conclusions based on far too little info and a large load of arrogance here in the PIT!?! Never. :rolleyes:
It is not at all arrogant to assume that the disorganized collection of idiots that Bricker and I saw on television had no idea of what parliamentary procedure involved. Maybe they used rules other than Robert’s. From looking at the group in question, you’d have to try pretty hard to convince me that they actually wrote their own exceptions to Robert’s Rules.
In short, it’s obvious you didn’t watch the meeting in question, so why don’t you take your stupid fucking nitpicking criticism elsewhere.
Daniel, it is true that I was not specifically familiar with the board’s particular set of bylaws when I posted the OP. However, as waterj has pointed out, it was not a completely arbitrary assumption. Most organizations, even if they have overriding rules, say something along the lines of, “To the extent not addressed by these by-laws, Robert’s Rules of Order apply.”
Moreover, it’s difficult to imagine a set of rules under which the behavior seen on television that morning would have been correct.
Waterj - ref your desire to just once “object to the consideration” – one of my proudest moments was being at a state convention for the Knights, and hearing the chair rule “the nays have it,” when it was patently clear that the “ayes” had it. The parlimentarian announced that the chair would only entertain “proper” motions - obviously an effort to foreclose further discussion.
Weren’t they surprised when I rose to move for a division of the assembly.
But who’d a thunk there’d be such a clusterfuck? Roberts is the established rulebook. I’ve sat through too many meetings where “the rules” used (or ignored) in near comatose habit, but when push came to shove the parliamentarian was consulted.
It’s hard to imagine an analogous glare of hype, bright lights and hoopla. But damnit, you’re right: the procedure is tested and accepted.
One word: Filibuster- can’t have them, per se, under Roberts, but an established way of doing business in the Legislature.
water, I did see parts of that on replays on CNN or MsNBC. yes, they did seem confused. BUT- the bit about 'calling for the question" is not generally used in government bodies, as i have shown above.
It was obvious that the woman wanted her motion put to a vote, and the guy in charge was stalling because he disagreed. The Senate is an important deliberative body with a long history that has developed its own rulebook to cover its idiosyncracies. The Palm Beach County Elections Canvassing Board is not. The idea that there bylaws state that votes shall actually take place when the chair feels like it is absurd, as that is the sort of situation that parliamentary procedure was designed to avoid.
Filibustering is only found in the Senate, and not in the House of Representatives.
Bricker, I assume you got someone to be unsurprised enough to actually provide the necessary second for that. Here, we always do hand votes. I think every organization that isn’t strict with its following of the rules ends up with a couple people who consider their opinions to override the need for order and decorum.
Yes, I did - someone next to me asked, “What does that mean?” and I told him it meant that the chair would have to count votes rather than relying on yeas and nays, and then he seconded.
In general, it’s rare for the Knights to have contentious issues - easily 90% of the votes in the organization are unanimous. But where we do disagree… you’re quite right that we find people that are convinced their way to go is correct, and rules be damned.
In the Palm Beach case, my sympathies were with the chairman, who, as you suggest, was clearly stalling because he didn’t want the vote to happen – he kept talking about getting an advisory opinion. I, too, didn’t want the vote to happen, because I think recounting again and again is madness.
But he had no right to ignore parlimentary procedure just to get his desired result. And he had no business chairing the board if he didn’t know parlimentary procedure.
