[governance] Criterion for charter voting

[Paul Lehto]

In the past, I was invited by a coordinator to read the charter with
an eye toward possible improvement, and I did so, carefully.

There are always multiple ways any given text can be interpreted.
That ambiguity can be narrowed through good drafting but not
eliminated entirely, especially as against readers that potentially
have motivation to interpret it in certain ways they favor for reasons
outside the text.

But in my opinion, the Charter doesn't absolutely need a substantive
amendment at all, at least if it is understood in its entirety in the
spirit  I read it, such as by not favoring an interpretation that
results in a loss of rights unless that is the only reasonable
interpretation.  . Thus, one presumes democracy and equality of voting
unless it is crystal clear that no other reasonable interpretation
exists.

 That being said, the Charter  could stand having some less than
optimal drafting ambiguities cleared up.   I do understand that, as
with all texts, it is subject to multiple interpretations, plus a few
more still if there are any real elections or disputes at issue.
Whenever multiple reasonable interpretations exist about the same
text, it is ambiguous.

I"m not inclined to propose a substantive amendment because that would
presume the EXACT thing I deny: that my interpretation is wrong and
others' is right.  That would give me the burden of a campaign to
amend the charter plus concede essentially all the points I've made so
far.  Am I stupid?  Like most people, I do not believe so.  ;)

Always, after an election, every side cheers for their team and each
side conveniently agrees or disagrees with the calls of the referee.
The best hope is to wait a bit of time for the election mood to pass
and then hope that the spirit of democracy and equality carries the
day.

Paul Lehto, J.D.

P.S. Ultimately, it is only this "nebulous" idea of the spirit that
keeps the life and intent in any text or words. To see what I mean,
read the Constitution of the soviet union which seems very well
drafted indeed, I'd say better than the USA's, but it doesn't seem to
have been followed much.  And now the USA Constitution has seen better
days as the eagerness to punish overwhelms the spirit of liberty.


On 10/2/10, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>


-- 
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