In the 2010 FSTC election Björn Felten requested that he be allowed to correct his already cast vote. The EC responded with "let me sleep on it". This is a summary of the storm of protest that followed. Read and judge for yourself...
==== begin ====
== 38937 ================================================ Date : 16 Nov 10 18:22:54 From : Ross Cassell 1:123/456 To : Michiel van der Vlist Subject : Votes received. -------------------------------------------------------- AREA:FTSC_PUBLIC Hello Michiel!
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.
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.
... 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)
== 38943 ================================================ Date : 16 Nov 10 21:24:13 From : Ross Cassell 1:123/456 To : Michiel van der Vlist Subject : Votes received. -------------------------------------------------------- AREA:FTSC_PUBLIC Hello Michiel!
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.
I think that when it comes to something like this, one should not fall back and say well the rules dont forbid it either.
You leave room open for someone (a candidate) to protest the vote.
You also leave room open for others (RC's and REC's) to also want to change their vote.
As it is, with each vote you receive, you ack it then follow it with a tally of all votes counted thus far, including the one you just acked, now if you allow Bjorn to recast, you are going to have to allow others to recast, then you get a pissing match if others decide to recast ballots to counteract other recast votes..
... Taxes are the sexual aphrodesiac for every Democrat. -+- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20060121 + Origin: The Eastern Star - Spartanburg, SC USA (1:123/456)
== 38944 ================================================ Date : 16 Nov 10 21:48:20 From : Janis Kracht 1:261/38 To : Ross Cassell Subject : Votes received. -------------------------------------------------------- AREA:FTSC_PUBLIC 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.
Thank you Ross for pointing this out.
!! Note to Michiel: where do you draw the line if you allow this? I'm curious if you've thought it through.
Take care, Janis
-+- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag + Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
== 38945 ================================================ Date : 16 Nov 10 21:51:58 From : Janis Kracht 1:261/38 To : Michiel van der Vlist Subject : Votes received. -------------------------------------------------------- AREA:FTSC_PUBLIC 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.
Of course it does, my friend.. but please do not forget who asked their RCs to put you in office!
>> If it is not in the rules, then it is not in the rules..
Michiel, if you allow this, where do you draw the line as to WHEN people may change their vote?? And at WHAT point do you tell people when that point is?
When you've seen that enough RCs and RECs have said to you, Ok, this is my final vote. For goodness sake, you sound like a game show host over here asking people, "Is that your final answer??"
Seriously..
Take care, Janis
-+- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag + Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
== 38956 ================================================ Date : 16 Nov 10 23:12:12 From : Joe Delahaye 1:249/303 To : Ross Cassell Subject : Votes received. -------------------------------------------------------- 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. -+- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32 + Origin: The Lions Den BBS, Trenton, On, CDN (1:249/303)
== 39014 ================================================ Date : 17 Nov 10 00:04:00 From : Michael Luko 1:266/512 To : Michiel Van Der Vlist Subject : Votes received. -------------------------------------------------------- AREA:FTSC_PUBLIC -> 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 could see allowing a resubmission based on a technicality or misunderstanding but not just based on how the voting is proceding. Unless you are in a vote for one amongst different candidates and the candidate in which the voter voted dropped out of the race. Then I could see allowing those who voted for the dropped candidate to resubmit a vote amongst the remaining candidates. I had a case last year where I wasn't very clear that on my regional feed back poll that each candidate was up for election. So I allowed those who only voted for one candidate to resubmit their ballot indicating a vote for each candidate unless of course they were actually abstaining on that candidate.
If you allow changes based on the way someone doesn't like the way the results are going. You could run into the problem well so and so was able to change their vote because they didn't like the way things were going then I can do the same. We could have an never ending election process with everyone constantly changing ballots.
== 39008 ================================================ Date : 17 Nov 10 00:09:56 From : Jon Justvig 1:298/5 To : Ross Cassell Subject : Votes received. -------------------------------------------------------- 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.
I really agree with this. Seeing votes will also tell others to vote for this person and not this person. It done secretly and having the final vote seems like the fair way to me. Like pick a number out of a jar, if you win you win. <g>
== 39015 ================================================ Date : 17 Nov 10 00:17:00 From : Michael Luko 1:266/512 To : Ross Cassell Subject : Votes received. -------------------------------------------------------- AREA:FTSC_PUBLIC -> You also leave room open for others (RC's and REC's) to also want to -> change their vote. -> As it is, with each vote you receive, you ack it then follow it with -> a tally of all votes counted thus far, including the one you just -> acked, now if you allow Bjorn to recast, you are going to have to -> allow others to recast, then you get a pissing match if others -> decide to recast ballots to counteract other recast votes.. -> Dont open the box Pandora!
Or opening a can of worms. :) The voting could go on forever and no where fast.
== 39011 ================================================ Date : 17 Nov 10 00:20:48 From : Jon Justvig 1:298/5 To : Joe Delahaye Subject : Votes received. -------------------------------------------------------- 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.
== 38939 ================================================ Date : 17 Nov 10 01:40:37 From : Michiel van der Vlist 2:280/5555 To : Ross Cassell Subject : Votes received. -------------------------------------------------------- AREA:FTSC_PUBLIC Hello Ross,
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..
Noted. And as someone with voting rights your opinion carries weight.
RC> If it is not in the rules, then it is not in the rules..
Indeed, it is not in the rules. They do not explicitly allow nor forbid it. So it can go either way.
RC> Changing the rules with a vote in progress is unheard of.
There is a difference between changing the rules and changing a vote. Changing the rules while the game is afoot is unheard of. Changing a vote is not. Not in this part of the world anyway. Changing a once cast vote is only problematic when votes are anonymous, as in that case it is not possible to know what the originally cast vote was that is to be retracted. In open elections this problem does not exist, so I see no basic problem.
As a matter of fact, my RC - responding to my recomendation to consult the region - is now collecting votes from the sysops in the region over this very election. One sysop casted a vote that he retracted next day and cast a new one. My RC accepted. So it is not 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.
Possibly. It is however not for the vote collector or anyone else to question the motives of the voter. The same applies to a voter who requests a change of vote. When we deny it to one, we must deny it to all. When we allow it for one, we must allow it for all. Irrespective of the voter's motives.
== 39083 ================================================ Date : 17 Nov 10 09:22:28 From : Jon Justvig 1:298/5 To : Björn Felten Subject : Votes received. -------------------------------------------------------- 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!
Forgiven. Just this time and this time only (sales pitch). <g>
== 39084 ================================================ Date : 17 Nov 10 09:27:34 From : Jon Justvig 1:298/5 To : Michiel Van Der Vlist Subject : Votes received. -------------------------------------------------------- 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.
You said that but you must have a had a short nap. <g>
> In the meantime I have slept on it.
Bright and fitten like a kitten wearing mittens. <g>
> However... the request for a recast is withdrawn, so we can drop the > issue.
Thank goodness. I wonder too if this was thought all the way through. None-the-less it is resolved and we can go on with our merry lives.
== 39104 ================================================ Date : 17 Nov 10 10:55:00 From : Bob Seaborn 1:140/12 To : Ross Cassell Subject : Votes received. -------------------------------------------------------- AREA:FTSC_PUBLIC
For what it's worth, I fully agree. Once a vote is posted, and acknowledged, it MUST stand as posted. No second thoughts, no 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)
-+- GEcho/32 & IM 2.50 + Origin: RC17 (email to rc17@fidonet.ca) (1:140/12)
== 39035 ================================================ Date : 17 Nov 10 11:08:56 From : Björn Felten 2:203/2 To : Jon Justvig Subject : Votes received. -------------------------------------------------------- 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.
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 stamp 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!
-+- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; sv-SE; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 + Origin: news://felten.yi.org (2:203/2)
== 39062 ================================================ Date : 17 Nov 10 12:52:06 From : Michiel van der Vlist 2:280/5555 To : Janis Kracht Subject : Votes received. -------------------------------------------------------- AREA:FTSC_PUBLIC Hello Janis,
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.
I said I was going to sleep on it didn't I? When I wrote that, I already realised that without drawing lines things could get messy if recasting votes were allowed.
In the meantime I have slept on it.
However... the request for a recast is withdrawn, so we can drop the issue.
== 39110 ================================================ Date : 17 Nov 10 13:49:30 From : Janis Kracht 1:261/38 To : Michiel van der Vlist Subject : Votes received. -------------------------------------------------------- AREA:FTSC_PUBLIC Hi Michiel,
>> !! 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?
Yes, you did.. Why you felt you had to say such a thing says a lot to me.
> However... the request for a recast is withdrawn, so we can drop > the issue.
Take care, Janis
-+- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag + Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
== 39085 ================================================ Date : 17 Nov 10 16:50:14 From : Michiel van der Vlist 2:280/5555 To : Ross Cassell Subject : Voting rules -------------------------------------------------------- AREA:FTSC_PUBLIC Hello Ross,
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,
The rules are laid down in FTA-1000. I do not have the mandate to 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.
That's FidoNet for you. We can never reach consesnsus, so trying to change the election rules wpould probably be the umpteenth exercise 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.
A secret ballot is fine if all the voters are in the same room, write their vote on a voting slip, which are then thrown in a hat and counted.
If they are not physically in the same room with the vote collector(s) there is nothing that stops the vote collector from manipulating the votes. It has happened. Even in R28.
== 39264 ================================================ Date : 18 Nov 10 16:46:26 From : Roger Nelson 1:3828/7 To : Michiel van der Vlist Subject : Votes received. -------------------------------------------------------- AREA:FTSC_PUBLIC On Tue 2010-Nov-16 22:36, Michiel van der Vlist (2:2/20) wrote to 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.
I wouldn't. Once a vote is cast, it is done. If you allow this you will be opening Pandora's Box.
Regards,
Roger -+- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+ + Origin: NCS BBS - Houma, LA - (1:3828/7) == 39267 ================================================ Date : 18 Nov 10 21:04:09 From : mark lewis 1:3634/12 To : Michiel van der Vlist Subject : Votes received. -------------------------------------------------------- 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.
i have to agree... it has never been done before and it is not allowed in any other voting procedures that i'm aware of... if there is a procedure for a revote, then that would possibly come into play depending on the circumstances...
one might also take a look at history and look at the negative votes i got for my actions during the campanging portion of the last election process ;)
)\/(ark
+ Origin: (1:3634/12)
==== end ====
With thanks to Kees van Eeten for opening his archive.
