Re[4]: [ga] vote appeal

["William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>]

Hello Joanna,

Wednesday, April 11, 2001, 9:01:25 PM, Joanna Lane wrote:
>> I can't say for certain that those rules were adopted by a vote of the
>> GA, you have to understand that the entire concept that the GA CAN
>> vote on issues like that is rather new.

> No they do not. I can say for certain that NO such rule was adopted by a
> vote of the GA. I voted for the rules and I did not, and would not vote for
> multiple ballots. The rules that were adopted were not intended to
> supplememt other rules, but rather to *replace* them. We discussed all this
> already when the so called "rule of ten" cropped up.
> You are implying that old rules should be interpreted as if they are "case
> law", available to overturn stated terms of a legal contract. That is not
> the case here. Old rules, whatever they may be, cannot be enforced, because
> they have not been agreed by consensus of the current GA. New rules can.
> That's the difference. The old rules no longer have any legitimacy.

Well, first of all Joanna, new rules do not always totally supplant
existing rules.  Secondly, there were no multiple ballots.  It was the
same ballot sent more than once, which many organization do during an
election to remind people to vote.

The rule is generally the last one counts.  This is true when
balloting is done in our US Congress, for instance, where until the
voting is closed, members are free to recast their vote and have any
prior votes by them on that question invalidated as a result.

> Oh please. The ballot was different because the votes cast on it were not
> the same.

Joanna, those members were already free to recast their ballots in
that way.  The ballot was not different because some members elected
to change their vote (for what it is worth, my own ballot stayed the
same.  I was content to let me original vote stand for the candidate I
felt best suited to the job, even if he had made the decision not to
fulfill his position if selected).

> I repeat, the DNSO Secretariat cannot be faulted in this election.
> I agree the rules should make provision for such an eventuality, but you are
> muddying the waters. Jonathan's "withdrawal" was not a technical failure.
> The failure was on the part of those who had not voted for anybody else and
> wanted a revote.

Anyone who didn't follow the instructions, and RANKED the candidates
by preference, didn't follow instructions anyway.  The sour grapes I
am seeing from Eric over this issue are really much ado about nothing.

There was no fault or failure here at all, for anyone except those
voters who didn't vote correctly at all.

-- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:william@userfriendly.com


--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html