[governance] Criterion for charter voting

Wed Sep 29 07:36:02 EDT 2010

On Wednesday 29 September 2010 04:54 PM, Paul Lehto wrote:
> The problem with the interpretation to "avoid capture" of only
> allowing charter votes from those who voted in the last election is
> that it greatly facilitates a different kind of capture:

Paul, at this point the issue is not about one view against another, but 
the letter of the charter of the IGC, which clearly has a different 
eligibility criterion for voting in a charter amendment than any other 
voting. It states that

    "In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous
    election will be deemed a member for amending the charter."

Pl see http://www.igcaucus.org/charter . I know you are a great upholder 
of letter and spirit of the 'law' and will see the point in this 
perspective. Parminder

>   One may
> monitor those who voted in the last election and, when that mix is
> favorable, ram through the charter amendment based on this subset of
> the total electorate.  And then another amendment could be passed,
> based on the same consideration of not having voted in the last
> election.  Perhaps this could be called "super-capture."
>
> I've written before that a proper interpretation, at least in my view,
> of the Charter would result in a fair and democratic voting method,
> but it hasn't been interpreted consistently that way in the past.
>
> The odd thing is that I am valuable enough to at least be asked about
> the Charter, and yet after missing one election I have never been
> qualified or registered to vote at any time in the year or two I've
> been on the list.  Perhaps I am now, but it's hard for me to know
> because some of the procedures are, to me, democratically
> counter-intuitive.
>
> Paul Lehto, J.D.
> On 9/29/10, parminder<parminder at itforchange.net>  wrote:
>    
>> Dear All
>>
>> This is to draw you attention to an important matter.
>>
>> The voting eligibility for charter amendment and for any other voting,
>> including for electing a coordinator is very different. While for the
>> latter, anyone who has been on the list for two months and affirms
>> membership through declaring commitment to the charter can vote, for a
>> charter amendment only those who have voted for the last election/
>> voting can vote. This special condition has been put for voting on any
>> charter amendment to avoid capture, since charter amendment is quite a
>> serious matter, since through any such amendment the very nature of and
>> procedures adopted by the caucus can be changed.
>>
>> When I read that voting for charter amendment and for electing a new
>> coordinator will take place at the same time, I brought the above issue
>> to the attention of the co-coordinator in-charge of the voting/election,
>> Jeremy, and requested that since there are different voting eligibility
>> conditions for the two proposed voting, holding them together will cause
>> confusion and should therefore be avoided. I preferred that charter
>> amendment be held separately before the coordinator election, with the
>> voter list consisting of all those who had voted for the last election,
>> as is expressly required by the charter.
>>
>> Jeremy replied that he is going to overcome this problem simply by
>> having a single process whereby the coordinator voting immediately
>> precedes the charter amendment vote, and it will 'technically' be
>> ensured that only those who vote for coordinator election will be able
>> to vote for the charter amendment, which in his view would meet the
>> special voting eligibility requirement for a charter amendment vote.
>>
>> I responded that though technically it may meet the requirement, which
>> too I doubt, it does not observe the intent of the charter in spirit,
>> since the special condition of more strict eligibility conditions for
>> voting for charter amendment has been put there with a clear purpose of
>> avoiding capture. It is for this reason that the charter seeks to put
>> some clear time and space between the participation of anyone in a vote
>> for charter amendment and her/ his affirmation of IGC membership through
>> participation in an earlier election, when, presumably, he/ she would
>> have no idea of a possible participation in a charter amendment vote.
>>
>>    The present process, whereby any voting can be held immediately
>> preceding, but as a part of the same process of,  a charter amendment
>> vote almost looks like writing a plan on how to subvert the charter
>> requirement of more stringent voting criteria for charter amendment.
>> Even though the present exercise may be well-intentioned, the fact that
>> it opens up a dangerous future possibility bother me a lot.
>>
>> I therefore consider the present voting process as not proper, and
>> propose a discussion on this issue.
>>
>> Parminder
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday 29 September 2010 10:02 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>      
>>> You should just have received a personal email inviting you to cast
>>> your vote for the next co-coordinator of the IGC.  After you confirm
>>> your eligibility and cast your vote, you will also become eligible to
>>> vote on the recently-discussed charter amendment.
>>>
>>> If you did not receive your personal invitation email, please first
>>> check your junk email folder, and if you still do not have it, let me
>>> know.
>>>
>>> The draft form of the coordinator ballot and charter poll has been
>>> approved by Ginger also, but I will take primary responsibility for
>>> any disputes that people may wish to raise about the process adopted.
>>>
>>> The 2009 appeals team (Jeanette Hofmann, Adam Peake, Carlos
>>> Alfonso, Ken Lohento and Fouad Bajwa), who have not yet been replaced
>>> for 2010, are (I hope) also available to hear any disagreements.
>>>
>>> Following the informal procedure adopted in previous years (the
>>> charter is, surprisingly, silent), the election ballot and charter
>>> poll will be open for 10 days from now, which ends on 9 September
>>> 2010, "rounded up" until midnight that night.
>>>
>>> The last subscriber who is eligible to affirm IGC membership is Alan
>>> Greenberg, who subscribed on 23 July 2010.  The first subscriber who
>>> missed out on that opportunity is Giorgio Simeoli who subscribed on 10
>>> August.  One subscriber, emisa+ig at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:emisa+ig at gmail.com>  has an email address that is not
>>> technically capable of receiving a personalised invitation
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> *Jeremy Malcolm
>>> Project Coordinator*
>>> Consumers International
>>> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
>>> Malaysia
>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>>>
>>> *CI is 50*
>>> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement
>>> in 2010.
>>> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect
>>> consumer rights around the world.
>>> _http://www.consumersinternational.org/50_
>>>
>>> Read our email confidentiality notice
>>> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765>.
>>>
>>> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>>>
>>>        
>>      
>
>    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100929/6ef5c193/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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