|
Grex > Coop6 > #88: Do votes of expiring members count? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
popcorn
|
|
Do votes of expiring members count?
| 
Jan 21 22:37 UTC 1995 |
In mail today, someone told me "My membership will expire on Feb 1, but
I already voted, so it will count." But will it? I'm not sure.
I was a ballot counter once, in one Grex election. We only looked at
ballots of people who were current members. I don't think anybody's
membership expired in the interval between voting and ballot counting
in that election. In this election, it's going to happen. Will this
person's ballot count?
|
| 14 responses total. |
scg
|
|
response 1 of 14:
|
Jan 21 22:50 UTC 1995 |
When does the election end? If the election actually ends before that
date, I don't see why it shouldn't. If, OTOH, the membership ends duing
the election, then I'm not sure what to think about that.
|
ken
|
|
response 2 of 14:
|
Jan 22 02:49 UTC 1995 |
If you vote by abn^U
q
If you vote with an absentee balot in a normal election and die,
they still count your ballot. If your membership dies because you didn't renew,
why not do the same?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 3 of 14:
|
Jan 22 03:15 UTC 1995 |
In another organization, legal voters are those "in good standing" on
the day the ballots are mailed (it determines to whom the ballots are
sent). However, this is provided for in the bylaws. Yes, someone's
dues could expire befobut no one considers
that a problem - its just agreed upon that its OK.
|
steve
|
|
response 4 of 14:
|
Jan 22 05:38 UTC 1995 |
To carry the example of absentee ballots a little further, those
ballots are still valid even if the person dies before the election
from what I've read.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 5 of 14:
|
Jan 26 20:46 UTC 1995 |
Sounds good to me. If you are a 3+ month member WHEN you vote, I don't
see why your vote shouldn't count.
|
davel
|
|
response 6 of 14:
|
Feb 2 13:26 UTC 1995 |
I think as a practical matter that it depends on when the appropriate person
(probably Dan) updates the voters group. Knowing Dan, he wouldn't remove
people while the election is in process just because their memberships
expired.
I'm talking about how it's *actually* likely to work, mind you, not about
how it *should* work. It might well be good to have an explicit policy, as
if anyone would remember it after sufficient time lag.
|
remmers
|
|
response 7 of 14:
|
Feb 2 13:31 UTC 1995 |
Offhand I don't recall if memberships always expire at the end of a
month or could expire on any day of the month. If the former, then
there should never be a problem with with a membership expiring
*during* a regular board election, since they're held within the
month of December. I suppose there could be a problem with voting
on a member proposal.
|
danr
|
|
response 8 of 14:
|
Feb 4 19:29 UTC 1995 |
Memberships expire either on the 15th of the month or the last day
of the month. They can, therefore, expire inthe middle of an election.
I do remove members in the middle of an election. My thinking on this
is that if they are not members, then why should they get to vote?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 9 of 14:
|
Feb 4 19:58 UTC 1995 |
That's a policy matter that should be encoded - at what point must a
person be a member for a vote to count? With mail and paper, it is
simplest for it to be when the ballots are sent. In this medium, it can be
at the moment the ballots are counted *if they are identified*. However,
there are proposals around for making ballotting anonymous (which I
support as an option). For this to work, the critical moment would have to
be when the ballotting begins.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 10 of 14:
|
Feb 5 05:12 UTC 1995 |
Sort of. But if someone pays for a membership during the election,
they'd presumably want to be able to vote, too, even if they weren't
a member at the beginning of the election.
|
ajax
|
|
response 11 of 14:
|
Feb 5 07:50 UTC 1995 |
Also, the vote might start, then a person becomes a member for
three months, and the vote gets extended by three months due to
downtime, and then the person becomes a non-member again! Well,
maybe the previously mentioned cases are enough. (-:
|
danr
|
|
response 12 of 14:
|
Feb 5 15:27 UTC 1995 |
This response has been erased.
|
lilmo
|
|
response 13 of 14:
|
Feb 6 01:37 UTC 1995 |
Flailing desperately for a case to muddle any chosen rule, eh, ajax? :-)
|
sidhe
|
|
response 14 of 14:
|
Feb 7 19:00 UTC 1995 |
so it would appear..
|