Re: Re: [ga] vote appeal
on 4/11/01 11:37 PM, William X. Walsh at email@example.com wrote:
> Hello Joanna,
> Wednesday, April 11, 2001, 7:54:15 PM, Joanna Lane wrote:
>> Hello Jonathan,
>> This is the first election I have participated in where I was allowed to
>> change my mind and vote again having already cast my vote. Not only that,
>> there was no limit to the number of ballots I could send, for only the LAST
>> one counted. Please point me to the relevant section in the rules agreed by
>> a vote of the GA that confirms the procedure that took place.
> The existing rules already let a voter send in a second ballot,
> Joanna, which would invalidate any previously submitted ballot.
> I can't say for certain that those rules were adopted by a vote of the
> GA, you have to understand that the entire concept that the GA CAN
> vote on issues like that is rather new.
No they do not. I can say for certain that NO such rule was adopted by a
vote of the GA. I voted for the rules and I did not, and would not vote for
multiple ballots. The rules that were adopted were not intended to
supplememt other rules, but rather to *replace* them. We discussed all this
already when the so called "rule of ten" cropped up.
You are implying that old rules should be interpreted as if they are "case
law", available to overturn stated terms of a legal contract. That is not
the case here. Old rules, whatever they may be, cannot be enforced, because
they have not been agreed by consensus of the current GA. New rules can.
That's the difference. The old rules no longer have any legitimacy.
>> Clearly, the watchdog committe made it up as they went along. That may have
>> been the best possible solution in the circumstances, and if anything, Eric
>> would have gained more votes from the second ballot cast after one candidate
>> dropped out.
> Not really, to be honest, with the voting method used, it was
> irrelevant. Further, as was already pointed out, once an election is
> underway, a candidate cannot withdraw. This is common practice in any
> election I've ever seen, and as we all know resulted in a dead man
> being elected to the US Senate recently. That is the commonly
> accepted practice, to let the election continue as is. All that was
> done was that voters were reminded that they CAN change their ballots,
> a right they already had.
I agree with you that we should have followed common practise, which is
exactly what the existing rules reflect. Changing a ballot is not common
practise, and for many members, it was not a reminder, it was the first they
heard of it.
>> Nevertheless, the second ballot was an invention of the
>> Watchdog committee, which was not elected by the GA, but was a group of
>> people selected behind closed doors.
> No, it really wasn't. It was a second copy of the same ballot, not a
> second ballot. It has not been unusual for a second copy of ballots
> to be provided, especially by email, since factors can cause any
> particular email sent to be delayed, held in a queue somewhere, etc.
Oh please. The ballot was different because the votes cast on it were not
the same. I repeat, the DNSO Secretariat cannot be faulted in this election.
I agree the rules should make provision for such an eventuality, but you are
muddying the waters. Jonathan's "withdrawal" was not a technical failure.
The failure was on the part of those who had not voted for anybody else and
wanted a revote.
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html