> -----Original Message-----
> From: James S. Tyre [mailto:jstyre@jstyre.com]
> Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] REPROT ON ELECTION AND RESULTS
>
>
> Absolutely opposed.
James,
Your point is mute because there is an "abstain" option in every vote.
Joanna
>
> It is one thing to put procedures in place to verify that
> "members" are in
> fact real people, etc., or to require Panelists to vote at least
> a certain
> percentage of the time.
>
> It is quite another to require members to vote or risk suspension. Using
> the most recent U.S. Presidential election as but one example, suppose I
> declined to vote for Bush, Gore, Nader or any other third party candidate
> because I was not comfortable voting in favor of any. Should I lose my
> right to vote in subsequent elections because I made a conscious
> choice not
> to vote for any rather than to vote for the least repugnant?
>
> It is telling that the voter turnout almost always is meaningfully higher
> in one party actual or virtual dictatorships than in (semi) democratic
> societies. If memory serves, didn't more than 90% vote in favor
> of Saddam
> when he last ran for "election?"
>
> In a semi-democratic society, the right *not* to vote, without
> repercussion, is, and should be, as sacred as the right, and the use of
> that right, to vote.
>
> I state this as a strongly held principled position. Who I voted for in
> this election is my business, but I did vote.
>
> At 02:47 PM 6/1/2003 -0300, A/S Mauro D. Ríos wrote:
> >Richard,
> >
> >Totally agree !!
> >
> >I would propose that the member that doesn't vote in the elections of a
> >Panel or he doesn't vote in three occasions where it is consulted to the
> >members, be suspended the membership.
> >
> >greetings,
> >Mauro.-
> >
> > ----- Mensaje original -----
> > De: Richard Henderson
> > Para: A/S Mauro D. Ríos ; atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de
> > CC: J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin
> > Enviado: domingo, 01 de junio de 2003 13:58
> > Asunto: Re: [atlarge-discuss] REPROT ON ELECTION AND RESULTS
> >
> >
> > Mauro
> >
> > I suspect the 1095 figure for our membership is a fantasy. A
> lot of people
> > just clicked to join once ages ago but have no further interest in the
> > organisation. We need to introduce a system of annual membership where
> > people are given 30 days notice of the expiry of their
> membership. That way
> > we will keep the *real* membership and contacts up to date. Clearly a
> > process of verification needs to accompany this, as I've little doubt
> > we are
> > infiltrated by 'spooks'.
> >
> > Something for the Membership and Verification Committee to consider?
> >
> > Richard
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: A/S Mauro D. Ríos <mdrios@adinet.com.uy>
> > To: Richard Henderson <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>
> > Cc: J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin <jefsey@club-internet.fr>
> > Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 5:47 PM
> > Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] REPROT ON ELECTION AND RESULTS
> >
> >
> > > Thank Richard.
> > >
> > > snip
> > >
> > > I continue thinking about the question that I made a lot of
> time ago:
> > > How legitimacy or does representativeness have a Panel chosen by 216
> > > voters of 1095 ?
> > >
> > > greetings
> > > Mauro. -