[governance] Results of charter amendment vote

[Paul Lehto]

The sweeping claim, and the fatal weakness, of the claim being made is
that the lack of an express prohibition leaves administrators free to
do as they please.   If this were really the case, then there's no
requirement for ANY of the following, because they can't be found
(I'll bet) in the charter:

1. The right to have the ballots PROPERLY counted, or counted at all.
(Perhaps only "results" need to be announced per the charter, but not
the results of counts, and only the right to CAST a vote is mentioned,
or perhaps even that is omitted.)

2. The right not to have ballots made up and added to the ballot box
fraudulently.

3.  The right not to have a fake total, other than the real total,
announced for a given election.

It's only a matter of time, even if the above examples aren't perfect,
before the absolute absurdity of the position that a positive command
in black and white must exist before a restriction on administrative
freedom exists is shown.  Many more examples can readily be imagined,
and that's fair, because literally you're saying admininstrators can
do anything imaginable unless and until there's SPECIFIC LANGUAGE
DISALLOWING it.  And that seems reasonable at quick glance, but is in
reality utterly absurd, and really quite a dangerous principle to
follow in the long run.

What you dismiss as the "zippy wow" -- the "self-evident" principles
that are in most countries claiming to be free nowhere to be found in
their constitution or written laws, like the right to have one's vote
actually COUNTED in addition to the "right to vote" or cast a vote,
the right to travel within a country, an adult's right to wear
different clothes, the right to procreate, the right not to be
prohibited from all employment by law, the right to be free from
arbitrary and capricious action, etc.

The list goes on and on and includes the majority of the specific, on
the ground rights most people hold dear.

The very crux of  your claim is that of freedom for what amounts to
the government here -- the right of administrators to "leeway" unless
very specifically and expressly prohibited from doing something
specific.

Now, you seemed to be saying that political theory was out the window
here but you are stating a cognizable political theory in claiming
leeway for governments unless they are specifically constrained by a
detailed restriction (and to heck with "principles" and "zippy wow"
stuff).   So as not to inflame the discussion, I'll simply say that
the theory of governance is not that of republics nor is it of
democracies.  That's ok with me under freedom of thought and speech,
but (again!) a principle comes to mind, that of calling a spade a
spade in the interest of clear communication.

Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor

On 9/29/09, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
> On 29 Sep 2009, at 14:49, Paul Lehto wrote:
>
>> My argument (at its core but not also at the margins, at which margins
>> I did indeed argue by analogy from election law and the theory of
>> democracy, an area I've published in) is that the "constraints of the
>> charter", the very ones you say rulings must be "based on" prohibit
>> the very kind of "leeway" taken here.
>
>
> Can you quote  where in  he charter it says that
> the coordinators do not have the right and leeway to set votes for the
> period they wish or to extend the ballot time as they see fit?
>
> If not, I contend that the rest of argument built on this core, does
> not stand.
>
> As far as I can tell all it says in the charter is:
>
>> Elections will be run by the coordinators and will be subject to the
>> appeals process.
>
> It was, and it is.
>
> Of course this is subject to amendment and more stringent  and
> specific rules can be
> added subject to a 2/3 approval of the members
>
> I think it is important to remember that organizations should be run
> according to their bylaws
> and charters as long as those are not contravened by actual applicable
> law.  Principles not
> specifically called out in the charter cannot trump the privileges set
> out in that charter, no matter
> how zippy wow* they appear.
>
> I believe this vote has been so run and believe there is no applicable
> law that negates the actions
> taken by the coordinators.  In my opinion, they have behaved within
> the limits of the charter.
>
> a.
> dilettante philosopher
>
>
> * by zippy wow, i mean, of course, those fundamental truths that
> everyone sees and accepts as
> self evident etcetera etcetera
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>


-- 
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box #1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-4026
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance