Anthony and all,=20
I personally think that the supervising officer's ability to remove an
applicant is redundant. Obviously if the people who will be voting in
the election think that the person who is running should not be
running they simply wont vote for him. But, if the supervising
officer, for some reason, thinks that the particular person shouldnt
be rnning even though the constituents do, then the officer can put a
halt to everyones happiness. Bye the way, if some or all of this
doesnt make sense thats because Im drunk (which i dont know if posting
to the ist is against the CoC when youre drunk but i dont really
care). I hate you all.
Dan Murphy
US2002023585
On 8/28/05, Anthony C. [name redacted at Anthonys request] <daslurpee@...> wrote:
> Don-
>=20
> I can certainly understand your displeasure with the way this power is be=
ing
> used, and why you think that it is so abusable it should be taken away fr=
om
> officers who run elections.
>=20
> However, the ability to weed out candidates was put there for a purpose.
> Before you go out and attempt to champion a national referenda (if such i=
s
> your intent), I urge you to consider the political ramifications of your
> actions (for the members of this domain who play at games outside the loc=
al
> one), the odds that your amendment will pass, and determine if you care
> enough about a club who's games you don't attend to actually follow throu=
gh
> with an initiative to change a fundamental right given to every officer w=
ho
> administers an election within the entire organization.
>=20
> If you think that you, as a member of Pittsburgh (a notorious, at the
> moment, domain), can phrase the referenda such that it does not cause
> further annoyance at the domain, can get the amendment to pass, and actua=
lly
> care enough to follow through with this desire of yours, then I urge you =
to
> consider if the club will actually be better off if elections for offices=
go
> from a small group of candidates to a large group of candidates (and on t=
he
> regional and national level, an extremely large group of candidates.)
>=20
> Anthony C. [name redacted at Anthonys request]
> US2003021263
>=20
>=20
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Don Sheldon" <don.sheldon@...>
> To: <steelshadows@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2005 9:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [steelshadows] two things
>=20
>=20
> > On 8/28/05, Jessica <quack3@...> wrote:
> > > The way I would handle it, if I were in the position to run the
> > > election, is to allow his application and trust the Domain to make th=
e
> > > decision about whether he's fit to hold office or not.
> >
> > It occurs to me that the rule allowing an officer overseeing an
> > election to remove candidates from that election is highly abusable
> > and completely unnecessary. Anyone eligible really should be allowed
> > to run.
> >
> > What are the procedures to draft an amendment to the cam constitution?
> > I think I'd like to see this power removed from all officers.
> >
> > - Donald Sheldon
> > US2002022644
> >
> >
> >
> > Visit our Domain Website at:
> > http://www.steelshadows.com
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Visit our Domain Website at:
> http://www.steelshadows.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>