|
Grex > Coop6 > #53: Proposal to change the corporation's bylaws (no board election quorums) | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 200 responses total. |
cicero
|
|
response 150 of 200:
| 
Jan 7 06:31 UTC 1995 |
Yeah, could we just set it up that if a non-member types vote they get the
straw poll prog instead of the real thing? That would aleviate a lot of
this at least for this vote.
|
selena
|
|
response 151 of 200:
|
Jan 7 07:17 UTC 1995 |
Sounds good to me.
|
davel
|
|
response 152 of 200:
|
Jan 7 16:08 UTC 1995 |
Re 147: This has always seemed to me to be a good idea (& in fact I think
I suggested it once). John's particular reasons, such as the the need
for rewriting the turnout program, for depermitting vote for nonmembers
this time around make pretty good sense, though - obviously he doesn't
intend this to be a permanent state of affairs.
|
remmers
|
|
response 153 of 200:
|
Jan 8 17:12 UTC 1995 |
Re #150: The "just set it up" would require time that I don't have
right now. Like I said in #140, if somebody else wants to do the
necessary programming....
All of the suggestions for changing access to the vote program make
sense and could be implemented. Perhaps for next time around.
|
kentn
|
|
response 154 of 200:
|
Jan 9 05:44 UTC 1995 |
The 'turnout' program shows that 54 members have voted so far. What's
the magic number to make quorum this time around?
|
srw
|
|
response 155 of 200:
|
Jan 9 05:49 UTC 1995 |
We need 55.
|
davel
|
|
response 156 of 200:
|
Jan 9 11:50 UTC 1995 |
> $ date;turnout
> Mon Jan 9 06:48:33 EST 1995
>
> 55 voters have cast ballots.
Of course, someone can always unvote if I recall, but ...
|
robh
|
|
response 157 of 200:
|
Jan 9 12:16 UTC 1995 |
But ideally nobody will.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 158 of 200:
|
Jan 9 15:24 UTC 1995 |
I'd like to encourage members that have not yet voted to do so, even if we
have made "quorum". With our without quorums, the democratic ideal is that
everyone votes, so that the decision reflects the considered opinions of
all.
|
scg
|
|
response 159 of 200:
|
Jan 9 20:31 UTC 1995 |
One member I know has been threatening to unvote. More votes may still be
needed.
|
andyv
|
|
response 160 of 200:
|
Jan 10 01:55 UTC 1995 |
Why would someone unvote? Just wondering.
|
kentn
|
|
response 161 of 200:
|
Jan 10 01:57 UTC 1995 |
To make the proposal fail due to lack of quorum would be one reason.
|
robh
|
|
response 162 of 200:
|
Jan 10 02:37 UTC 1995 |
Exactly. A "no" vote which puts us over the two-thirds mark
may allow the proposition to pass, whil not casting a vote
will prevent it from passing.
Last I saw, we had 57 votes cast so far.
|
andyv
|
|
response 163 of 200:
|
Jan 10 03:33 UTC 1995 |
Is there any way of getting election returns besides the # of votes cast?
|
kentn
|
|
response 164 of 200:
|
Jan 10 05:46 UTC 1995 |
We'll know Thursday... I'm not sure I like the idea of continuous
election updates (e.g. percentage yes or no) given the length of
Grex's voting period. Why do you want to know more than the number
of votes cast, andyv?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 165 of 200:
|
Jan 10 06:31 UTC 1995 |
As it stands, its a "secret ballot". Almost all municipal voting
(for propositions) are done that way. On the other hand, except for
elections, voting in boards and in assemblies is usually "open ballot",
and how everyone voted can be seen. I think one important difference
is the time frame for voting: if it is short, then how individuals
vote (or just how many votes are on each side) have not too large
an effect on subsequent voters (e.g., all the hands go up at once,
though it is legal to change one's vote in some circumstances). However
with voting over a longer period of time, where the "vote" stands
becomes an obsession by itself, distracting from what the issue is
really about. At leat, that's my opinion.
|
carson
|
|
response 166 of 200:
|
Jan 10 07:03 UTC 1995 |
what is the reason for the vote program allowing voters to
change their votes? does it have anything to do with the
principles under which Grex was founded? I'm curious.
|
robh
|
|
response 167 of 200:
|
Jan 10 11:22 UTC 1995 |
I expect it has more to do with computers and the nature of
our community. I had some line noise last night, which was
doing all kinds of nasty things to me while I was trying
to edit my files. Imagine loading the vote program, then having
your line noise vote "n^?Oqmy" when you wanted to vote "yes".
58 ballots so far, unless some folks un-vote, this election will
be official.
|
davel
|
|
response 168 of 200:
|
Jan 10 12:10 UTC 1995 |
Given that the polls have to be open for an extended time anyway to allow
everyone a reasonable chance to vote, I view the ability to change my mind
as a *big* advantage. It encourages me to go ahead and vote without
worrying about whether afterthoughts may make me want to vote the other
way, rather than procrastinating because I have a few reservations. This
is especially the case when the exact text of what's being voted on is
buried somewhere in some item somewhere in coop, under a pile of 50 or 100
responses, and finding it & rereading it is a chore; instead, I can see it
by running the vote program, vote, & continue reflecting.
I don't know whether that has anything to do with "the principles under
which Grex was founded", but in the context of Grex it's very valuable.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 169 of 200:
|
Jan 10 14:24 UTC 1995 |
The idea of letting people change their votes is because there's supposed
to be ongoing discussion of the issues in the coop conference. As new
issues surface, the discussion could inspire voters to change their votes.
|
andyv
|
|
response 170 of 200:
|
Jan 10 17:35 UTC 1995 |
When I asked about election returns, I was just wondering if it could be done.
I don't like early returns because I think they tend to hurt turnout.
|
remmers
|
|
response 171 of 200:
|
Jan 11 12:03 UTC 1995 |
Re voting multiple times: There was never much discussion about that
or other details of the way elections are administrated. I wrote the
vote program and so sort of by default was the election administrator
when on-line voting started up on Grex almost three years ago. There
was consensus that ballots should be secret, but other than that I just
set things up in ways that seemed reasonable at the time; not much in
the way of complaints having been received, they've continued to be
done the same way. No deep philosophical principles involved.
The reasons people have been giving for allowing people to vote more
than once are pretty much in accord with my own thinking: (1) it's
easy and practical to do in an electronic medium (not true with paper
ballots), (2) it allows people to fix their own mistakes, and (3)
meaningful campaigning and discussion of the issues can continue while
balloting is taking place.
Re early returns: There's currently no program that displays them,
though one could be written and made available of course. I get a
sense that people don't favor them, though (personally, I don't).
|
gregc
|
|
response 172 of 200:
|
Jan 11 13:36 UTC 1995 |
I have a small amount of problem with the concept of changing a
vote, but I'll let that slide for now. However, I think the current
vote count should be kept secret until the voting clooses, otherwise
it's too easy to get into a self-fulfilling-prophecy type of thing.
I think *that* is the more important issue.
|
carson
|
|
response 173 of 200:
|
Jan 11 15:03 UTC 1995 |
changing one's vote later seems OK to me too. I was just distracting
from the "OHmigodsomeonemightactuallyunvote!" discussion. ;)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 174 of 200:
|
Jan 11 15:43 UTC 1995 |
That concern is undoubtedly why both RRO and state law discourage
having quorums for voting, since they permit procedural games -
persons in effect exercising more than their "one-person, one vote"
rights.
|