|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 139 responses total. |
richard
|
|
response 33 of 139:
| 
Dec 17 20:27 UTC 2001 |
This might be an argument also for reinstating the old quota rules. Say
that an election shouldnt be certified unless a certain percentage of the
membership has participated. If the polls close and only 20% of the
members have voted and the quota is 35%, you dont announce the results, but
extend the voting period, and inform if there are any ties at that time.
Then you email, and otherwise twist the arms of those members who havent
voted to vote. A quota was a valid idea and it seems like it was voted
to be eliminated purely out of convenience.
|
jp2
|
|
response 34 of 139:
|
Dec 17 20:33 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
richard
|
|
response 35 of 139:
|
Dec 17 21:15 UTC 2001 |
Or another idea, the membership could address the problem of the
importance of the treasurer's position. The treasurer is clearly the
most important of all the board officers. So there could be
a bylaw amendment to make the treasurer's position a non-voting board
member position appointed by the regular board and thus not subject
to the same term limits as everyonbe else. Aruba would then be appointed
permanent treasurer and non-voting board member for as long as he wants to
be so, and there would be two voting board slots thus open for both bhell
and flem. This solves the current problem and also avoids the board
having to get nervous the next time Aruba's term expires and he cant run
again.
|
jp2
|
|
response 36 of 139:
|
Dec 17 21:41 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
keesan
|
|
response 37 of 139:
|
Dec 17 22:26 UTC 2001 |
But what if Aruba does not want to be permanent treasurer?
Also I would be very disappointed if Mark were suddenly to be deprived of his
voting seat on the board, where he does a great job not only as treasurer.
More ideas?
|
pthomas
|
|
response 38 of 139:
|
Dec 18 00:07 UTC 2001 |
I think jp2 should be president-for-life!
|
krj
|
|
response 39 of 139:
|
Dec 18 00:19 UTC 2001 |
resp:33, 34 :: Bylaws and guidlines such as RRO should always result
in contests leading to a resolution. The problem with a quota
is that it is a mechanism for deadlock.
A vote quota might be vaguely tolerable for member resolutions,
if one accepted that most or all member resolutions would fail.
It would not do, however, to have a Board election repeatedly
fail to deliver a valid result.
|
aruba
|
|
response 40 of 139:
|
Dec 18 00:49 UTC 2001 |
Re #36: What's funny about my handwriting?
|
aruba
|
|
response 41 of 139:
|
Dec 18 00:53 UTC 2001 |
I wonder if there's a BBS in some alternate universe where all of richards
ideas get implemented. I'd like to see what happens there. :)
|
gull
|
|
response 42 of 139:
|
Dec 18 01:30 UTC 2001 |
Re #28: This is an election in a small group, not for a governorship.
Your theory is interesting, but it *is* just theory, and probably not
important in an election this size.
|
jp2
|
|
response 43 of 139:
|
Dec 18 01:39 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
aruba
|
|
response 44 of 139:
|
Dec 18 02:57 UTC 2001 |
Well, thanks, I guess.
|
spooked
|
|
response 45 of 139:
|
Dec 18 05:12 UTC 2001 |
I never would've guessed Mark was a male... <o:
From long recollection, he has better than average handwriting, especially
for a Mathematician hehe
|
jep
|
|
response 46 of 139:
|
Dec 18 22:52 UTC 2001 |
I don't think richard's ideas are out of line with regard to the
election, at least not the ones he expressed in #28 and #31. Elections
are obviously a long-time interest of his, for one thing; something
he's probably thought more about than a lot of us. Give him his due.
I outlined my preference for a coin-toss in the election item. Maybe I
should copy that response into this item? Basically, it's as fair as
any other method, and much quicker.
|
remmers
|
|
response 47 of 139:
|
Dec 18 23:43 UTC 2001 |
I prefer coin tossage as well.
|
other
|
|
response 48 of 139:
|
Dec 19 05:32 UTC 2001 |
If we were to go with a coin toss, who would be present, who would toss,
and where and when would it be held?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 49 of 139:
|
Dec 19 06:25 UTC 2001 |
In the Election item, someone mentioned lapsed memberships. Do memberships
lapse in the middle of the month?
|
orinoco
|
|
response 50 of 139:
|
Dec 19 09:17 UTC 2001 |
If we do decide to go with a runoff vote, lapsed memberships and new
memberships don't have to be an issue. We _could_ stipulate that only people
who were eligible the first time around can vote -- or even that only people
whe voted the first time can vote again.
We still can't force people to vote, though. And that means it'll still be
possible to have a different voter base for the runoff.
I wonder whether that's really such a big deal. There's a different voter
base in the primaries than there is in a presidential election. There's a
different voter base in the supreme court when an issue comes before them
again after a long delay. Somehow, the political process limps on.
|
jp2
|
|
response 51 of 139:
|
Dec 19 13:05 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
jep
|
|
response 52 of 139:
|
Dec 19 14:39 UTC 2001 |
re #48: A coin toss could be done in any manner which ensures fairness
and sufficient oversight. I'd suggest the coin be tossed by the
president, treasurer or election administrator, at a time when both
candidates can be present. The next board meeting sounds to me like a
good time, but as long as the candidates both consider it fairly done,
I'd consider any other factors to be secondary.
|
janc
|
|
response 53 of 139:
|
Dec 19 14:54 UTC 2001 |
Re #49: Yes. Some memberships go from the 15th of the month to the 15th of
the next month.
I don't see why the run off has to be voted on by the exact same set of
members as the first member. It's not like the membership is going to remain
the same for the whole two years that the board members serve. In fact, the
membership 15 days later is likely to be marginally closer in character to
the membership during their term. If we ever had a recall vote, you wouldn't
expect to only have the same people vote who elected the person. The runoff
should be handled exactly like any other Grex election.
|
aruba
|
|
response 54 of 139:
|
Dec 19 15:10 UTC 2001 |
Right, I agree with Jan.
|
davel
|
|
response 55 of 139:
|
Dec 19 15:10 UTC 2001 |
Re 52: John, I'd hate to see it nailed down in the bylaws that both
candidates must be present. That could delay things quite a while.
I think I'm also for a coin toss or something similar.
|
richard
|
|
response 56 of 139:
|
Dec 19 16:10 UTC 2001 |
but should a coin toss be one toss or best two out of three or best
three out of five. I'd think both candidates would have to be present
and agree that the coin toss was done fairly.
|
jep
|
|
response 57 of 139:
|
Dec 19 19:06 UTC 2001 |
I'd say both candidates should at least agree that the coin flip (or
whatever other random process is used) was fair, even if they can't
both be present. Anyone capable of getting 24 votes from Grexers is
probably reasonable enough to rationally evaluate the fairness of such
a process and accept a reasonable and fair solution.
|