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

RE: [atlarge-discuss] Re http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-panel/0209/msg00035.html

At 03:52 PM 9/5/2002 -0400, Joanna Lane wrote specifically [enitirety below]:
I don't follow the logic. Why would members be more concerned that an elected panel member know their vote than an ordinary member who is not elected?
I believe the matter of being elected to the panel in this case is irrelevant to our members. What is relevant is “trusteeship,” which can be vested, is being vested in two non-panel members as it is under your proposal.

The particular problem for people with a panel member being able to ID any given voter associated with their vote(s) is a fear of reprisal should their vote be contrary to their perception of the assigned panel members preference in the vote.

At first blush this may seem ridiculous, but I assure it is not. Real or imagined most people have such fears and hence the sacredness of secret vote. In our world as it is today, “trust us” is not good enough anymore. Trust will have to be hard fought and hard won every step of the way. Each of us are called upon to prove ourselves every step of the way, the price of “honor” has been so devalued. We have been off the “gold” standard for some time.

As we have witnessed in our most recent U.S. elections even secret voting can be rendered impotent and disenfranchising. I do not expect Western World non-Americans to have any sense of the level of mistrust and fear of our own election process that has resulted.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, you or any member of the panel can say or do presently that will convince AtLarge-average-member-voter that knowledge of their particular vote will be “safe” in your hands. There just isn’t.

This is in no way a reflection on the panel. You are correct that it would seem logical, its having been just recently elected to serve the members, that if anyone were “vested” with responsibility for this vote it is the panel. And the panel is.

Presently as logic fails us, we are as always left to our more primitive but no less valuable emotional devices.

I believe the reasonable, even if fear driven, expectation is the delegation by the panel of the actual vote counting to trusted non-panel members.

My last point is this. In the real world appearances and perceptions have become the “everything.” Caesar’s wife could not meet today’s tests of virtue. Take that one tiny step further, into our virtual world, and even appearances and perceptions cannot be relied upon. And yet we struggle, infinitesimal steps at a time, to build forms and structures, not to mention people, of integrity, safety and security to serve us.

How do the electorate benefit from elected representatives being deliberately denied access to information about the will of those who elected them?
I would have to say I’m not sure I understand your point here.

In what way are the panelists denied access to knowledge of the will of members who elected them in this vote if the vote receipt and counting is delegated to trusted non-panel members who report the results of the vote to the members and panel? The only thing that will be denied the panel member(s) is particular knowledge of how any given member voted, which is I believe what members want to deny knowledge of to any panel member(s).

/s/ Joey

Friday, September 06, 2002 * 7:06 PM EDT USA

At 03:52 PM 9/5/2002 -0400, Joanna Lane wrote in its enitirety:

Comments interspersed below.
Joanna

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joey Borda **star*walker** [mailto:starwalker@gay.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 9:37 AM
> To: Joanna Lane; atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de
> Subject: [atlarge-discuss] Re
> http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-panel/0209/msg00035.html
>
>
> Joanna et al:
>
> The subject heading of this post is incorporated here by reference. See
> http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-panel/0209/msg00035.html.
>
> To quote and comment Re said subject:
>
> >POLLING OFFICERS Ordinary Member: Bruce Young At Large Watchdog: Walter
> >Schmidt Panel Member: Joanna Lane (or substitute volunteer if available)
>
> The panel could also appoint another trusted designee in place of a panel
> member should the idea of a panel member(s) being in receipt of
> ballots not
> be acceptable to the panel.
>
> This might be particularly appropriate to address “privacy of the
> ballot,”
> “privacy of the vote,” “privacy of the voter” concerns being raised in
> posts subsequent to the one being addressed here and which I
> would share on
> the whole.
>
> I can just imagine member concerns that any particular panel
> member(s) not
> know how they voted, and I believe that would be a legitimate concern.

I don't follow the logic. Why would members be more concerned that an
elected panel member know their vote than an ordinary member who is not
elected? How do the electorate benefit from  elected representatives being
deliberately denied access to information about the will of those who
elected them?

And aside from that political issue, there is a utility issue - keeping the
lines of communication open to the Panel - someone involved in the count
needs to have posting privileges to the Panel list to keep the rest of us
updated on any difficulties that may arise. Were this a vote on the
selection of the Panel members themselves, of course that raises a conflict
of interest issue, but on this vote, I just don't get it.

>
> Each of the ballot-receipt trustees need to pledge in post statements to
> this list their oaths signifying they will not disclose TO ANYONE, except
> each other, the contents of any ballots other than the votes themselves!

That goes without saying, but for the avoidance of doubt, I pledge.

> The votes should also be presented to the membership in their “raw” form*
> along with the tabulated totals. Interested members will be able
> to compute
> the final totals and members’ selected choice for themselves for
> comparison
> with the ballot receivers.

This is dependant upon voluntary effort - it's no small job to comply with
this request. All email addresses must be stripped from any "raw" data,
together with a direct correlation between a member's name and the vote they
cast. What I would hope to see is a list of names of those who actually cast
a vote, although I would not expect to see a list of those who did not cast
a vote.
>
> Spreadsheets anyone?

I suggest you talk to Walter Schmidt, he's the spreadsheet King...:-)
>
> >If a name is favored whereby all possible defensive registrations are
> >secured, the inclusion of the TLD is not as significant as a
> name that has
> >none of the other TLD versions available, in which case,
> reference to the
> >name without the TLD extension would point the casual observer
> to another
> >domain altogether.
>
> Point taken.
>
> >Note#5. The "Pros and Cons" suggested for inclusion in the ballot
> >represent opinions rather than facts. It would therefore not be
> >appropriate to include these opinions on the actual ballot paper, but
> >there may be other ways this information can be disseminated to the
> >electorate. Suggestions please.
>
> I would disagree in principle here, BUT do see an alternative for this
> occasion.
>
> My disagreement goes to our needing to grow sophisticated, if in fact we
> are not already and not merely in presumption, in our elections
> and balloting.

Let me narrow the area of disagreement to a hair's breadth. My objection is
not on principal but on procedure. We will still be here at Christmas trying
to agree the text of the ballot paper if it is to include opinions. As an
organization, I don't think we're suffiently mature on this occasion.

> The greatest number of our members I will wager do not have the time nor
> the inclination to follow the voluminous discussions and endless threads
> here on any given issue. I see no reason not to keep them enfranchised by
> summarizing issues PRO and CON right on a ballot!
>
> While democracy may challenge us to stay informed on issues one of the
> abuses of “democracy” is inundating, innocently or
> complicitously, citizens
> with gobbledeegook until they go away or fall asleep, and miss the actual
> voting entirely!
>
> This is unacceptable to me!
>
> Just as speeches are given in parliaments pro and con before
> every vote, so
> it could be in summary form on our balloting. Let the chief PRO proponent
> lead the “pro’s” in composing THE ballot pro statement, and the chief CON
> proponent lead the “con’s” in composing THE ballot con statement.
>
> I refuse to accept the all too easily and thoughtlessly held common view
> that the “average person,” the “reasonable person,” cannot intelligently
> vote on anything they have not dedicated umpteen hours of their lives to
> studying. This view is elitist and oligarchic.
>
> I volunteer to spearhead the alternative for this occasion I allude to
> above. I am prepared to accept exactly the kind of “PRO” and “CON”
> statements I describe above regarding each balloted name for
> publication of
> the most timely post to coincide with the issuance of the
> ballots, as well
> as repeated posting in advance.

Please do! We could also include a hyperlink from the ballot to a specific
section of the website forum dedicated to "Pros and Cons" to which you and
others may wish to post position statements. Please advise URL when you have
it.

>
> No member of this organization, unless they are truly already dead, will
> then have claim to have been uninformed of the “debate” on the various
> proposed names! Or in the affirmative, those that may wish to inform
> themselves will have a ready, easy, efficient mechanism for doing so!

Point taken.
Thanks you for your thoughtful response.
Joanna

>
> I call upon viewholders, in concert, to well-compose their views
> and E-mail
> them to me for assembly and timely publication, organized along the lines
> of my previously submitted sample ballot.
>
> /s/ Joey Bordo


>
> Thursday, September 05, 2002 * 9:34 AM EDT USA
>
>
> * Raw Form of IRV (i.e. & e.g.):
>
> ...Votes cast for/as.........[1]....[2]....[3]....[4]....[5]
> ...
> ... ATLARGE.ORG............20.....15.....30....05.....01
> ...
> ... ICANNATLARGE.ORG...05.....09.....15....10.....07
>
> ...and so on and so on...
>
> =====
> .........Everyone, PLEASE JOIN me and all our un-esteemed colleagues
> ............for purely mindless fun at Café ByteMe & Playground!
> ..
> ...........................--- Anytime at: ---
> ..
> ......................*** Café ByteMe & Playground ***
> ..
> ..............We serve the Best Beverages & Bytes on the planet!
> ...............................We never close!
> ................................You All Come!
> ..........."Non-sense" only spoken here -- THE Universal Language. ;-)
> ..
> Café Impressario & Maestro Joey Borda’s Yahoo!Messenger ID:
> starwalkeratgaydotcom
> ..
> .......http://groups.yahoo.com/group/InternetAtLarge_ByteMe_Cafe_P
layground/
.........http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WorldAtLarge_ByteMe_Cafe_Playground/
=====


----------
For those who insist homosexuals exist only to be cured,
Matthew Shepard has been "cured" -- Born 1976--Died 1998.

----------
"The opportunity to be threatened, humiliated and to live in
fear of being beaten to death is the only 'special right'
our culture bestows on homosexuals."

  - Diane Carman, Denver Post, October 10, 1998
God didn't make Adam & Steve!

----------