[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [atlarge-discuss] REPROT ON ELECTION AND RESULTS
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James S. Tyre [mailto:jstyre@jstyre.com]
> Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 2:47 PM
> To: Joanna Lane; A/S Mauro D. Ríos; Richard Henderson;
> atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de
> Cc: J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin
> Subject: RE: [atlarge-discuss] REPROT ON ELECTION AND RESULTS
>
>
> That's not correct, though it could be made correct in the future. This
> election was a bit odd in that, in addition to the voting for panelists,
> there were also a series of questions for the membership. So, in pure
> theory, one could have answered some or all of the questions
> without voting
> for any of the candidates. But there was no option to express "abstain"
> rather than voting for any candidate; and if memory serves (I'm not
> positive on this), there has been no "abstain" option on any prior Panel
> election we've had.
I agree with you, that's something to be addressed, but I thought your
strong objection was made in reference to internal Panel voting, whereby a
panelist is disqualified if they do not vote 3 times in succession or 75% of
all votes taken, and was not made in reference to membership votes or
questionnaires, which is a different topic. If memory serves, all panel
votes have included the abstain option, and if not, certainly could, which
would make your point mute, if not already. Correct?
Absentee panelists is a real and crippling problem - they (the Panelist)
have to be given some mechanism to keep moving forward. Reducing the quorum
is less preferable to the 3 strike rule in my book.
Joanna
>
> At 02:36 PM 6/1/2003 -0400, Joanna Lane wrote:
> > > -----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. -
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> James S. Tyre mailto:jstyre@jstyre.com
> Law Offices of James S. Tyre 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax)
> 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969
> Co-founder, The Censorware Project http://censorware.net
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de