Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Parliamentary law and Roberts rules of order

hierophant

hierophant

I would thou could'st
★★
Joined
Nov 25, 2023
Posts
651

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2tvQVdk96A





View: https://youtu.be/fm4hxh3_19o?si=4GdMiFLAnPzTFOe6


The fundamental principles​

1. Only one subject may claim the attention of the assembly at one time. — The reason for such a principle is evident. Experience has proved that an individual cannot consider two unrelated ideas at one time; that it requires effort to concentrate on even one thought. Naturally then, an organization that is composed of a number of persons finds considerable difficulty in centering its attention upon the one subject before it. If several subjects were allowed to come before the assembly at once, such confusion would result that it would be impossible to transact business. Therefore, the presiding officer and the members must be constantly on the alert to guard against infraction of the principle of “one thing at a time.”

2. Each proposition presented for consideration is entitled to full and free debate. — Before any question is put to a deciding vote, the proponents of that motion must be given a fair opportunity to present the merits of the proposition; the opponents also must be given a fair opportunity to present the faults of the measure. If a motion’s right to full and free debate is violated by another motion suppressing or limiting debate, reason would indicate that the infringing motion must gain the right to interference by more than a majority vote.

Free debate may be prevented not only by the presentation by members of motions that suppress discussion, but it is sometimes unduly shortened by the desire of a chairman to accomplish business with rapidity. Neither chairman nor members should interfere with the right of a proposition to full and free debate except under unusual circumstances.

3. Every member has rights equal to those of every other member. — This principle of equality is the foundation of a democracy. Just as each citizen of the United States has rights equal to those of any other citizen, so every member of an organization has an equal right to propose motions, to enter into the discussion, to vote, or to exercise any of the rights conferred upon him by membership.

4. The will of the majority must be carried out, and the rights of the minority must be preserved. — When a proposition is presented to an assembly, a majority (that is, at least one more than half) of the members voting will either support or oppose it. Frequently a smaller group known as the minority may hold the view opposite to that of the majority. In such a case the question naturally arises as to the respective rights of the two opposing groups. This question may be answered by a further comparison between membership in an assembly and in a democracy. In becoming a member of a democracy an individual agrees, in return for his privilege of voting, to abide by any decision that a majority of the members shall make. In an assembly, likewise, the majority has the right to decide what the action of the entire assembly shall be and the right to have its decision carried out by every member of the organization. The minority; on the other hand, always has the right to be heard and sometimes the right to prevent immediate action upon the proposition before the organization.

5. The personality and desires of each member should be merged into the larger unit of the organization. — Individual members have ideas and desires that they wish the assembly to follow. If each member were to spend his energy in attempting to carry out his own ideas and wishes and in opposing the desires of others, the resultant lack of harmony would greatly impair the ability of the assembly to: transact business. The individual should not consider primarily his own wishes, but rather the aims and the best interests of the assembly as a whole. When a person acts as an individual, he may carry out his own ideas, at least in so far as he does not interfere with the rights of any one else, but when he is acting as a member of a group, he should act with that group in whatever way the majority may decide. His duty as a member is similar to that of a player in a football game. If John Smith is playing fullback, it is his duty to use all his skill and ability in executing the maneuvers of the team as a unit, rather than in performing extraordinary feats to make himself a star.

The five foregoing principles form the foundation upon which the whole structure of parliamentary procedure is built. From these fundamental principles many rules have been derived. These need not be memorized, because if the principles are thoroughly understood, the rules based upon them and easily deduced from them merely require explanation.



(side quotations)

"if you do not know your rights, you have no rights"

"You must know the rules in order to enforce them"​
 
Last edited:
Are you trying to take @PPEcel ‘s place?
 
I see, a shame he is gone now.
He’ll always be with us
F4785BE1 E8F5 4107 A892 39C1E44063D4
 
Mhm, in relation to the thread have you any opinions?
I’m curious what the point of the post was. Like what am I supposed to take from it?
 
I’m curious what the point of the post was. Like what am I supposed to take from it?
To wet the apatite of someone new and or find those with similar desire to want to learn this topic and to inspire discussion.
 
Last edited:
To wet the apatite of someone new and or find those with similar desire to want to learn this topic and to inspire discussion.
Fair enough. Most of these seemed pretty obvious, except the 5th.
 
I'm interested, could you explain more on the matter?
“The individual should not consider primarily his own wishes, but rather the aims and the best interests of the assembly as a whole.”

The parliamentary system in Canada always has the party going along with whatever the party leader says. There can be no difference of opinion pretty much, or they’ll get booted. This is even worse than a republic system like the US imo, which gives minority positions in the party a more individual voice. Of course both of these ignore what the people actually want.
 
“The individual should not consider primarily his own wishes, but rather the aims and the best interests of the assembly as a whole.”

The parliamentary system in Canada always has the party going along with whatever the party leader says. There can be no difference of opinion pretty much, or they’ll get booted. This is even worse than a republic system like the US imo, which gives minority positions in the party a more individual voice. Of course both of these ignore what the people actually want.
Very well said, if you have any resources on the matter that I can read upon and or more examples I'd be happy to have them and hear more of what you have to say.
 
Very well said, if you have any resources on the matter that I can read upon and or more examples I'd be happy to have them and hear more of what you have to say.
Honestly I don’t jfl. I just know the difference here cause I’m from Canada and because everyone here pays more attention to American politics than our own due to media sensationalization.
 
Why was OP banned ?
 

Similar threads

Raider919
Replies
6
Views
148
Raider919
Raider919
RealSchizo
Replies
17
Views
352
Lonelyus
Lonelyus
Spooky_Heejin
Replies
40
Views
298
Spooky_Heejin
Spooky_Heejin

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top