[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [atlarge-discuss] ...the last several days' posts

Thursday, August 08, 2002 * 7:36 PM EDT USA

Richard and Everyone:

First, your response to my post is the first I am seeing of my post in terms of forwards from the list I have received since I made the post. At the same time a subsequent post ("Point of information re list moderator...") has made it to my list in-box. Truly curious.

Frankly, by this point I don't know what posts I am receiving and what posts I am not.

At 06:08 PM 8/8/2002, Richard Henderson wrote:

Thank you very much for publishing your resume at the Forum, Joe.
Thank you for reading it, and so thoroughly as to notice the most important thing in it so far as I am concerned.

Maybe you should volunteer to work on a Task Group on verification? (Maybe
you feel your gifts are better used elsewhere!)
Indeed I would be interested in such a Task Group, any matters related to the electoral process. Consider me volunteered, and direct me.

A big issue, as far as I see it, is: how do you involve as many as possible,
while still protecting the integrity of democratic processes in an online
environment.
It will be our task to answer that question, with the responsive help of the whole membership who will know the unique abilities and difficulties of their constituents in satisfying any requirements we may consider to bring integrity to the process.

I think we need some lateral thinking here. I think we may need to think
along the lines of multiple ways of verifying member identity.

Agreed.


But we cannot afford the equivalent of a late ballot box arriving at a
re-count with the seals already broken.
Indeed we cannot.

Necessarily omitted (for brevity) from my resume in that regard are some extremely salient and apropos details:

The presiding judge at the recount was also the President Judge of the county, and Chairman of the County Democratic Party. HE did not object to the unsealed ballot box, when he was obliged to and call for a new election.

Of course my opponent's counsel did not raise the matter, not only my own appointed counsel -- both sworn Officers of The Court. So much for the LAW, and the rule of it.

Worst of all I did not object. I was still a wet-behind-the-ears gay kid who at the time felt he didn't deserve better and was too exhausted from the long fight and lacking in sufficient courage to protest. I should have.

The good news is that I am mostly all grown up now. :-)

What I did do, the good that came of it at the time, was notice that the local Judge of Elections had a legal conflict of interest. I petitioned the court to vacate the position and appoint me to the position. Over the next two years I proceeded to re-train the entire board and oversee the elections. This was still at the at of 21.

Out of my experience I was therefore NOT surprised -- excuse my colorful but I think accurate characterization here -- at the crowning achievement of the U.S. Supreme in appointing and crowning King George II of America.

That Florida would figure in the problem did not surprise me either given my last political activities and experience there.

Regards... /s/ Joey