|
Grex > Coop9 > #7: Members with more than one vote |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 186 responses total. |
ryan1
|
|
response 8 of 186:
| 
Oct 22 01:36 UTC 1996 |
I agree with Steve Weiss. I do not think that an individual should have
more than one vote in elections. This would allow people to "buy" votes
which really isn't much of an "election". On the other hand, I think
that a person should be able to have more than one "member" account(s)
with internet access, but without these extra accounts having the voting
privileges.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 9 of 186:
|
Oct 22 16:07 UTC 1996 |
If grex does indeed allow/accept "institutional" memberships, then such
institutions should be required to assign exactly one human for voting
purposes (who could be checked against other memberships to prevent more than
one vote per human), or waive their rights to vote.
|
dang
|
|
response 10 of 186:
|
Oct 22 17:40 UTC 1996 |
Which is how it works now.
|
davel
|
|
response 11 of 186:
|
Oct 22 19:23 UTC 1996 |
In a way, yes ... but in fact we have only individual memberships. If someone
wants to make an account available to other people, it would be hard to stop
those people from voting ... with a "whoever votes last gets to vote" effect
for that one account's vote. That's quite different from an institutional
membership, from Grex's point of view; from the institution's POV maybe not.
|
srw
|
|
response 12 of 186:
|
Oct 23 07:33 UTC 1996 |
Hmm. I am very pleased that Kami and convocat are both
members, supporting Grex. We do very much need all the
support we can get. I also have no quarrel with Kami. But
am I the only one who is worried about this ? Couldn't
someone buy votes by forming a number of organizations
he/she controlled and enrolling them all as members of
grex? I am certain Kami did not do this, btw.
I don't have any knowledge of how the M.E.C. determines
how to vote here. I accept Kami's word that she doesn't
singlehandedly determine the vote, but I think she is
admitting that she can play a small role (1 of 6) in the
organization's vote. I find this troubling, as she already
controls a whole vote. How small a control of the
organization's vote is small enough that we just say "big
deal"?
Jan (resp:3) ^Ksuggested that organizations shouldn't be
granted votes. I think this is the simplest solution. I
agree.
Marcus(resp:7) suggested that HVCN or an ISP would better
suit an organization's need. Well I suppose with my HVCN
hat on I should be happy, but I'm not. I think Grex can
and should work with organizations (not just individuals)
like MNAC and M.E.C.. If these organizations wanted
votes, though, I would suggest that they get their
individuals to join.
Dang (resp:9-10) I don't think it works that way now at
all. See kami/convocat.
^K^K
^K^K^K^K^K
|
dang
|
|
response 13 of 186:
|
Oct 23 17:02 UTC 1996 |
Right, but someone had to give a name and address for the convocat membership,
and that person could not then have an individual membership. They
essentially donated their individual membership on grex to the convocat group.
If they don't control the vote for that membership, that's their choice. We
have no control over who votes on a given membership, just who "vouches" for
it.
|
scg
|
|
response 14 of 186:
|
Oct 23 18:22 UTC 1996 |
I agree with srw that there is a problem if people can have multiple
memberships. I haven't figured out how I feel about organizational
memberships with voting rights yet.
|
pfv
|
|
response 15 of 186:
|
Oct 23 18:38 UTC 1996 |
What's to feel? They have membership and they vote <shrug>
|
aruba
|
|
response 16 of 186:
|
Oct 23 20:05 UTC 1996 |
Re #13: Dan, you are mistaken if you think we don't allow two memberships to
have the same address/validation information at present. We currently have
no such guideline, that I know of. (And I *know* I haven't enforced such
a rule in accepting money.)
|
scg
|
|
response 17 of 186:
|
Oct 23 22:06 UTC 1996 |
We've been saying that we have such a policy for as long as I've been around
here. Maybe we weren't enforcing it.
|
robh
|
|
response 18 of 186:
|
Oct 23 22:44 UTC 1996 |
So we can't allow both chelsea and remmers to be members, because
they live at the same address?
|
scg
|
|
response 19 of 186:
|
Oct 24 04:39 UTC 1996 |
Mark was saying "address/validation information," and I think of a name as
part of that information. Maybe I misunderstood Mark.
|
dang
|
|
response 20 of 186:
|
Oct 24 12:41 UTC 1996 |
Yeah, that's what I thought, too. Name is important. (Granted, you can
supposedly sign up a membership as your kid or your brother, or something,
but that's not possible to catch either.)
|
aruba
|
|
response 21 of 186:
|
Oct 25 11:07 UTC 1996 |
Neither danr nor I have enforced that policy. Who is the "We" you are
referring to in #17, Steve? And if we did try to enforce such a policy,
and, say, both memberships are paid with one check, how do we really know
they're not controlled by the same person? We have had several instances
of that case. Since a check is the most common form of vaidation information
we use, as you might expect we have had cases in which the validation
information is identical for two different memberships.
|
scg
|
|
response 22 of 186:
|
Oct 25 15:56 UTC 1996 |
We, as in Grex or at least the Grex Board, have been saying for years
that there could only be one membership per person, and that we had to
have ID from that person, or ID from their parent was acceptable if they
were a minor. That's been the stated policy, and I think we've even had
a board vote on it. Have the stated policy and what was actually being
done had any relation to eachother?
|
kerouac
|
|
response 23 of 186:
|
Oct 25 16:03 UTC 1996 |
#22...then a parent with four kids, could buy five memberships
(four in his kids names and one in his) and thus get five votes
with one ID. In fact, he could just *claim* to have four kids
when the ids are really his and he just wants the extra votes.
I dont think that policy was well thought through.
One could theoretically buy as many memberships as he wants,
because how does grex know how many children, stepchildren,
.etc one has? You can buy'em all with one ID so what the heck
|
rcurl
|
|
response 24 of 186:
|
Oct 25 16:55 UTC 1996 |
That's true of *all* voting, in any situation. However, I guess you don't have
kids, since you think their votes can be controlled. Of course, in some
voting, there are age limits. Say, a minimum age of 5, for voting?
|
dang
|
|
response 25 of 186:
|
Oct 25 17:50 UTC 1996 |
The point, richard, was that children who are old enough to vote on grex may
not yet have id that they can send.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 26 of 186:
|
Oct 25 22:09 UTC 1996 |
In addition, their guardians/parents are their legal surrogates in all
transactions.
|
aruba
|
|
response 27 of 186:
|
Oct 25 22:11 UTC 1996 |
Kerouac is quite right, there is nothing in our current practice to prevent
someone from buying memberships for her four children, and controlling all of
the votes. But what the heck can we do about it?
Steve, I am always careful to get ID from every member, but no, I haven't
tried to keep two people from having the same validation information.
I have always felt that the point of the validation information was that
we could use it to track someone down if they did something bad with their
membership privileges, and that we should ask people to go through as few
hoops as possible in providing us with that information. Therefore we accept
any personal check as validation, even though we have no way to check how the
person writing the check is related to the account. Presumably, if you can
get someone to write a check for you, they know you at least a little.
We have more than one parent-child pair of members here on Grex, both
memberships being paid for with the same checking account. Should we tell
such members that they can't do that? *I* certainly don't think so.
|
srw
|
|
response 28 of 186:
|
Oct 25 22:51 UTC 1996 |
Because of the need to ensure that one person cannot buy multiple votes, I
think it is reasonable for is to have a policy which requires parents
to provide additional ID info for children who wish to be members.
I understand that you are saying you don't do this now, but I think
it is reasonable and no great burden. School IDs or library card photocopies
should be sufficient. We should require this, in my opinion, despite the
fact that we have no safeguard to prevent a parent from controlling a child's
account and voting with it, despicable as such an act would be.
|
mta
|
|
response 29 of 186:
|
Oct 26 01:14 UTC 1996 |
Would a report card work? The reason I ask is that not everyone has student
ID at their school. (Steiner here in Ann Arbor for instance). Not everyone
has a library card. (It can get expensive to take books from the library if
you have a memory like a stainles steel seive!)) and not everyone has a
passport. Parents are the most likely to have a child's report card...
|
steve
|
|
response 30 of 186:
|
Oct 26 01:26 UTC 1996 |
I don't think it makes any sense to ask for ID from a kid, when
one of their parents is a member too. Tracability is what we're
after here, in the event we need to talk to them. If getting ahold
of the parent of a child member who did something "bad" isn't
good enough, then nothing is.
Misti's point is valid, I think. Sure, I'd think that a school
generated report card would be good enough.
|
mta
|
|
response 31 of 186:
|
Oct 26 01:55 UTC 1996 |
Steve, you aren't taking voting into account. State law requires that we
identify our voting members.
|
steve
|
|
response 32 of 186:
|
Oct 26 02:56 UTC 1996 |
Heh... I don't think "the law" allows for minors to vote, does
it?
|