On 8/28/05, Anthony C. [name redacted at Anthonys request] <daslurpee@...> wrote:
> 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.
I've tried to discern what that purpose is, and I can't find one
compelling enough to support its continued existence. If someone is
eligible (isn't under a disciplinary action disallowing them from
holding an officer, for example) I can think of no good reason for an
administrator to remove them. I would think it better to put just a
bit of faith in the few democratic processes our club has.
> 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.
First of all, I do attend games. I played Garou through to the end
and continue to play Forsaken, and that you would bring up a false
allegation that I do not, simply to discredit my opinion is not
appreciated. I will of course take proper steps and will attempt to
form support for my measure before aimlessly going out looking for a
vote. I will seek to disentangle it from our current plight and, most
importantly, I don't plan to complete my task in time for it to be
applicable to the upcoming election. Thank you for your concern, it
was legitimate, but unnecessary.
> 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.)
We already have measures in place for this, primarily our use of
instant run-off election procedures. If this increases candidate
pools from the handful they are now (I've never seen an election with
more than five candidates) then I don't think that's any kind of
horrible thing to be avoided.
Every member has a right to run for office, that right can be
suspended, but so long as it isn't, why would we give anyone the power
to remove that right out of hand and without supervision?
- Donald Sheldon
US2002022644