New Constitution

[Jovial Monk]

I thought IQ had left?

[Aussie]

I reserve my right to come back here in a years time to vote against the incumbent whether I post here again in that time or not.

I reserve my right to not post here in protest of the incumbent without diminishing the value of my vote

NOIQ, somehow I doubt those words will find their way into the Constitution. But, rest assured, you will be treated exactly the same as every other PA Member.

[IQS.RLOW]

Thought as much, c.unt

[Jovial Monk]

A Petition needs more than 30 days, 60 or 90 more appropriate.

An existing member, does he have to post in each 12 month period? People like cynick and NDC wouldn’t have been able to vote for you.

[Aussie]

A Petition needs more than 30 days, 60 or 90 more appropriate.

An existing member, does he have to post in each 12 month period? People like cynick and NDC wouldn’t have been able to vote for you.

We have not seen cynic for 12 months plus. NDC's vote was not counted.

[Jovial Monk]

Need a returning officer for elections, what boxy did last election was fucking shameful!

[Aussie]

Need a returning officer for elections, what boxy did last election was fucking shameful!

Yaeh, I've been giving that a lot of thought. I agree that Admin should not be running the election if s/he is a candidate. So, the need for a Returning Officer is obvious.

However, this person will need to be a regular attendee at PA, and also have on-going access to IPs to better sus out the puppets/socks.

[Jovial Monk]

Temporary Admin privieges?

[freediver]

You do not get to control/influence a fishing environment by leaving it to others to look after while you have a tantrum.

This is about voting rights Aussie. Leaving does not have to be a tantrum. Some people just leave. Can you put together an argument in favour of your proposal that does not involve these tenuous analogies? Or does your proposal look too silly when you make it about the right to vote?

Should someone who has made thousands of posts over many years lose their vote in favour of someone who turns up shortly before the election and makes the minimum number of posts?

What if the admin deliberately times an election to exclude key people from voting? We have had plenty of close elections.

[Aussie]

This is about voting rights Aussie. Leaving does not have to be a tantrum. Some people just leave. Can you put together an argument in favour of your proposal that does not involve these tenuous analogies? Or does your proposal look too silly when you make it about the right to vote?

This is a Forum, not Parliament House. In places like this, a view is that those who frequent it regularly and support it with Posts, ought to have the say. Absent Member fly-ins (and there have been some.....some who supported boxy, and some who supported me) no matter their lineage or post count should not get a say. Franchise should be for those who habit the place, not those who don't.

Should someone who has made thousands of posts over many years lose their vote.......

.....arguably, yes, if they have not been supporting the Board. No support, no vote.

......in favour of someone who turns up shortly before the election and makes the minimum number of posts?

There is no 'favour' involved. There is no trading, one against the other. If a Member meets the criteria, (yet to be determined) they get to vote. Simple as that.

What if the admin deliberately times an election to exclude key people from voting? We have had plenty of close elections.

Yes, it could happen, but so what? No matter when there is a Vote, If a Member has met the criteria (yet to be determined) they vote, of they do not meet the criteria, stiff.

Meet the criteria, (yet to be determined) and you get to vote.