[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [atlarge-discuss] The Rights and Responsibilities of Voting...
Folks -
...I tire of being told what I've said, when what I am told is not what
I said. If I have not said enough to be understood - ask me what I mean,
don't presume to tell me.
I also tire of incidents being restated as absolutes - if I mean always or
never, I will say so.
And, when I see a negative - I tend to respectfully not rub it in
someone's face - even though being circumspect does require all-parties
cooperation...
Now as an intro to my comments, trying to get us on the same page...
An election process to work as it could and should, requires all aspects
of the process to function on an at-least-acceptable basis. When one
aspect does not, it is prudent to "fix" it before moving forward. When
that does not happen, it is necessary to ensure the remaining steps, pick
up the slack as it were.
We decided to elect 11.
When we saw most of us declining a nomination, the last thing we should
have done is move forward, not changing anything.
That is what we did.
When we saw the bulk of any group-of-11 being unknown to us, the last
thing we should have done is move forward, not changing anything.
That is what we did.
We now find ourselves with the need to obtain enough information about the
(at least the 11) candidates in order to vote for the 11 candidates we
would elect to our Panel. The last thing we should do, is not do what the
process, as it has proceeded, "demands" we do in order to ensure we elect
the 11 people we believe best suited to move us forward.
To do anything less, is to not fulfill the obligations our voting process,
as we have allowed it to progress, requires of us
On Tue, 27 May 2003, Ron Sherwood wrote:
> I am sorry that you feel my unwillingness to treat this election as a
> game of roulette is "shameful". I do not feel ashamed.
...not what I said or meant
> I am concerned that as of election day, only 7 candidates had posted to
> this list (other than a nomination acceptance) and that sixteen of the
> candidates have never posted at all.
...so am I, which is why the voting should have been put on hold, or,
which if not held, means each and every one of us has our work cut out for
us.
> How can I, or anyone else, know how those candidates feel about the
> issues that we are to address?
...that is what the pre-vote proceses are for, or in our case should
have been. Since we allowed ourselves to be moved forward without being
given enough information, it is now our responsibility to get it on our
own. Part of the cost of this process...
> Why should I throw my vote onto the table and let it fall where it may?
...not what I said, not what I meant
> That would not only be grossly irresponsible, but it would counter any
> effort that you, or others, may make to visit with, or research, or get
> to know any of the potentially good people who have, for whatever
> reason, failed to post their platform to the discuss list.
...we agree
> Voting does have its responsibilities, and one of them is to vote one's
> conscience. My conscience tells me that it is not a good thing to
> damage your valuable research by gambling with 11 votes, just because I
> can.
...we agree, one should not vote on a whime, on a bet, gambling.
> If I read your message correctly, it is one's responsibility to
> diligently research everything about every candidate in order to know
> which 11 to choose.
...as we have allowed this process to proceed, and without changing
the remaining process procedures, in a word - yes. To do otherwise is to
lessen the results of the process. I do not want, nor think I should be
required, to do this work. Apparently I am in the minority as we, all of
us, allowed the process to continue such that we now find ourselves in the
position we do.
> And then, whether you think the candidates suitable or not, to choose 11
> anyway. Failing that one should not vote at all. (Your words).
...not my words - my words, left in context, were "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." The
operative phrases here being "...knowingly vote for 11...in our
organization as we have (allowed) the process (to progress)" Yes, my
initial use of "defined" was poor.
> Well, Walter, I am sure you have done all of the above, but it may well be
> that you are the only one of our 1000 members who has done that. Does that
> mean that the rest of us should not vote? How sad if the other 999 (or any
> small number of them) were to play roulette with their votes, as you
> suggest, and render worthless all of your hard work. I choose not to do that
> to you.
...not what I said, not what I meant, clearly not circumspect, I
believe you were being sarcastic (am I right?), but let's work with that
anyway!
If out of 1,000 votes, only one member felt comfortable enough with the
work done, either by the process itself or by the effort they, themselves,
undertook, to knowingly-vote for 11 candidates - if that was the case -
then perhaps my comments of Tue, 13 May, should be re-visited - to
paraphrase:
"But he has nothing on at all, said a little child at last...But he has
nothing on at all, cried at last the whole people...And (yet) they walked
with still greater dignity, as if they carried the train WHICH DID NOT
EXIST..."
--
--- REgards, walts@dorsai.org Walter C. Schmidt, IT CPA Blue(^) ---
- - Microsoft MVP - Windows XP Media Center Edition - HPMC 873n ---
- - Associate Expert - Expert Zone - -
--- http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/ ---
- - http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/columns/schmidt/ ---
- - 52 Ken http://www.dorsai.org/~walts/ Sun 57 - -
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de