Redo

In Model UN and competitive debate, a redo is an informal term for re-running part of a session that did not go as the rules require. It is not a formal motion in most rulebooks; rather, it is a remedy a chair or dais grants when something has clearly gone wrong — a misread voting tally, a speaker cut off before time expired, a missed placard, a microphone failure, or a procedural step skipped (such as failing to call for points before moving to a vote).

Typical situations where a redo is requested include:

• Voting redos, when the chair miscounts placards, omits a delegation, or fails to ask for abstentions on a substantive vote.
• Speech redos, when a delegate's allotted time is cut short by a timer error or interruption not attributable to the speaker.
• Procedural redos, when a motion is processed out of order of precedence (for example, a motion to adjourn debate handled before a higher-ranking motion to close debate).

The delegate seeking the remedy typically raises a point of order under the conference's rules of procedure, identifies the specific defect, and asks the chair to revisit the action. The chair has discretion to grant or deny the request; rulings may be appealable depending on the rulebook (THIMUN, NMUN, Harvard, and AMUN procedures all handle appeals differently).

Redos are distinct from a division of the house (which re-examines a vote by requiring a recorded count rather than acclamation) and from reconsideration (a formal motion to revisit an already-adopted decision on its merits). A redo addresses how an action was conducted; reconsideration addresses what was decided.

Overuse of redo requests is generally discouraged, as chairs treat repeated procedural challenges as dilatory. Most experienced dais members will simply correct an obvious error on their own initiative without waiting for a point of order.