[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [atlarge-discuss] REPROT ON ELECTION AND RESULTS
Dear James and All,
I don't know that experience lives or you share regarding the Democracy.
But in my country the vote is obligatory. If you don't like ANY candidate, you simply vote in blank.
I have already manifested before it. The vote should be obligatory for that you and the own leaders are right to be expressed, and if your expression is that you don't like NONE of the candidates, them and all the other members we are rights that is it. The silence is not good democratic expression, it is comfort and submission.
For example: Who President of DuckLand can be proclaimed if the one was chosen in an election where they voted only the 5% of the citizens and east President was chosen with 20% of 5%. It is shameful!. Representing to who it is??
In my country, if the votes in blank are many (I don't remember the %), the election is annulled and it summons an election again.
Of course that many citizens have justification for not voting, in my country there are many reasons: illness, to be outside of the country, to be invalid, to be old. Neither it is allowed people that have lost the reason to vote (for example sick mental), neither they are allowed to vote those that have lost their right temporarily: prisoners.
In @Large the exceptions can be many: illness, vacations, trip, disconnected of the net, participation in events representing to the organization, etc., etc., etc.
In my opinion if the vote is not obligatory or at least not defined a way of "pain" (it is not the best word) if one doesn't vote, it is not been in a democracy, it is playing to be in one.
[[[> But you cannot be more realistic than the reality! <]]]. For that reason it is that in the moment to be created or to be carried out the organizations or votings initially, the exception should be made and the trust is fundamental, but it should be framed in the common sense. They cannot have panelists ghosts for example.
Regarding your concern to lose the right to vote, we don't speak of an election of a government for a country, we speak of a membership. How it happens in many organizations, if you don't participate in the decisions, you should present a very good justification to vote in the next decisions and not to lose the membership.
For what reason do you want to be member from a club to which don't go, you don't inform yourself and don't you participate of the decisions??, only for "status" or "currículum" ?, this yes a questionable attitude could be. I Believe that to @Large it looks for to add and to be made a participation organization and not simply an organization under the power of 4 active people and thousands of passive members that they not even vote. This makes very possible a dictatorship.
A thing is the passive members, those that are intimidated of the discussions in the list or they are deafened by the screams of the more active members, but that doesn't justify that at least they are asked them to participate and give its opinion when you the consultation massively regarding a topic.
The representative democracy allows me to be passive for that for that reason I chose representatives, but I cannot become a submissive member and to give the power to the panelists or the eternal group of militant members.
Of anything it serves us to try to apply a direct democracy in the statutes, saying that the decisions should be approved by the members, if they only vote the members that wanted to make it and the decision is approved, for example, for 1% of all the members.
The members have rights, but we also have OBLIGATIONS.
best regards,
Mauro.-
(excuse me, my bad English perhaps doesn't help to understand my concepts)
----- Mensaje original -----
De: James S. Tyre
Para: A/S Mauro D. Ríos ; Richard Henderson ; atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de
CC: J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin
Enviado: domingo, 01 de junio de 2003 15:24
Asunto: Re: [atlarge-discuss] REPROT ON ELECTION AND RESULTS
Absolutely opposed.
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. -
> >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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