|
|
| Author |
Message |
crimson
|
|
Pseudo votes
| 
Oct 8 14:57 UTC 1991 |
I wish to raise the question of whether or not Grex members who choose to
remain anonymous should be allowed to vote on issues, and set into motion
a discussion about this.
|
| 152 responses total. |
steve
|
|
response 1 of 152:
|
Oct 8 16:14 UTC 1991 |
I don't see how a fair system can accomidate psuedos getting a vote.
Whats to prevent people from taking out multiple psuedo accounts, making
them members for several months so "they" can influence a vote?
It might be good to have voting be a physical thing, FTF. But we would
have to allow for people who are distant (tbyernes, sjr, etc.) to be able
to vote electronically.
|
remmers
|
|
response 2 of 152:
|
Oct 8 16:19 UTC 1991 |
The founding group discussed this issue when we were talking about
how to handle such votes as would need to be taken until bylaws
were adopted by the membership that established more permanent
rules. The sentiment was strongly for the principle of "one vote
per person".
If you believe in that concept, it seems to rule out total
anonymity -- the identity of all voters would have to be known at
least to whoever was supervising the voting process, to insure
that nobody was using pseudo accounts to amass additional voting
power for themselves.
|
remmers
|
|
response 3 of 152:
|
Oct 8 16:20 UTC 1991 |
(STeve's response slipped in.)
|
arthur
|
|
response 4 of 152:
|
Oct 8 17:00 UTC 1991 |
Huh? I must have missed that meeting. I thought the reason
for requiring a certain amount of financial input was to make
pseudo-takeovers difficult, and that we would let pseudos vote.
|
glenda
|
|
response 5 of 152:
|
Oct 8 21:47 UTC 1991 |
I think the requiring the pseudo to have a paid membership and having one
of the staff or Board of Directors (if we go that route) personally know
the pseudo's real (legal?) identity would be sufficient to allow him/her to
vote. This would also keep the one person, one vote in place.
|
griz
|
|
response 6 of 152:
|
Oct 8 22:29 UTC 1991 |
Re #5:
It's not a bad plan, but somehow I have trouble believing the pseudos would
agree to it. It may be the only way possible, though. Are there any
pseudo members now?
|
steve
|
|
response 7 of 152:
|
Oct 8 23:01 UTC 1991 |
Is there a person on the system reading this that is using a psuedo
who can talk about the other side of the coin? In a perfect world I
guess there would be no problem with this. If someone can come up with a
reasonable system that allows for voting psuedos yet at least partially
defends against buying lots of memberships I'd be all ears.
|
mju
|
|
response 8 of 152:
|
Oct 8 23:35 UTC 1991 |
I was under the impression that the agreed-up scheme was:
1. To vote, you had to be a paid-in-full member for at least three
consecutive months, including the month of the vote;
2. Membership was $6/month or $60/year; thus the minimum "voting fee"
was $18;
3. Only checks would be allowed for payment-by-mail; if a person
wished to pay cash, then they would have to present payment
in person, so as to make it somewhat more difficult for a single
person to purchase multiple memberships (the reasoning being
that it's more difficult to conceal your identity in person than
through the mail), as well as the simple fact that it's a bad
idea to send cash through the mail.
Of course, this is just vague recollection based on my memory; I don't
have any notes or anything, so I could be wrong.
|
remmers
|
|
response 9 of 152:
|
Oct 9 00:00 UTC 1991 |
I think that's about how it was.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 10 of 152:
|
Oct 9 01:00 UTC 1991 |
re #8: How would a cashier's check provide any keys to their identity?
|
mwg
|
|
response 11 of 152:
|
Oct 9 01:22 UTC 1991 |
A cashiers' check can usually be traced, despite what some TV shows
have indicated, banks tend to require identification for almost everything
other than breathing. Money Orders from the corner store, on the other hand,
can be totally untraceable past the store as long as there is no camera
snapping pictures of the purchasers. (I HAVE seen Cashiers' checks, BTW,
there is a space on them reading 'Remitted by' or similar things, with
the name of the person who posted the money to the bank.)
And, money orders are not unreasonable either. I used them for several years
before I had enough of a cash flow to rate getting a checking account.
Now that I think of that, bank money orders don't require identification
either, you gave them the cash, they give you the order.
Upshot, unless you go about verifying members' information regularly, they
can put anything on a money order by way of sender ID.
|
danr
|
|
response 12 of 152:
|
Oct 9 01:25 UTC 1991 |
Or the pseudo could send a friend to pay the membership fee. I think
we ought to require that pseudos have at least one (maybe two or three)
members vouch for him or her.
|
polygon
|
|
response 13 of 152:
|
Oct 9 01:42 UTC 1991 |
What would be the problem with creating a membership category for pseudos
which would not include voting rights? If pseudos want to buy memberships,
why should we object to accepting the money?
|
popcorn
|
|
response 14 of 152:
|
Oct 9 01:52 UTC 1991 |
This response has been erased.
|
crimson
|
|
response 15 of 152:
|
Oct 9 02:16 UTC 1991 |
I naturally wish to have voting rights, yet I comprehend the difficulties
involved. I intend to refrain from complaining, whichever way this issue
is decided.
|
steve
|
|
response 16 of 152:
|
Oct 9 02:18 UTC 1991 |
I don't see why a pseudo could be very active on the system, and maintain
their "real" identity for paying money, etc.
I also wonder how many we're talking about here.
Would a 'verification' process like what Dan and Glenda talked about be
reasonable? I think that might work, if there wern't too many who wanted
to come forth in this manner.
|
jfk
|
|
response 17 of 152:
|
Oct 9 02:58 UTC 1991 |
Part of the beauty of being a pseudo is that there are no predefined
images that distort the ideas that an individual were to come up with.
For instance. Any idea I might propose here, might be tainted by the
fact that I am on staff at M-net, or a board member on AIS. As a
pseudo, no one would question why I would bring up any particular
issue here.
For me I might consider this not to be an issue, but for others,
this may be a very real concern. Even so much that having one
staff member know who they are may be undesireable.
|
bad
|
|
response 18 of 152:
|
Oct 9 06:16 UTC 1991 |
Well, there's no restriction on bringing up issues, Jim...
You could bring up stuff, and try to get as many people to side with you
as you want...
|
arthur
|
|
response 19 of 152:
|
Oct 9 06:55 UTC 1991 |
Yeah, but he'd want the idea considered on its own merits,
untainted by the suspicions of the paranoid.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 20 of 152:
|
Oct 9 06:58 UTC 1991 |
I think pseudos should be able to have voting rights even if nobody knows
who they are. If it comes down to someone with a lot of money wanting to
use gobs of it to swing some vote on the system, requiring all the members to
be actual people doesn't buy you any more security against that. What's to
stop them from paying for 20 of their closest personal friends to become
members and swinging the vote that way?
If having paid money to the system is going to be the requirement for
getting a vote, then you have to accept the fact that the person who has
the most money can muster the most votes. If people are really, really
concerned about this happening then grex should probably establish an
executive position with some sort of overrideable veto power. Personally
I don't think that's such a hot idea, but it would be one possible
safeguard against a would-be tyrant with deep pockets.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 21 of 152:
|
Oct 9 07:02 UTC 1991 |
Another benefit of allowing pseudos to have voting rights is that it
could provide people with desirable anonymity when it comes to voting on
certain volatile issues.
|
remmers
|
|
response 22 of 152:
|
Oct 9 11:16 UTC 1991 |
This response has been erased.
|
remmers
|
|
response 23 of 152:
|
Oct 9 11:19 UTC 1991 |
What would stop them from paying 20 of their closest friends is
that they'd have to persuade 20 people to go along with the
concept. To get 20 votes as pseudos is much easier -- could be
done by a conspiracy of one.
I think, though, that the real danger in allowing completely
anonymous voters, some of whom could be duplicates of the same
person, is not that gobs of votes would routinely be bought, but
that the knowledge that it *could* be abused would engender
chronic suspicion that it *was* being abused, thus souring the
whole electoral process.
|
mdw
|
|
response 24 of 152:
|
Oct 9 14:11 UTC 1991 |
Before getting too carried away about pseudos, it may make sense
to check out the legal requirements, especially regarding non-profit
organizations. I believe we actually have to keep a "membership list"
on file, possibly for public inspection.
|