Re: [atlarge-discuss] The Rights and Responsibilities of Voting...

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: Walter Schmidt <walts@dorsai.org>
To: Atlarge Discuss List <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Cc: Walter Schmidt <walts@dorsai.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 12:56 PM
Subject: [atlarge-discuss] The Rights and Responsibilities of Voting...


>
> On Mon, 26 May 2003, Ron Sherwood wrote:
>
> > Walter Schmidt wrote:
> >
> > > From my point of view, if you do not vote for 11, and vote (say) for
> > > only four, all you are doing is letting someone else determine who are
> > > the "other 7"
> > >
> > > The concept of a "bullet vote" sounds like a concept one might foist
> > > on a group in an attempt to "steal the majority" of seats.
> >
> > Exactly, Walter:
> >
> > If there are 100 candidates, 90 of whom I do not know enough about to
> > want them to represent me on our Panel, why would you want me to damage
> > your chance if electing a candidate that YOU want to be on the Panel,
> > simply because I am expected to vote for 11 people?
>
>    ...Again, I am not a statistician...
>
> You have 11 votes - if you use only 4 (keeping with my original example),
> you allow others to have a "louder" voice which could result in 4 people
> getting 150 votes and 7 getting 2 - all elected.
>
> I believe we also differ on the responsibilities that go along with the
> right to vote - read on...
>
> > You may really want # 99 but I, and possibly a few others, may vote for
> > #98, not because we think she is the right person but because you feel
> > that we have to vote for 11 candidates.
>
>    ...not what I am suggesting, and not something I would ever recommend
>
> > That my friend is democracy.
>
>    ...no it's not - it's the lazy persons way around doing what is
> "required" - exercising not just the right, but also the responsibilities
> of voting - again read on
>
> > Please explain to me how this could possibly amount to "stealing the
> > majority of seats".
>
>    ...first let's talk about the responsibilities associated with the
> right to vote.
>
> The "right to vote" is not just the voting, but includes the whole
> process. We decided to elect 11. We used a process that did not provide
> most of us with 11 "known-or-recommended names" - shame on us.
>
> I, as a voter with 11 votes and as part of the organization which has
> allowed itself to be in this situation, now have the responsibility to do
> what I must to "know" enough about 11 candidates to vote for them. Yes,
> that means work on my part - searches, reading, etc. Do I want to do this,
> no. But, my right to vote includes certain responsibilities - if I do no
> care to vote responsibly, I should not vote at all.
>
> One of these responsibilities, in our organization as we have defined the
> process, is to knowingly vote for 11 candidates - to do less, by one's
> actions or lack of action, is to fail in one's
> right-to-vote-responsibilities, ...
>
>    ...and shame on you!
>
> --
>
>  ---  REgards, walts@dorsai.org  Walter C. Schmidt, IT CPA  Blue(^) ---

I disagree on this point, Walter!

Suppose the candidates for a 4 member panel were: Mr Faithful AtLarger,
Adolf Hitler, Mussolini, PolPot, Idi Amin.

Personally I would just vote for ONE person, and that would be the
AtLarger... and then I'd orchestrate the membership to revolt, reject the
election, or unilaterally start a new and separate organisation.

I could never cast my vote for someone I thought obnoxious or unacceptable.
This would be to grant them legitimacy that they should never receive.

My hope in this election is that people only vote for candidates that they
trust and believe in (hopefully with some evidence to support their choices,
rather than arbitrarily).

My hope is that those candidates who might get elected by default will get
so few votes that they are recognised as having no credibility, and then I
hope the membership is polled on whether they (a) do, or (b) do not want
that member to take up their position.

The irony of this election is that if you listed all the candidates and
asked members to tick or cross who they would actually like to be on the
panel representing them, it is possible that only a handful of candidates
would receive more ticks than crosses.

The problem with just voting for 11 to 'fill up the spaces' is that you risk
endorsing a process which perhaps needs to be challenged later.

I'm not "wishing" this election process to fail.

But the outcome is in question, and there are options afterwards to (a)
challenge the elected candidates via a poll (b) set up an alternative
emergency committee (c) set about creating another organisation.

If we don't come to this - then fine. If this panel is a triumphant
success - then fine. But it's equally fine to try a number of parallel
approaches and just see which ones work.

I personally appreciate the dogged and determined way Jefsey has worked
tirelessly to push this organisation and this election forward. But I'm not
yet sure the process will achieve an acceptable or productive result.

I believe we need to define the mandate for this panel much more precisely,
and I think it should be the membership which defines it (through the
Polling Booth). I also believe the membership should insist on a Veto to any
panel decisions or actions. I believe the membership should have the right
to say: "More people DON'T want this candidate than DO" - and should have
the right to remove a Panel Member, if more people vote for such an action
via the Poll than voted for the candidate in this election.

If a panelist only gets 20 votes, and 25 people in the Polling Booth vote
against this panelist, then I think there is more evidence that the panelist
is not representative than that he/she is representative.

Richard H



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de