response 75 of 184:

Dec 13 07:51 UTC 1994

You know, I was just thinking...

Normally a quorum refers not to the number of people voting, but the number
of people in the room when the vote is taken.  There is usually not a 
reqirement to vote.  In most assemblies that I've ever heard of, if two people
vote yes and one vote no and the rest don't vote (abstain) it is still a vilid 
vote as long as there was a quorum in the room at the time.  In our case
the equivalent of this type of quorum would be something more like have at
least 2/3rds of the members logged on during the voting period (indicating
that they had the opportunity to vote if they wanted--ie. they were in the
room) If so then the vote should be valid according to this logic.  

Could we perhaps have a vote program which requires input from members
once during elections so we know they have had a chance to vote?  This
would work like so:

A member would try to log in during a vote.  Grex would check the voter's
list and see that this person was an eligible voter.  It would then check
to see if this person had been told about the vote.  If the answer is no
then the member would get a screen describing the election taking place. 
To clear the screen the member would have to type thier name or somesuch
to confirm that they had read the screen or chosen consiously not to read
it.  Grex would then record that they had been duely notified and would
not bother them again.  In this way if a quorum of members at least logs
on, then we can have fair and valid elections.  The annoyance factor would
also be minimal.

Comments?
.

response 77 of 184:

Dec 13 14:41 UTC 1994

Re #75: it isn't necessary to count member logins or anything else, if
elections and votes are based just on those voting, presuming that
sufficient notice has been posted on the question and the voting period.
Insisting on a majority (quorum) of members logging in, to hold a vote,
is asking for a continuation of the problem. (I belong to an organization
whose bylaws specify that a voting quorum is "two thirds of those
present". Works very well.)

response 79 of 184:

Dec 14 01:43 UTC 1994

        I do have the power to exclude myself from the quorum.  I made my
wishes known, and it was not enough.  Please read carefully, I don't want
any more mistakes:

        I hereby resign as a member of Grex, effective immediately.

        I will not participate in the election as a voter.  I am and was,
when I made my previous (ignored) request, aware of the election and of
the consequences of not voting.  The voteadm made it clear he knew of my
request, but just didn't respect it.  Well, so much for requests.  My
termination of my membership is not a request, it is not subject to
debate, and I will be livid if it is accorded as little respect as the
request that I made.
        I do not contribute money in order that I can be forced to do things
that I do not wish to do.  I do not want my money back, but I won't be
contributing more until there is an acceptable method, written in the
by-laws, for me to do so.
        You don't need to send me any apologies (it wasn't a mistake, it was
a deliberate action, voteadm made a choice and now I've made one).  I
don't need any acknowledgements, I'm already a non-member.  Just remove my
privileges, including Internet, Usenet, and voting.  No, I'm not going to
reconsider.

response 81 of 184:

Dec 14 04:43 UTC 1994

I don't think the voteadm had the choice to honor your request.

I hope you come back to support us when we change our rules as I expect
and sincerely hope we will do.

I believe that in voting for no one you voted, thus removing any 
form of coercion upon yourself, and so I find your attitude quite
remarkable, and I am puzzled by it.

response 83 of 184:

Dec 14 06:29 UTC 1994

        I just reread the bylaws, and I can't find any mention in them of
what to do if there is no quorum in a board election.  Given that, it
doesn't look like the bylaws give anybody the authority to rerun the
election anymore than they give anybody the authority to solve the problem
in any other way.  With less than 48 hours until the polls close and still
no sight of a quorum, we probably need to decide that there is no solution
provided for in the bylaws, and that we just have to come up with
something that works.  Since the nominations did go smoothly as specified
in the bylaws, and since nobody can be elected unless they were first
nominated, it probably makes sense to just do something that all the
candidates agree they won't complain about if they end up losing because
of it. 
        With all the trouble we have had getting people to vote this time,
I find it hard to imagine that we will have better luck telling everybody
they have to vote again and that their previous vote didn't count.  Rather
than just being able to ask people to vote if they haven't voted yet, they
will have to be asked to vote if they haven't voted since a certain date,
and they will have to remember when it was that they voted before. 
Moreover, if people are told that their previous vote ended up not
counting, where is their incentive to vote again?
        What I am proposing, therefore, is that rather than being redone
the election should be continued until a specified date, and then
continued again if we still haven't reached quorum.  That way anybody who
votes after that will be counted, and the votes cast during the official
election period will still count.
        As a candidate, I agree to the proposal I just made.  I urge other
candidates to either also agree to that proposal or to come up with their
own alternative suggestions.

response 85 of 184:

Dec 14 07:30 UTC 1994

The bylaws provide that in the event of vacancies an election to fill
said vacancies will take place within three months. If the current
election is invalid (no 2/3 quorum), there will be three vacancies
on 1 January. The new election can then be scheduled. 

It is not unusual to keep at votes and elections this way when they
are forced by lack of quorums. The eligible voters eventually get
the idea, and a valid vote occurs. The last time I encountered this
was an amendment to some Articles, which requires that a majority
of members vote (by State law). We fell one vote short the first time,
and even though the vote for the amendment was *unanimous*, we had
to hold the vote again. 

(I realize that the bylaw that provides for filling vacancies was
not *written* for this contingency, but I interpret it to be applicable
as otherwise there would be no provision, which is not possible for
a Michigan corporation. I think the courts would agree with this.)

Another standard provision needed in the bylaws is a statement that
directors will serve for the term and *until their successors are
elected*. This eliminates vacancies caused by a delay in a election.
Of course, with this provision, there must be the other provision to
ensure that the election will take place, even if delayed.

response 87 of 184:

Dec 14 13:35 UTC 1994

Put it in the MOTD and mail all members warning them that all
membership-linked Internet privileges will be revovked for those
who don't vote.

It's not very elegant but if you want to get out of this mess
you need to see how it got started.

response 89 of 184:

Dec 14 16:07 UTC 1994

It would be interesting to see why this lack of quorom is occurring.
Partly it is due to lack of interest, or lack of knowledge of the
candidates, or of the election.  The idea that people may refuse to
vote because they only want the privileges of membership without any
duties (such as voting or helping shape policy) is one Grex should
be very concerned about.  
  I think Rane's got the idea on this election: if the bylaws declare
it invalid due to lack of quorum, we re-run the election (does this
mean we re-open nominations?  I imagine so.)  Extending an election
time period to achieve a quorum is not a good precedent, IMO.  If you
don't have a quorum, you've got some fundamental problems with the
membership that need to be addressed.  Allowing more time for people to
vote is attacking a symptom and no guarantee you'll get a quorom.
Hopefully the membership eventually "will get the idea" but I wouldn't
count on it.  Perhaps the board had better act while they still have the
ability to make binding decisions...
  Let's hope we never have a crisis requiring a change in by-laws; I
doubt we'd ever get a valid vote if things stay as they are now.

response 91 of 184:

Dec 14 16:30 UTC 1994

I wonder if perhaps the eligibility requirement should be questioned,
not the number needed for a quorum.  I've been a regular user here
for a while, and have talked to most of the candidates.  I've also
read lots of postiings from all of them.  I assume there are more
people like me that have a little knowledge what's going on, but 
choose not to be members for one reason or another.  Maybe there should
be some way to "register" to vote without actually being a member.

It seems like this would increase the percentage of registered voters
actually *voting*, and not having all of the burden on members who
donated to grex for the internet usage, not voting rights.

response 93 of 184:

Dec 14 19:39 UTC 1994

AS far as I know, remmers wrote an elegant voting program. (this
is in response to stuff around #30-#40 - haven't been on much).
  
I also think the M-b0x uses it as well. For what it was designed
to do, it does it quite well. Don't know about those non-members
voting in it though, that sounds very un-remmers like, unless
theri votes are not tabulated.
  
No where has teh suggestion been put that paper ballots are my idea.
I would be quite against that - and would have been from the first
suggestion were it ever to be made.
  
Having the opportunity to change a vote every time you logon is,
I guess, an advantage of sorts - it's a feature if nothing else,
but it also provides for a sudden change of vote and, in it's way,
also invalidates the importance of thinking through ballot casting.
  
Willy-nilly ballot casting with each twist in the wind - or fit of
pique - reduces the gravity of making a single choice ONCE.
  
All else aside, the fact that a specific ballot CAN BE easily
traced to a specific voter is incorrect, imo, and therefore,
knowing this to be true, i will not participate until or unless
that "problem/feature" is gone. 

response 95 of 184:

Dec 14 20:31 UTC 1994

Re #93: M-Net runs a different vote program.

Dan updated the voter list, so the following should be accurate:

        There are 83 eligible voters.
        The quorum is 2/3 of that, or 56 voters.
        43 of those eligible have voted.
        Therefore, we are 13 votes short of the quorum.

As noted previously, a lot more non-members have voted than members; 57
altogether at this time.  In this and previous board elections, the
vote program has been set up so that anybody can run it; I did this so
that curious non-members could "feel" what it was like to participate
in an election, and perhaps be encouraged to become members.  The way
the votes are stored, it's easy to separate those out and count only
the eligible members, which is what is done.  In the past, only a
handful of non-members have voted; this year's pattern is a *radical*
change.  I'll speculate that this is because we now have a large (and
ever-growing) number of users who have no idea how Grex is run.

response 97 of 184:

Dec 14 22:59 UTC 1994

Actually, while for board elections it doesn't make as much sense to
have non-members voting, for a proposal I think it *is* valuable and
worthwhile to encourage non-members to vote.  The usefulness there in
terms of determing if members are in fact a good representation of the
user population.  If members & users vote differently; that means there
is probably a substantial segment of the user population that is
under-represented in the membership; or that the members are being
"selfish" in some sense or another; in either case, it would make sense
for those non-members to consider becoming members to ensure their
interests are represented in grex.

response 99 of 184:

Dec 15 00:23 UTC 1994

UM Finals are this week and next week.
  (I'm proctoring an exam tomorrow and one next week)