New Constitution

[freediver]

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.

What if they are absent because they are banned? Or sick? Or without internet? Or have no interest in current political issues? Or don't like the new admin and fear a ban if they post? Or they have account problems? What if they posted but their posts got deleted?

The problem with this Aussie is that it would reinforce the power of a bad admin. The worse they are at administrating a forum, the harder they are to get rid of. Do you want this?

Another problem is that administrators may actually take advantage of this to maintain power and deliberately harm the forum. Do you want this?

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

But they have been, just not in your arbitrary time frame.

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.

It still favours one over the other.

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.

So it is the criteria that matters, not the principle of democracy? Any criteria is justified so long as it is applied evenly, regardless of how it undermines the ability of members to choose the admin?

[Aussie]

Only people over the 18 get to vote in Australia. Some prisoners cannot vote?? Non-residents of Australia cannot vote in Australian election.....(just like the proposal being discussed here......no support for the Board, no vote.) How do you feel about that? Is that anti-democracy, or is that simply setting the criteria one needs to met to get to vote?

freediver, the new Constitution will set out franchise criteria/rules. If it receives the necessary support, then it becomes the Constitution.....as per your Constitution.

A view is that just because you don't 'like' an Admin Team is no reasonable excuse for not supporting PA. The two are not the same.

As for people with connectivity issues..........I doubt that will be an issue.

freediver, what do you suggest ought be the franchise criteria? Not saying that I will adopt your ideas, but you might have something positive/useful for me to consider.

[freediver]

freediver, the new Constitution will set out franchise criteria/rules. If it receives the necessary support, then it becomes the Constitution.....as per your Constitution.

Don't you think you should try actually defending them?

A view is that just because you don't 'like' an Admin Team is no reasonable excuse for not supporting PA.

I gave plenty of other examples. Is this your view?

As for people with connectivity issues..........I doubt that will be an issue.

Why?

freediver, what do you suggest ought be the franchise criteria?

Number of posts. Not a sock.

[Monkey Magic]

Well I want a vote and you have suggested a vote will occur before the 12 expiry period... so...

[Aussie]

Yes, number of posts will be a criteria. So, you do accept there needs to be that sort of condition....in the case of Kiwi Dave, the number you required was one, you just don't like the concept that if you have failed to provide posting support for a Board in say the two months prior to an Poll, you do not get to vote, (which would have precluded Kiwi Dave.)

Well, you and I differ on that. On the other side of the Kiwi Dave coin, that would allow for someone like the real Animal Mother (who would have made tens of thousands of Posts at PA) rocking up in the last second before close of Poll, and then vote. Absurd.....the vote would be based on what knowledge of the Candidates? They probably would be 'people' he knew nothing of.

Nah, I belong to the 'use it or lose it' clan. In Boards like this, the right to vote is maintained with consistent support for the Board......not support/lack thereof for whatever the Admin Team might be from time to time.

[freediver]

you just don't like the concept that if you have failed to provide posting support for a Board in say the two months prior to an Poll, you do not get to vote

I am sure there are a few other nasty surpises, but that one sticks out the most.

On the other side of the Kiwi Dave coin, that would allow for someone like the real Animal Mother (who would have made tens of thousands of Posts at PA) rocking up in the last second before close of Poll, and then vote.

I am happy to restrict it to this incarnation of PA. It needs to be transparent.

[Aussie]

Well I want a vote and you have suggested a vote will occur before the 12 expiry period... so...

There could be any number of Polls (not just an election) at any time, Sappho. Have a look at the current Constitution.

[lisa jones]

Well I want a vote and you have suggested a vote will occur before the 12 expiry period... so...

Oh hello Sappho. Back again I see lol

[Monkey Magic]

Well I want a vote and you have suggested a vote will occur before the 12 expiry period... so...

Oh hello Sappho. Back again I see lol

hello Wicked Witch of the WWW lol

[lisa jones]

Keep going Sappho .. let it all out! You know you want to!