18 ballots were received from 17 RCs in 3 Zones. 1 ballot was rejected,
and 1 ballot was revised prior to the closing of the polls.
RC33 (Revised)
The polls have closed for the 2023 FTSC Standing Member Election.
18 ballots were received from 17 RCs in 3 Zones. 1 ballot was
rejected, and 1 ballot was revised prior to the closing of the polls.
The preliminary results are below:
----------------------------------------------
| Name | Node nr | Yes| No |
|----------------------|-------------|----|----|
| Andrew Leary | 1:320/219 | 16 | |
| Carol Shenkenberger | 1:275/100 | 6 | 10 |
| Nick Andre | 1:229/426 | 12 | 4 |
| Deon George | 3:633/509 | 12 | 4 |
| Maurice Kinal | 1:153/7001 | 7 | 9 |
| mark lewis | 1:3634/12 | 8 | 8 |
----------------------------------------------
Ballots Received
----------------
RC33
RC24
RC25
RC20
RC28
RC29
RC54
RC10
RC19
RC40
RC56
RC50
RC12
RC13
RC17
RC34
RC33 (Revised)
RC11
Ballots Rejected/Reason
-----------------------
RC25 - Not listed as RC in NODELIST.027 as issued by Z2C
Candidates Andrew Leary, Nick Andre, and Deon George received more Yes
than No votes, and therefore will be accepted as Standing Members of
the FTSC for a 2 year term, barring any challenges to the results.
Challenges to the results must be filed by 20:00 UTC on 26 March
2023. No challenges will be considered if received late. If there
are no challenges that affect the results, the new terms will be
effective on 27 March 2023.
Hey Andrew,
18 ballots were received from 17 RCs in 3 Zones. 1 ballot was
rejected, and 1 ballot was revised prior to the closing of the
polls.
RC33 (Revised)
Last message I saw regarding RC33's vote was from you saying that
votes couldnt be alterted after submission.
It looks like it was alterted (which I dont question) - but I'm
wondering if I missed any correspondence in this echo about it being accepted?
(I've noticed missing messages in this echo in the past, and I'm
trying to figure out if it is my system or something upstream.)
Maybe, in future, the person who has accepted a nomination should not
also be the person running the election. I'm not questioning Andrew's integrity, but it does seem rather strange that no region voted no
where everyone else got at least 4 no votes. Only 2 of the other 5 candidates received a clear majority. It seems to be a conflict of interest, imho.
Hello Nigel!
20 Mar 23 00:46, you wrote to me:
Maybe, in future, the person who has accepted a nomination
should not also be the person running the election. I'm not
questioning Andrew's integrity, but it does seem rather strange
that no region voted no where everyone else got at least 4 no
votes. Only 2 of the other 5 candidates received a clear
majority. It seems to be a conflict of interest, imho.
FTA-1001 specifies that the FTSC Administrator is responsible for coordinating all membership nominations and voting. All ballots are submitted in the FTSC_PUBLIC echo, so that any/all interested parties
can track the results themselves, if they so desire.
As an RC, I could have voted in the election myself. I chose not to
do so, for 2 reasons:
1. My request to the sysops of my Region for input on the candidates
did not receive any response.
2. To avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest, especially
since in some cases 1 vote could affect the results for a candidate.
It should also be noted that in the entire time I have been an RC, I
have abstained from voting for myself.
Any questions regarding the voters' reasoning for their choices
should be addressed with those voters via NetMail.
I am certainly willing to entertain constructive suggestions on how
to improve the process.
Due to the time frame of the revision being made and the closing of
the polls, the revision was made as the preliminary results were assembled. I personally do not agree that the revision should have
been accepted, but I was overruled by the International Coordinator.
In the future, the rules will explicitly state that ballots cannot be altered once submitted.
Maybe, in future, the person who has accepted a nomination should not
also be the person running the election. I'm not questioning Andrew's integrity, but it does seem rather strange that no region voted no
where everyone else got at least 4 no votes. Only 2 of the other 5 candidates received a clear majority. It seems to be a conflict of interest, imho.
* Origin: End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com (1:124/5016)
Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Andrew Leary <=-
Due to the time frame of the revision being made and the closing of
the polls, the revision was made as the preliminary results were assembled. I personally do not agree that the revision should have
been accepted, but I was overruled by the International Coordinator.
In the future, the rules will explicitly state that ballots cannot be altered once submitted.
I object.
During my watch there was a precedent. Björn Felten, RC20, once
requested that his vote be changed. I rejected the request, a
vote cast is a vote cast. After some debate, my ruling was
accepted by those concerned. I see that you intended to follow
the precedent. That should have been the end of it.
The International Coordinator has a role in the election as
primus inter pares of the ZCC when the ZCC decides to establish a nominating committee as documented in FTA-1001.007 paragraph 3.2.
And that is it. Beyond that the IC is just a sysop as any other
sysop in Fidonet when the FTSC holds an election.
In casu: the IC does not have the authority to overrule a
decision made by the election coordinator.
I therefore insist that the ICs intervention is ignored and that
it is the first vote and only the first vote of RC33 that counts.
Due to the time frame of the revision being made and the closing of
the polls, the revision was made as the preliminary results were
assembled. I personally do not agree that the revision should have
been accepted, but I was overruled by the International Coordinator.
In the future, the rules will explicitly state that ballots cannot be
altered once submitted.
(I've noticed missing messages in this echo in the past, and I'm
trying to figure out if it is my system or something upstream.)
Me either. The voting process went with this procedures during the last years, and it's also defined at the ftsc rules. There is no need for any further discussions, except some one initiates a changing of ftsc rules.It seems to be a conflict of interest, imho.I cannot see any reason for conflict of interests here ...
regards, uli ;-)Bye/2 Torsten
I object.
During my watch there was a precedent. Bj”rn Felten, RC20, once
requested that his vote be changed. I rejected the request, a vote
cast is a vote cast. After some debate, my ruling was accepted by
those concerned. I see that you intended to follow the precedent. That should have been the end of it.
The International Coordinator has a role in the election as primus
inter pares of the ZCC when the ZCC decides to establish a nominating committee as documented in FTA-1001.007 paragraph 3.2. And that is it. Beyond that the IC is just a sysop as any other sysop in Fidonet when
the FTSC holds an election.
In casu: the IC does not have the authority to overrule a decision
made by the election coordinator.
I therefore insist that the ICs intervention is ignored and that it is
the first vote and only the first vote of RC33 that counts.
Michiel van der Vlist, RC28.
I have received your challenge to the preliminary results. In reviewing historical precedent, ...
Historical precedent states that you can only challenge the way how your own ballot was processed, not what happened to someone else's ...
Meaning Michiel's objection ought to be rejected.
Therefore, I sustain your objection and the results will be updated to reflect only the first vote received from RC33.
I have received your challenge to the preliminary results. In
reviewing historical precedent, ...
Historical precedent states that you can only challenge the way how
your own ballot was processed, not what happened to someone else's ...
Meaning Michiel's objection ought to be rejected.
Ward Dossche wrote to Andrew Leary <=-
I have received your challenge to the preliminary results. In reviewing historical precedent, ...
Historical precedent states that you can only challenge the way
how your own ballot was processed, not what happened to someone
else's ...
Meaning Michiel's objection ought to be rejected.
Björn Felten wrote to Ward Dossche <=-
Historical precedent states that you can only challenge the way how your own ballot was processed, not what happened to someone else's ...
Meaning Michiel's objection ought to be rejected.
I second the notion.
Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Andrew Leary <=-
I have received your challenge to the preliminary results. In
reviewing historical precedent, ...
Historical precedent states that you can only challenge the way how
your own ballot was processed, not what happened to someone else's ...
There is no such historical precedent. Ward is making it up for
the occasion.
Meaning Michiel's objection ought to be rejected.
Even if it could be demonstrated that such a hypothetical
precedence exists and a decision made by the vote coordinator can
only be challenged by a voter regarding his/her own vote, then by
that same reasoning Ward's challenge is null and void as he is
not a voter.
Meaning Michiel's objection ought to be rejected.
Even if it could be demonstrated that such a hypothetical precedence
exists and a decision made by the vote coordinator can only be challenged by a voter regarding his/her own vote, then by that same reasoning Ward's challenge is null and void as he is not a voter.
What historical precedent states that? Specifics, please, such as date/subject/names. Where do you see such a precedent?
Well, that's your opinion, anyway. The official election coordinator doesn't agree with it, which is all that matters.
As an aside, can you name another election (of any kind) where a person
can go back and change their vote after it's been cast?
Ward Dossche wrote to Dan Clough <=-
What historical precedent states that? Specifics, please, such as date/subject/names. Where do you see such a precedent?
How much time do you allow me to dig it up? Just so you are
aware, I can only start digging it up after April 9th ... busy
until then with a worldcup in gymnastics:
https://ambitious-pro-gymnastics.be/world-cup/
As an aside, can you name another election (of any kind) where a person can go back and change their vote after it's been cast?
Plenty ...
As an aside, can you name another election (of any kind) where a person can go back and change their vote after it's been cast?
Björn Felten wrote to Dan Clough <=-
Dan Clough -> Ward Dossche skrev 2023-03-23 13:28:
As an aside, can you name another election (of any kind) where a person can go back and change their vote after it's been cast?
Can you name a *democratic* election of any kind, where the
votes are cast in the open, for everyone to see, before they vote accordingly themselves?
Have you heard of peer pressure? Strategic voting?
Did you notice that the majority of the votes here came in over the
last couple of days of the allowed time? Perfect indication of
strategic voting.
Can you name a *democratic* election of any kind, where the
votes are cast in the open, for everyone to see, before they vote
accordingly themselves?
Yes. Nearly ALL votes on the floor of the U.S. House, or the U.S.
Senate, are televised live (on the 'CSPAN' cable channel(s)).
Hi, Dan -- on Mar 23 2023 at 20:08, you wrote:
Did you notice that the majority of the votes here came in over the
last couple of days of the allowed time? Perfect indication of
strategic voting.
FWIW, I gave my region until the Friday before the deadline to direct
me how to vote. Only 1 person did so, and I happened to agree with
their decision so that's how I voted. I didn't even look at the results
to date before posting.
Cheers... Dallas (RC17)
--- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+
* Origin: The BandMaster, Vancouver, CANADA (1:153/7715)
Yes, both. That's exactly what happened here, obviously. I'm of the opinion that that shouldn't be allowed to change the outcome of an election. There is plenty of time PRIOR to the vote for pressure/lobbying/influence to take place, and then eventually, you cast your vote.
What sucks is when people vote based ONLY on personal dislikes, even if
a candidate is qualified. That happened in this election too.
https://ambitious-pro-gymnastics.be/world-cup/
That doesn't start until 2 weeks from now. You don't have a spare 30 minutes between now and then?
Plenty ...
Uh-huh. And yet... you didn't actually *name* any, as was requested.
Dallas Hinton wrote to Dan Clough <=-
Did you notice that the majority of the votes here came in over the
last couple of days of the allowed time? Perfect indication of
strategic voting.
FWIW, I gave my region until the Friday before the deadline to
direct me how to vote. Only 1 person did so, and I happened to
agree with their decision so that's how I voted. I didn't even
look at the results to date before posting.
Björn Felten wrote to Dan Clough <=-
Can you name a *democratic* election of any kind, where the
votes are cast in the open, for everyone to see, before they vote
accordingly themselves?
Yes. Nearly ALL votes on the floor of the U.S. House, or the U.S.
Senate, are televised live (on the 'CSPAN' cable channel(s)).
So you don't know the difference between an *election* and a
voting session? Figures...
Ward Dossche wrote to Dan Clough <=-
That doesn't start until 2 weeks from now. You don't have a spare 30 minutes between now and then?
The event has already started months ago ... organizing 1500
hotel rooms for gymnasts, coaches, judges from around the world. Organizing the meals with a dietician (and a rabbi) straight/vegetarian/vegan/kosher/halal, organising the bus
transports, organising the strict security demands by the state
of Israel for their gymnasts incl. armed security guards, regular security, build-up of the conpetition venue, the communication
network, scoring, live-streaming, finances, building a complete tent-village for services, permits, electrical power, lights ...
Plenty ...
Uh-huh. And yet... you didn't actually *name* any, as was requested.
You didn't ask for anything in particular. You just asked if I
could. That question was answered with actual perfection.
Sorry, but you're not doing all of that by yourself. My question
remains - you don't have 30 minutes of time in the next 2 weeks?
This is why I dislike trying to have a conversation with you. That's a bullshit answer and you know it. Don't be an asshole just because you
can.
I'm sure you know this already, but it's a pretty important position.
So that *ELECTION*
Technically most likely he is capable.
The polls have closed for the 2023 FTSC Standing Member Election.
18 ballots were received from 17 RCs in 3 Zones. 1 ballot was rejected,
and 1 ballot was revised prior to the closing of the polls.
The preliminary results are below:
----------------------------------------------
| Name | Node nr | Yes| No |
|----------------------|-------------|----|----|
| Andrew Leary | 1:320/219 | 16 | |
| Carol Shenkenberger | 1:275/100 | 6 | 10 |
| Nick Andre | 1:229/426 | 12 | 4 |
| Deon George | 3:633/509 | 12 | 4 |
| Maurice Kinal | 1:153/7001 | 7 | 9 |
| mark lewis | 1:3634/12 | 8 | 8 |
----------------------------------------------
Ballots Received
----------------
RC33
RC24
RC25
RC20
RC28
RC29
RC54
RC10
RC19
RC40
RC56
RC50
RC12
RC13
RC17
RC34
RC33 (Revised)
RC11
Ballots Rejected/Reason
-----------------------
RC25 - Not listed as RC in NODELIST.027 as issued by Z2C
Candidates Andrew Leary, Nick Andre, and Deon George received more Yes
than No votes, and therefore will be accepted as Standing Members of the FTSC for a 2 year term, barring any challenges to the results.
Challenges to the results must be filed by 20:00 UTC on 26 March 2023. No challenges will be considered if received late. If there are no challenges that affect the results, the new terms will be effective on 27 March 2023.
Regards,
Andrew
FTSC Election Coordinator
As an aside, can you name another election (of any kind) where a
person can go back and change their vote after it's been cast?
Therefore, it was allowed to vote online several times in order
to allow the voter to eventually vote the way she/he wants.
Björn Felten wrote to Dan Clough <=-
Dan Clough -> Ward Dossche skrev 2023-03-23 13:28:
As an aside, can you name another election (of any kind) where a person can go back and change their vote after it's been cast?
Can you name a *democratic* election of any kind, where the
votes are cast in the open, for everyone to see, before they vote accordingly themselves?
Yes. Nearly ALL votes on the floor of the U.S. House, or the U.S.
Senate, are televised live (on the 'CSPAN' cable channel(s)). It's
openly visible to all other voters in the chamber, and to the public at large. Happens nearly every day.
Have you heard of peer pressure? Strategic voting?
Yes, both. That's exactly what happened here, obviously. I'm of the opinion that that shouldn't be allowed to change the outcome of an
election. There is plenty of time PRIOR to the vote for pressure/lobbying/influence to take place, and then eventually, you cast your vote. The point there is that strategy takes place then, and
people do what the influencers hope they will. They cast their vote
based on all the input, and that's it. No revisions.
Did you notice that the majority of the votes here came in over the last couple of days of the allowed time? Perfect indication of strategic
voting.
What sucks is when people vote based ONLY on personal dislikes, even if
a candidate is qualified. That happened in this election too.
... Pros are those who do their jobs well, even when they don't feel like it === MultiMail/Linux v0.52
Technically most likely he is capable.
Possibly, but considering he can't get a simple character set correctly
to spell his name correctly casts a huge shadow over your above
estimation of his capabilities.
I have not claimed that being technically capable means he cannot
be an asshole ...
It's not mutually exclusive ...
Björn Felten wrote to Dan Clough <=-
I'm sure you know this already, but it's a pretty important position.
So that *ELECTION*
No. That was also a simple yes/no/abstain vote.
Would you want e.g. the POTUS election demanding everyone to
hold up their ballot for everyone to see, before being cast?
Carol Shenkenberger wrote to Dan Clough <=-
Did you notice that the majority of the votes here came in over the last couple of days of the allowed time? Perfect indication of strategic
voting.
What sucks is when people vote based ONLY on personal dislikes, even if
a candidate is qualified. That happened in this election too.
Actually Dan, the later voting is evidence the region was
actually surveyed for votes.
It's the ones who voted right away,
that are questionable on surveying their nets. I'll have to go
back and look, but pretty sure it was over 10 in R13 on the tally
Mike posted in our R13 sysop echo.
Ward Dossche wrote to Dan Clough <=-
b) If I start dealing with your request now I'll get distracted
by it and it'll take more time than 30 minutes ... like going
through 10+ years of Fidonews because "I know" it has been
posted/used at one time...
This is why I dislike trying to have a conversation with you. That's a bullshit answer and you know it. Don't be an asshole just because you can.
That's not a bullshit answer, you just asked the wrong question.
Michael Dukelsky wrote to Dan Clough <=-
As an aside, can you name another election (of any kind) where a
person can go back and change their vote after it's been cast?
Yes, there was such an election. In the latest election to the
Russian parliament voters in Moscow were allowed to vote online
several times and only the last vote was counted. A voter could
vote either offline or online. Unlike with the online votes only
one offline vote was allowed. Several online votes were allowed
for a reason. There were reports that the management of some
enterprises associated with the state required their employees to
provide proof that they voted for the candidate from the ruling
party taking a photo of their vote. They were threatened that if
they didn't, they would be fired. Therefore, it was allowed to
vote online several times in order to allow the voter to
eventually vote the way she/he wants.
Maurice Kinal wrote to Ward Dossche <=-
Technically most likely he is capable.
Possibly, but considering he can't get a simple character set
correctly to spell his name correctly casts a huge shadow over
your above estimation of his capabilities.
Ward Dossche wrote to Maurice Kinal <=-
Possibly, but considering he can't get a simple character set correctly
to spell his name correctly casts a huge shadow over your above
estimation of his capabilities.
I have not claimed that being technically capable means he cannot
be an asshole ...
It's not mutually exclusive ...
I hereby rule him permanently *DISQUALIFIED* for the position.
Would you want e.g. the POTUS election demanding everyone to
hold up their ballot for everyone to see, before being cast?
Yes, I would. That way the Libs couldn't cheat. Too bad it's not
really possible to implement because of the scale.
As an aside, can you name another election (of any kind) where a person
can go back and change their vote after it's been cast?
Maurice Kinal wrote to Dan Clough <=-
I hereby rule him permanently *DISQUALIFIED* for the position.
Errrr ... what position? Also, I never knew you had the
capabilities - or anyone else for that matter - to make such
rulings.
For the record, if it were within my power(s) to do so, I'd rule
that he fix the issue he is obviously having with character sets.
Seems to me that over a decade ago it was his misidentification
between CP437 and CP1252 or one of those latin based cp12xx
dealies. It wouldn't surprise me if he still has the exact same
issue which nicely brings us to Ward's discussion on the
seperation of being technically capable and being an asshole. I
am still waiting on his ruling on that particular issue before I
finally find closure and am able to rest peacefully once more in
the comfort of my own surroundings.
Ward Dossche wrote to Dan Clough <=-
You can start beating around the bush now.
As an aside, can you name another election (of any kind) where a
person can go back and change their vote after it's been cast?
Yes, there was such an election. In the latest election to the
Russian parliament voters in Moscow were allowed to vote online
several times and only the last vote was counted. A voter could
vote either offline or online. Unlike with the online votes only
one offline vote was allowed. Several online votes were allowed
for a reason. There were reports that the management of some
enterprises associated with the state required their employees to
provide proof that they voted for the candidate from the ruling
party taking a photo of their vote. They were threatened that if
they didn't, they would be fired. Therefore, it was allowed to
vote online several times in order to allow the voter to
eventually vote the way she/he wants.
Yeah............. well honestly I wasn't really thinking about Russian
"elections" when I said that. I think the reason why goes without
saying...
You asked about an election of any kind. So, here you are. :)
You can start beating around the bush now.
Nah, I'm done wasting my time on you. Go prep some gymnasts, or
something.
Terry Roati wrote to Dallas Hinton <=-
I also think all the candidates were qualified, knowlegable and experienced and would have contributed to the FTSC, congratulations to those elected.
Maurice Kinal wrote to Dan Clough <=-
to Ward's discussion on the seperation of being technically capable and being an asshole.
Dan Clough wrote to Bj÷rn Felten <=-
Yes, I would. That way the Libs couldn't cheat.
Would you want e.g. the POTUS election demanding everyone toYes, I would. That way the Libs couldn't cheat. Too bad it's
hold up their ballot for everyone to see, before being cast?
not really possible to implement because of the scale.
to Ward's discussion on the seperation of being technically capableI'm seeing a Venn diagram in my head now.
and being an asshole.
Alexey Vissarionov wrote to Dan Clough <=-
Would you want e.g. the POTUS election demanding everyone to
hold up their ballot for everyone to see, before being cast?
Yes, I would. That way the Libs couldn't cheat. Too bad it's
not really possible to implement because of the scale.
It is possible and even quite easy to implement. But... do you
know any politician (in your country, of course) who would likely
support that?
A vector on a complex plane would be a better visualisation. With technical capabilities axis being imaginary and the assholiness
axis being real, of course
Awesome.
Live long and prosper.
| Sysop: | Xerxes |
|---|---|
| Location: | Azle, Texas |
| Users: | 131 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 97:41:19 |
| Calls: | 3,190 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 195 |
| U/L today: |
0 files (0K bytes) |
| D/L today: |
0 files (0K bytes) |
| Messages: | 366,189 |
| Posted today: | 0 |