Re: Re: [ga] vote appeal
on 4/12/01 2:50 AM, William X. Walsh at firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> Well, first of all Joanna, new rules do not always totally supplant
> existing rules.
Well, William, the fact is that the rules we actually adopted were version
0.2, which clearly state "(Superseed Version 0.1)" By your logic, this would
not be true, since any old rule can be dragged and dropped into play when it
suits. With respect, those days would seem to have passed.
Secondly, there were no multiple ballots. It was the
> same ballot sent more than once, which many organization do during an
> election to remind people to vote.
> The rule is generally the last one counts. This is true when
> balloting is done in our US Congress, for instance, where until the
> voting is closed, members are free to recast their vote and have any
> prior votes by them on that question invalidated as a result.
I didn't know that about the US system but have no reason to doubt what you
say. However, that certainly is not the British system. Based on literally
hundreds of votes cast in numerous gov. elections, associations, mutual
societies and shareholder postal ballots, I have never ever been offered
multiple ballots, not once. Last time I voted in a British polling booth, I
was given one piece of paper and a pencil to mark an X against selected
names. If a mistake is made whilst in the booth, tough, the vote is
considered spoilt and discarded. There is no replacement ballot under any
circumstances. That is the British way.
One point of this exchange has been to highlight the dangers of making
assumptions about people's cultural understanding and of their willingness
to accept the US interpretation of events.
Personally, I am constantly making adjustments to the US ways of doing
things and it's not always easy. The hardest part is not learning the new
way, it's unlearning the old way. What causes the most trouble is having to
discard a system that is proven to work and replace it with something that
is known to be flawed, simply because it's the accepted way.
Each society excels at something and to be honest, I would not look to the
US for the best electoral system in the world, given the choice. However, I
could not say what obligations ICANN may be under in that respect, being a
> Anyone who didn't follow the instructions, and RANKED the candidates
> by preference, didn't follow instructions anyway. (Irrelevant personal comment
I don't know which instructions you read, but these are the ones I
"Each member of the General Assembly roster receives *one* (my emphasis)
ballot listing all candidate names.
He/she then marks a preference, using "1" for the most favored candidate,
"2" for the second, and so on."
I understand that to be RANKING. If it does not mean that, I need a
> There was no fault or failure here at all, for anyone except those
> voters who didn't vote correctly at all.
I agree there was no fault, but I do believe there was a failure. At best,
the rules need clarification and I have identified aspects that need work in
an earlier post. Hopefully, you will take an interest in that endeavor.
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html