[governance] Criterion for charter voting

[Paul Lehto]

On 10/2/10, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
 Or do you mean to tell us that that
> charter is just a bunch of rubbish not deserving of your consideration to
> operate by its provisions whatsoever, including in order to have it changed?

No, some people on this list will recall I paid a significant amount
of attention to it a few months ago, in addition to recently.    I
studied the charter carefully, and wrote what I thought made sense of
the whole thing, (instead of reading parts in isolation).  I think I
made enough observations along the way to justify the proposal that
was then made:  to set up a committee.

At minimum, reasonable people can interpret the charter provision
differently, but that doesn't make all interpretations of equal merit.

In addition, it is mistaken to think that a vote of a group
constitutes a "precedent" in anything like the sense most people are
familiar with for judicial precedent.  There has been no due process
and full hearing of the issues before the past votes or whatever other
action is being claimed as "precedent."

I don't believe any one should be forced to have a lawyer on their
side, but that doesn't mean that "anything goes" because the simple
act of not having a lawyer, or having a vote among a group of people,
doesn't grant an exemption from the rules of reason that govern
interpretation of texts.  For example, one rule I invoked implicitly
was:

(1) No text may be said to incorporate a "rule" unless all of what the
text says concerning the subject of that rule is consistent with the
proposed meaning of the "rule" or otherwise fully  accounted for.

>> On 10/1/10, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
> I would hope that
> anyone who cares so much about this in the name of democracy, and has --no
> doubt-- meaningful arguments to support it, will at some point move it
> before the demos -- the demos which, at some point in the past, took the
> decision that you now view as "undemocratic."

Well, for a charter amendment, a non-qualified peon like me who can't
even vote on a charter amendment surely can't move the adoption of
such an amendment, can I? Or, if it is like when women couldn't vote,
in some places they could hold office even though not allowed to vote
since they were deemed to be "virtually" represented by their male
husbands and brothers and fathers.  Under that view, perhaps I could
make a motion without being able to vote but it would be a risk.

I wonder if this group understands that the use of the word "Demos"
(people) doesn't include me (and anyone else who didn't vote last
time) for purposes of Charter amendments?

When there are two or more classes of voters and/or if there is not
universal suffrage,  it is not a "demos" democracy --  it is an
aristocracy or an oligarchy or the like.

> On the other hand, you may also be aware that, in time and space (as opposed
> to: in the abstract), the brightest ideas don't necessary win in the arena
> of democracy at a given point in time.

And it takes experts, preferably many of them, to truly foul things
up.   If a demos or people can't make mistakes, they are NOT free.

> suggesting to you, or anyone interested, to use the resources that the
> charter afford (would it be correct by lawyer's parlance to call that "due
> process"?) in order to give the demos the opportunity to reconsider its
> views.

That would be an excellent proposal if the subject matter didn't
involve voting.  Since it does that makes me and others outsiders,
literally not part of the "people" here, and not fully qualified to
address the charter.

Whenever the right to vote is at question, it is agitated for from
some sort of "outside" - that's where the non-voters / new members
are.

The perennial consideration for not allowing other people to vote is
that it will flood the system with votes and dilute the votes of the
pre-existing voters.  It might be called "gaming" but since every vote
is equal this charge reflects the feeling of members whose votes get
diluted but not any real injustice.  One can democratically have a
short waiting period after list membership starts in order to vote "a
residency requirement" but after that there should not be different or
separate classes of voters -- if it is a democracy that we mean to
have.

-- 
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-2334
____________________________________________________________
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t