Saturday, February 15, 2014

Proposal #12: Seconding Procedure for Motions

DRAFT This is a draft proposal which has not yet been voted on by the committee.

Proposed by Aaron Starr.

  • Problem: In groups of 12 to 50 or so, requiring a single second is usually effective to prevent frivolous motions from wasting everyone's time. However, in a group of 500 to 1000, one person invariably seconds every frivolous motion -- no matter how absurd.
  • Solution: Require a small number of the body to second a motion.
  • Benefits: Saves everyone time at each convention.

Footnote: "The requirement of a second is for the chair's guidance as to whether he should state the question on the motion, thus placing it before the assembly. Its purpose is to prevent time from being consumed by the assembly's having to dispose of a motion that only one person wants to see introduced." -- RONR (11th ed.) p. 36.

Convention Special Rules of Order of the Libertarian Party


  1. On all matters, except the retention of platform planks, the election of Party Officers and at-large members of the National Committee, and the nomination of Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates, voting will be by either voice vote or rising vote. If any delegate objects to the Chair's ruling on the outcome of a voice vote, a rising vote shall be conducted. If 20 or more delegates object to the Chair's ruling on the outcome of a rising vote, a counted vote will be held.
  1. Any motion from the floor shall be considered seconded only if 20 or more delegates second the motion.
[re-number subsequent clauses]


  • removed - red, strikethrough
  • added - blue, underline, italic


  1. Not certain, but would likely support.

  2. You may not want to set this number as 20. With the conduct of the LNC in recent years and the fact that there are affiliates considering leaving the organization, smaller conventions are to be the norm for the foreseeable future. You may want to make it a percentage.

    The Libertarian Party of Oregon has an unresolved legal dispute with the LNC Inc resulting from their hiring of the Oregon Republican Party’s Lawyer, then sponsoring his litigation against us to through signing a conflict of interest release in pursuing an agenda of replacing our state party leadership through a sponsored coup, initiated by officers of the LNC at the time and composed of current members of the bylaws committee. Further our delegation was not seated in 2012 due to a poisoned credentials committee which included several of the plaintiffs in the dispute and the Chairperson of the LNC at the time was willing to allow that committee to violate the bylaws and their authority under RROR at the Las Vegas Convention.

    You may consider my statements on this matter bias or experience depending on your disposition.