= Сообщение: 807 из 7127 ======================================= FTSC_PUBLIC = От : Roy Witt 1:387/22 09 Dec 13 16:14:13 Кому : Michiel van der Vlist 09 Dec 13 16:14:13 Тема : Why a vote cast is a vote cast FGHI : area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=1:387/22+52a640de На : area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=2:280/5555+52a5a6a8 = Кодировка сообщения определена как: CP437 ================================== ============================================================================== Brer Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Brer All about Why a vote cast is a vote cast:
MvdV> In the 2010 FSTC election Björn Felten requested that MvdV> he be allowed to correct his already cast vote. The MvdV> EC responded with "let me sleep on it". This is a MvdV> summary of the storm of protest that followed. Read MvdV> and judge for yourself...
Bjorn wanted to change his vote, not correct a spelling error.
MvdV> ==== begin ====
MvdV> == 38937 ================================================ MvdV> Date : 16 Nov 10 18:22:54 MvdV> From : Ross Cassell 1:123/456 MvdV> To : Michiel van der Vlist MvdV> Subject : Votes received. MvdV> -------------------------------------------------------- MvdV> AREA:FTSC_PUBLIC MvdV> Hello Michiel!
MvdV> 16 Nov 10 22:36, you wrote to Björn Felten:
MV>> Hmmm... I don't know. There is no provision in the rules MV>> for changing a vote that is already cast. OTOH, the rules do MV>> not forbid it either. I lean towards allowing it, but only MV>> if there are no serious objections from the constituency. MV>> It will set a precedent either way. So let me sleep on it.
MvdV> I protest in the name of protocol..
MvdV> If it is not in the rules, then it is not in the rules.. Changing MvdV> the rules with a vote in progress is unheard of.
MvdV> I submit:
MvdV> Had the 2 no votes not been cast, Bjorn would not be pleading to MvdV> change his, therefore his regret over his own vote, is a sad MvdV> consequence.
MvdV> I neither cast and up or down vote for Alexey just to avoid being MvdV> cast in some negative light, but held back such vote because he did MvdV> come across as worrying more about nit picking others than anything MvdV> else..
MvdV> Since Sweden is the cradle of Democracy, I fail to see why Bjorn is MvdV> scornful of others making a concious decision.
MvdV> Do not allow revotes, what you gonna do, allow others to change MvdV> their votes if they dont like the direction the outcome is heading?
MvdV> NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MvdV> Now if you want, you can after the election, put in a rule or rule MvdV> change, which I still would object to a revote, but you could MvdV> change the format to allow a yes vote or a non-vote, then each MvdV> candidate would have to score 50% or 50%+1 of all voters(*) MvdV> counted. You of course would be making this suggestion to the full MvdV> FTSC, where we would fight over it and not ever agree.
MvdV> (*) If 20 voters then 10 or 11 yes votes needed.
MvdV> However I could see someone pitching a fit over non-votes and MvdV> wanting to change their vote, see what happens here..
MvdV> Dont tilt at windmills Michiel, be strong, I am here for you!
MvdV> Of course you could make the balloting secret, only publishing the MvdV> results after the election concluded, that would be a viable MvdV> option.
MvdV> I can see you balking at this, but you could publicly acknowledge MvdV> in here... "RC such and such voted" But dont publish the actual MvdV> vote, until it is all tallied and too late.
MvdV> Felten, you know better than this. You must know ride down downtown MvdV> Stockholm, nude on a moose with a Wolf on the loose.
MvdV> ... Liberals hold others to standards that they wont hold to MvdV> themselves. MvdV> -+- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20060121 MvdV> + Origin: The Eastern Star - Spartanburg, SC USA (1:123/456)
MvdV> == 38943 ================================================ MvdV> Date : 16 Nov 10 21:24:13 MvdV> From : Ross Cassell 1:123/456 MvdV> To : Michiel van der Vlist MvdV> Subject : Votes received. MvdV> -------------------------------------------------------- MvdV> AREA:FTSC_PUBLIC MvdV> Hello Michiel!
MvdV> 17 Nov 10 01:40, you wrote to me:
RC>>> If it is not in the rules, then it is not in the rules..
MV>> Indeed, it is not in the rules. They do not explicitly allow MV>> nor forbid it. So it can go either way.
MvdV> I think that when it comes to something like this, one should not MvdV> fall back and say well the rules dont forbid it either.
MvdV> You leave room open for someone (a candidate) to protest the vote.
MvdV> You also leave room open for others (RC's and REC's) to also want MvdV> to change their vote.
MvdV> As it is, with each vote you receive, you ack it then follow it MvdV> with a tally of all votes counted thus far, including the one you MvdV> just acked, now if you allow Bjorn to recast, you are going to MvdV> have to allow others to recast, then you get a pissing match if MvdV> others decide to recast ballots to counteract other recast votes..
MvdV> ... Taxes are the sexual aphrodesiac for every Democrat. MvdV> -+- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20060121 MvdV> + Origin: The Eastern Star - Spartanburg, SC USA (1:123/456)
MvdV> == 38944 ================================================ MvdV> Date : 16 Nov 10 21:48:20 MvdV> From : Janis Kracht 1:261/38 MvdV> To : Ross Cassell MvdV> Subject : Votes received. MvdV> -------------------------------------------------------- MvdV> AREA:FTSC_PUBLIC MvdV> Hi Ross,
>> I protest in the name of protocol..
>> If it is not in the rules, then it is not in the rules.. Changing >> the rules with a vote in progress is unheard of.
MvdV> Thank you Ross for pointing this out.
MvdV> !! Note to Michiel: where do you draw the line if you allow this? MvdV> I'm curious if you've thought it through.
MvdV> == 38945 ================================================ MvdV> Date : 16 Nov 10 21:51:58 MvdV> From : Janis Kracht 1:261/38 MvdV> To : Michiel van der Vlist MvdV> Subject : Votes received. MvdV> -------------------------------------------------------- MvdV> AREA:FTSC_PUBLIC MvdV> Hello Michiel,
>>>> Hmmm... I don't know. There is no provision in the rules for >>>> changing a vote thais already cast. OTOH, the rules do not forbid >>>> it either. I lean towards allowing it, but only if there are no >>>> serious objections from the constituency. It will set a precedent >>>> either way. So let me sleep on it.
>>> I protest in the name of protocol..
>> Noted. And as someone with voting rights your opinion carries weight.
MvdV> Of course it does, my friend.. but please do not forget who asked MvdV> their RCs to put you in office!
>>> If it is not in the rules, then it is not in the rules..
MvdV> Michiel, if you allow this, where do you draw the line as to WHEN MvdV> people may change their vote?? And at WHAT point do you tell MvdV> people when that point is?
MvdV> When you've seen that enough RCs and RECs have said to you, Ok, MvdV> this is my final vote. For goodness sake, you sound like a game MvdV> show host over here asking people, "Is that your final answer??"
MvdV> == 38956 ================================================ MvdV> Date : 16 Nov 10 23:12:12 MvdV> From : Joe Delahaye 1:249/303 MvdV> To : Ross Cassell MvdV> Subject : Votes received. MvdV> -------------------------------------------------------- MvdV> AREA:FTSC_PUBLIC MvdV> Re: Votes received. MvdV> By: Ross Cassell to Michiel van der Vlist on Tue Nov 16 2010 MvdV> 18:22:54
>> I protest in the name of protocol.. >> >> If it is not in the rules, then it is not in the rules.. Changing the >> rules with a vote in progress is unheard of. >>
MvdV> I have to agree with that. Once a vote is cast, it is done. MvdV> -+- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32 MvdV> + Origin: The Lions Den BBS, Trenton, On, CDN (1:249/303)
MvdV> == 39014 ================================================ MvdV> Date : 17 Nov 10 00:04:00 MvdV> From : Michael Luko 1:266/512 MvdV> To : Michiel Van Der Vlist MvdV> Subject : Votes received. MvdV> -------------------------------------------------------- MvdV> AREA:FTSC_PUBLIC MvdV> -> Hmmm... I don't know. There is no provision in the rules for MvdV> -> changing a vote thais already cast. OTOH, the rules do not MvdV> forbid -> it either. I lean towards allowing it, but only if there MvdV> are no -> serious objections from the constituency. It will set a MvdV> precedent -> either way. So let me sleep on it.
MvdV> I could see allowing a resubmission based on a technicality or MvdV> misunderstanding but not just based on how the voting is proceding. MvdV> Unless you are in a vote for one amongst different candidates and MvdV> the candidate in which the voter voted dropped out of the race. MvdV> Then I could see allowing those who voted for the dropped candidate MvdV> to resubmit a vote amongst the remaining candidates. I had a case MvdV> last year where I wasn't very clear that on my regional feed back MvdV> poll that each candidate was up for election. So I allowed those MvdV> who only voted for one candidate to resubmit their ballot MvdV> indicating a vote for each candidate unless of course they were MvdV> actually abstaining on that candidate.
MvdV> If you allow changes based on the way someone doesn't like the MvdV> way the results are going. You could run into the problem well so MvdV> and so was able to change their vote because they didn't like the MvdV> way things were going then I can do the same. We could have an MvdV> never ending election process with everyone constantly changing MvdV> ballots.
MvdV> == 39008 ================================================ MvdV> Date : 17 Nov 10 00:09:56 MvdV> From : Jon Justvig 1:298/5 MvdV> To : Ross Cassell MvdV> Subject : Votes received. MvdV> -------------------------------------------------------- MvdV> AREA:FTSC_PUBLIC
>> Of course you could make the balloting secret, only publishing the >> results after the election concluded, that would be a viable option. >> I can see you balking at this, but you could publicly acknowledge in >> here... "RC such and such voted" But dont publish the actual vote, >> until it is all tallied and too late.
MvdV> I really agree with this. Seeing votes will also tell others to MvdV> vote for this person and not this person. It done secretly and MvdV> having the final vote seems like the fair way to me. Like pick a MvdV> number out of a jar, if you win you win. <g>
MvdV> == 39015 ================================================ MvdV> Date : 17 Nov 10 00:17:00 MvdV> From : Michael Luko 1:266/512 MvdV> To : Ross Cassell MvdV> Subject : Votes received. MvdV> -------------------------------------------------------- MvdV> AREA:FTSC_PUBLIC MvdV> -> You also leave room open for others (RC's and REC's) to also MvdV> want to -> change their vote. -> As it is, with each vote you MvdV> receive, you ack it then follow it with -> a tally of all votes MvdV> counted thus far, including the one you just -> acked, now if you MvdV> allow Bjorn to recast, you are going to have to -> allow others to MvdV> recast, then you get a pissing match if others -> decide to recast MvdV> ballots to counteract other recast votes.. -> Dont open the box MvdV> Pandora!
MvdV> Or opening a can of worms. :) The voting could go on forever and no MvdV> where fast.
MvdV> == 39011 ================================================ MvdV> Date : 17 Nov 10 00:20:48 MvdV> From : Jon Justvig 1:298/5 MvdV> To : Joe Delahaye MvdV> Subject : Votes received. MvdV> -------------------------------------------------------- MvdV> AREA:FTSC_PUBLIC
>> Re: Votes received. >> By: Ross Cassell to Michiel van der Vlist on Tue Nov 16 2010 18:22:54 >>> I protest in the name of protocol.. >>> >>> If it is not in the rules, then it is not in the rules.. Changing >>> the rules with a vote in progress is unheard of. >>>
>> I have to agree with that. Once a vote is cast, it is done.
MvdV> Sounds like a few kids in kindergarden to me. <g>
MvdV> == 38939 ================================================ MvdV> Date : 17 Nov 10 01:40:37 MvdV> From : Michiel van der Vlist 2:280/5555 MvdV> To : Ross Cassell MvdV> Subject : Votes received. MvdV> -------------------------------------------------------- MvdV> AREA:FTSC_PUBLIC MvdV> Hello Ross,
MvdV> On Tuesday November 16 2010 18:22, you wrote to me:
MV>>> Hmmm... I don't know. There is no provision in the rules for MV>>> changing a vote thais already cast. OTOH, the rules do not MV>>> forbid it either. I lean towards allowing it, but only if there MV>>> are no serious objections from the constituency. It will set a MV>>> precedent either way. So let me sleep on it.
RC>> I protest in the name of protocol..
MvdV> Noted. And as someone with voting rights your opinion carries MvdV> weight.
RC>> If it is not in the rules, then it is not in the rules..
MvdV> Indeed, it is not in the rules. They do not explicitly allow nor MvdV> forbid it. So it can go either way.
RC>> Changing the rules with a vote in progress is unheard of.
MvdV> There is a difference between changing the rules and changing a MvdV> vote. Changing the rules while the game is afoot is unheard of. MvdV> Changing a vote is not. Not in this part of the world anyway. MvdV> Changing a once cast vote is only problematic when votes are MvdV> anonymous, as in that case it is not possible to know what the MvdV> originally cast vote was that is to be retracted. In open elections MvdV> this problem does not exist, so I see no basic problem.
MvdV> As a matter of fact, my RC - responding to my recomendation to MvdV> consult the region - is now collecting votes from the sysops in the MvdV> region over this very election. One sysop casted a vote that he MvdV> retracted next day and cast a new one. My RC accepted. So it is not MvdV> unheard of.
RC>> I submit:
RC>> Had the 2 no votes not been cast, Bjorn would not be pleading to RC>> change his, therefore his regret over his own vote, is a sad RC>> consequence.
MvdV> Possibly. It is however not for the vote collector or anyone else MvdV> to question the motives of the voter. The same applies to a voter MvdV> who requests a change of vote. When we deny it to one, we must deny MvdV> it to all. When we allow it for one, we must allow it for all. MvdV> Irrespective of the voter's motives.
MvdV> == 39083 ================================================ MvdV> Date : 17 Nov 10 09:22:28 MvdV> From : Jon Justvig 1:298/5 MvdV> To : Björn Felten MvdV> Subject : Votes received. MvdV> -------------------------------------------------------- MvdV> AREA:FTSC_PUBLIC
>>> I really agree with this. Seeing votes will also tell others to vote >>> for this person and not this person.
>> I totally agree. I was thinking wrongly. In the Swedish governmental >> elections you can vote as many times you like, the votes are given a >> time stam and the latest vote counts. But that's a closed election, >> in an open election like this, of course you should not be allowed to >> change your vote once it's being passed.
>> Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. I stand corrected. Please forget my >> suggestion >> ASAP!
MvdV> Forgiven. Just this time and this time only (sales pitch). <g>
MvdV> == 39084 ================================================ MvdV> Date : 17 Nov 10 09:27:34 MvdV> From : Jon Justvig 1:298/5 MvdV> To : Michiel Van Der Vlist MvdV> Subject : Votes received. MvdV> -------------------------------------------------------- MvdV> AREA:FTSC_PUBLIC
>> Hello Janis, >> On Tuesday November 16 2010 21:48, you wrote to Ross Cassell:
>>> !! Note to Michiel: where do you draw the line if you allow this? >>> I'm curious if you've thought it through.
>> I said I was going to sleep on it didn't I? Whan I wrote that, I >> already realised that without drawing lines things could get messy >> if recasting votes were allowed.
MvdV> You said that but you must have a had a short nap. <g>
>> In the meantime I have slept on it.
MvdV> Bright and fitten like a kitten wearing mittens. <g>
>> However... the request for a recast is withdrawn, so we can drop the >> issue.
MvdV> Thank goodness. I wonder too if this was thought all the way MvdV> through. None-the-less it is resolved and we can go on with our MvdV> merry lives.
MvdV> == 39104 ================================================ MvdV> Date : 17 Nov 10 10:55:00 MvdV> From : Bob Seaborn 1:140/12 MvdV> To : Ross Cassell MvdV> Subject : Votes received. MvdV> -------------------------------------------------------- MvdV> AREA:FTSC_PUBLIC
MvdV> For what it's worth, I fully agree. Once a vote is posted, and MvdV> acknowledged, it MUST stand as posted. No second thoughts, no MvdV> changing!
>> Hello Michiel! >> >> 16 Nov 10 22:36, you wrote to Bj÷rn Felten: >> >> MV> Hmmm... I don't know. There is no provision in the rules for >> MV> changing a vote thais already cast. OTOH, the rules do not >> MV> forbid it either. I lean towards allowing it, but only if there >> NV> are no serious objectionsfrom the constituency. It will set a >> MV> precedent either way. So let me sleep on it. >> >> I protest in the name of protocol.. >> >> If it is not in the rules, then it is not in the rules.. Changing >> the rules with a vote in progress is unheard of. >> >> I submit: >> >> Had the 2 no votes not been cast, Bjorn would not be pleading to >> change his, therefore his regret over his own vote, is a sad >> consequence. >> >> I neither cast and up or down vote for Alexey just to avoid being >> cast in some negative light, but held back such vote because he did >> come across as worrying more about nit picking others than anything >> else.. >> >> Since Sweden is the cradle of Democracy, I fail to see why Bjorn is >> scornful of others making a concious decision. >> >> Do not allow revotes, what you gonna do, allow others to change >> their votes if they dont like the direction the outcome is heading? >> >> NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >> >> Now if you want, you can after the election, put in a rule or rule >> change, which I still would object to a revote, but you could change >> the format to allow a yes vote or a non-vote, then each candidate >> would have to score 50% or 50%+1 of all voters(*) counted. You of >> course would be making this suggestion to the full FTSC, where we >> would fight over it and not ever agree. >> >> (*) If 20 voters then 10 or 11 yes votes needed. >> >> However I could see someone pitching a fit over non-votes and >> wanting to change their vote, see what happens here.. >> >> Dont tilt at windmills Michiel, be strong, I am here for you! >> >> Of course you could make the balloting secret, only publishing >> the results after the election concluded, that would be a viable >> option. >> >> I can see you balking at this, but you could publicly acknowledge >> in here... "RC such and such voted" But dont publish the actual >> vote, until it is all tallied and too late. >> >> Felten, you know better than this. You must know ride down >> downtown Stockholm, nude on a moose with a Wolf on the loose. >> >> == >> Ross >> Fidonet Feeds Or Fidonet In Your Newsreader: >> http://www.easternstar.infoE-mail: ross(at)cassell(dot)us | Other >> Places: http://links.cassell.us >> >> We hoped and we got change! >> >> ... Liberals hold others to standards that they wont hold to >> themselves.--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20060121 >> * Origin: The Eastern Star - Spartanburg, SC USA (1:123/456)
MvdV> -+- GEcho/32 & IM 2.50 MvdV> + Origin: RC17 (email to rc17@fidonet.ca) (1:140/12)
MvdV> == 39035 ================================================ MvdV> Date : 17 Nov 10 11:08:56 MvdV> From : Björn Felten 2:203/2 MvdV> To : Jon Justvig MvdV> Subject : Votes received. MvdV> -------------------------------------------------------- MvdV> AREA:FTSC_PUBLIC
JJ>> I really agree with this. Seeing votes will also tell others to JJ>> vote for this person and not this person.
MvdV> I totally agree. I was thinking wrongly. In the Swedish MvdV> governmental elections you can vote as many times you like, the MvdV> votes are given a time stamp and the latest vote counts. But that's MvdV> a closed election, in an open election like this, of course you MvdV> should not be allowed to change your vote once it's being passed.
MvdV> Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. I stand corrected. Please forget my MvdV> suggestion ASAP!
MvdV> -+- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; sv-SE; rv:1.9.2.12) MvdV> Gecko/20101027 MvdV> + Origin: news://felten.yi.org (2:203/2)
MvdV> == 39062 ================================================ MvdV> Date : 17 Nov 10 12:52:06 MvdV> From : Michiel van der Vlist 2:280/5555 MvdV> To : Janis Kracht MvdV> Subject : Votes received. MvdV> -------------------------------------------------------- MvdV> AREA:FTSC_PUBLIC MvdV> Hello Janis,
MvdV> On Tuesday November 16 2010 21:48, you wrote to Ross Cassell:
JK>> !! Note to Michiel: where do you draw the line if you allow JK>> this? I'm curious if you've thought it through.
MvdV> I said I was going to sleep on it didn't I? When I wrote that, I MvdV> already realised that without drawing lines things could get messy MvdV> if recasting votes were allowed.
MvdV> In the meantime I have slept on it.
MvdV> However... the request for a recast is withdrawn, so we can drop MvdV> the issue.
MvdV> == 39085 ================================================ MvdV> Date : 17 Nov 10 16:50:14 MvdV> From : Michiel van der Vlist 2:280/5555 MvdV> To : Ross Cassell MvdV> Subject : Voting rules MvdV> -------------------------------------------------------- MvdV> AREA:FTSC_PUBLIC MvdV> Hello Ross,
MvdV> On Tuesday November 16 2010 18:22, you wrote to me:
RC>> Now if you want, you can after the election, put in a rule or RC>> rule change,
MvdV> The rules are laid down in FTA-1000. I do not have the mandate to MvdV> change that all by my self.
RC>> course would be making this suggestion to the full FTSC, where RC>> we would fight over it and not ever agree.
MvdV> That's FidoNet for you. We can never reach consesnsus, so trying to MvdV> change the election rules wpould probably be the umpteenth exercise MvdV> in futility.
RC>> Of course you could make the balloting secret, only publishing RC>> the results after the election concluded, that would be a viable RC>> option.
MvdV> A secret ballot is fine if all the voters are in the same room, MvdV> write their vote on a voting slip, which are then thrown in a hat MvdV> and counted.
MvdV> If they are not physically in the same room with the vote MvdV> collector(s) there is nothing that stops the vote collector from MvdV> manipulating the votes. It has happened. Even in R28.
MvdV> == 39264 ================================================ MvdV> Date : 18 Nov 10 16:46:26 MvdV> From : Roger Nelson 1:3828/7 MvdV> To : Michiel van der Vlist MvdV> Subject : Votes received. MvdV> -------------------------------------------------------- MvdV> AREA:FTSC_PUBLIC MvdV> On Tue 2010-Nov-16 22:36, Michiel van der Vlist (2:2/20) wrote to MvdV> Björn Felten:
MvdV>> Hello Björn,
MvdV>> On Tuesday November 16 2010 14:23, you wrote to me:
BF>> Dear Mr. Voting Admin, I only voted for the two persons that BF>> I know from way back, but please accept my alternate vote:
MvdV>> Hmmm... I don't know. There is no provision in the rules MvdV>> for changing a vote thais already cast. OTOH, the rules do not MvdV>> forbid it either. I lean towards allowing it, but only if there MvdV>> are no serious objections from the constituency. It will set a MvdV>> precedent either way. So let me sleep on it.
MvdV> I wouldn't. Once a vote is cast, it is done. If you allow this MvdV> you will be opening Pandora's Box.
MvdV> Regards,
MvdV> Roger MvdV> -+- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+ MvdV> + Origin: NCS BBS - Houma, LA - (1:3828/7) MvdV> == 39267 ================================================ MvdV> Date : 18 Nov 10 21:04:09 MvdV> From : mark lewis 1:3634/12 MvdV> To : Michiel van der Vlist MvdV> Subject : Votes received. MvdV> -------------------------------------------------------- MvdV> AREA:FTSC_PUBLIC
BF>> Dear Mr. Voting Admin, I only voted for the two persons that BF>> I know from way back, but please accept my alternate vote:
MvdV>> Hmmm... I don't know. There is no provision in the rules for MvdV>> changing a vote thais already cast. OTOH, the rules do not MvdV>> forbid it either. I lean towards allowing it, but only if there MvdV>> are no serious objections from the constituency. It will set a MvdV>> precedent either way. So let me sleep on it.
RN>> I wouldn't. Once a vote is cast, it is done. If you allow this RN>> you will be opening Pandora's Box.
MvdV> i have to agree... it has never been done before and it is not MvdV> allowed in any other voting procedures that i'm aware of... if MvdV> there is a procedure for a revote, then that would possibly come MvdV> into play depending on the circumstances...
MvdV> one might also take a look at history and look at the negative MvdV> votes i got for my actions during the campanging portion of the MvdV> last election process ;)
MvdV> )\/(ark
MvdV> + Origin: (1:3634/12)
MvdV> ==== end ====
MvdV> With thanks to Kees van Eeten for opening his archive.
Reminder: "On Friday September 8th 2006, Mike Godwin's 16 year experiment was concluded and Godwin's Law was officially repealed by a MAJORITY vote among millions of individuals." http://repealgodwin.tripod.com/
--- Ya have ta ask yourself: What Would Roy Witt Do? * Origin: Lone-Star Hub - Gulf Coast Distribution - USA (1:387/22)
