[governance] Criterion for charter voting

[McTim]

On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 12:32 AM, Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com> wrote:


>
> 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?

Yes, you can?

>
> 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?

Everyone who subscribes to the charter should understand this.

Were you not given a voter account? You have been on the list longer
than 2 months.  If you didn't use said account, you can't blame us,
can you?


>
>> 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.

I await your charter amendment on this issue.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
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