Strategic use of motions

__NOTOC__Strategic use of motions, in parliamentary procedure, is intended to accomplish results beyond the stated and obvious purpose of the motion.

Examples

Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR)

An example is using the motion to postpone indefinitely in order to enable members who have exhausted their right of debate on the main question an opportunity to speak further and to test the strength of opposition to the question, [cite parl|title=RONR|edition=10th|pages=123] since straw polls are not in order. [RONR (10th ed.), p. 415] Another example of strategic use of motions is moving to reconsider in order to "clinch" a decision on the primary motion and prevent its reconsideration later, since a failed motion to reconsider cannot be reconsidered without unanimous consent. [RONR (10th ed.), p. 309] Since it is not possible to amend an amendment to an amendment, [RONR (10th ed.), p. 126] a member desiring to prevent amendments to his proposed language can do so by including it in a secondary amendment.

Other examples

Another parliamentary maneuver, which has been used in the United States Senate, is the so-called "nuclear option" in which a majority sidesteps the two-thirds vote requirement to suspend the rules by raising a point of order in favor of their favored interpretation of the rules, followed by an appeal in which the interpretation is then imposed by a majority vote. [cite web |url=http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/05/12/nuclear_option_primer/ |title=Everything you wanted to know about the "nuclear option" |accessdate=2008-04-13 |author= |last=Grieve |first=Tim |date=May 12, 2005|publisher=Salon.com ] [cite web |url=http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislative_issues/federal_issues/hot_issues_in_congress/confirmation_watch/nuclear_option.htm |title=The ‘Nuclear Option’ |accessdate=2008-04-13 |author= |last= |first= |date=Oct 23, 2002|publisher=CFIF.org ]

References