What should the chairman declare if a member calls for a Division when a voice vote shows an obvious majority?

When a member calls for a Division after a voice vote has demonstrated an obvious majority, the chairman should consider the context and rules governing such situations. Declaring the call for Division as dilatory is appropriate because a Division is typically a request for further scrutiny when the results of the voice vote are unclear or disputed. If the majority is evident, the chairman can assert that the call is unnecessary and essentially a delay to the process, which is why it is considered dilatory.

In parliamentary procedure, a division is intended to ensure accuracy in votes when there are questions about the outcome. If the voice vote clearly indicates a majority, proceeding with a Division can disrupt the flow of the meeting and prolong the process needlessly. Thus, stating that the call for Division is dilatory effectively communicates that the meeting can move forward based on the evident outcome of the voice vote.