Thanks Thanks:  0
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 33

Thread: One vote per? Family? Team? Person??

  1. #1
    paul.blitz Guest

    Default

    I guess we all need to discuss it SOME time.....

    Currently anyone can be a "member", but does that mean that every member should have a vote?

    How do we feel about making the rule to be:

    (i) one vote per MEMBER?
    (ii) one vote per TEAM?
    (iii) one vote per FAMILY?

    What steps should we take to ensure that people (or teams or families) don't secretly have MORE than one vote? I can see 2 possibilities here: people wish to legitimately have a second account for simple anonymity (eg for forum moderation); Sock-Puppets.

    Is it reasonable to insist that, if you wish to be a voting member, you should have to provide your REAL name, and your GC.com identity?


    I'm looking for useful, helpful thoughts and ideas here. If you start to flame, then I'll simply start deleting the messages. Lets see how mature we can all be!



    Paul Blitz (with his committee hat not actually ON, but nearby&#33

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Newcastle upon Tyne
    Posts
    134

    Default

    One vote per registered entry.. If that makes sence.. If a team registers as one.. then one vote.. if a team of three register individually then there are three votes.. problem comes when the three register individually and as a team !!!!!
    Moss The Boss... Sorta

  3. #3
    BugznElm'r Guest

    Default

    My 2 cents is under the current structure of membership (unless a new one is being cooked up) one member, one vote.

    Why? Simple. I can tell you my name is Tom Smith, Tom Jones or Tom Thumb and you wouldn't know otherwise. Also, if I were a sockpuppet, I have literally hundreds of GC account names to choose from (or they could set up a new one - how hard is that&#33 that I could use as an alias. I can't see how any enforcement that doesn't involve a paid for membership (which Tim seems to have ruled out in his post about transfer of the Website) is simple going to be a band aid over the problem.

  4. #4
    thecookiecrew Guest

    Default

    This is a easy one for me to answer, I do all the posting (and for that matter reading out load!&#33 for the whole of the cookiecrew, we discuss all the issues that are raised, and tend to come to the same opinion, therefore 1 vote for 1 team, answers it for me.....

    Mike
    TheCookieCrew

  5. #5
    marinor Guest

    Default

    I think that now we have voted for our committee we should have our voting rights removed,
    why should we need to vote on anything else,

    do we not trust them to do what we voted them in to do?
    do we not trust them to add/replace future committee member requirements?
    do we not trust them to further the interests of our sport in general?
    if not, why vote for them in the first place?

    we voted them in, let them get on with it

    would leave us more time for caching/watching tv/walking dogs/and anything else that tickles your fancy..

    then instead of all the sniping we could just say..ok, thanks for letting us know what you have done..

    just my thoughts as a right of centre, freedom loving geordie.

    stay safe

    Bill

  6. #6
    seifer Guest

    Default

    JM2C

    For the purposes of simplicity and fairness I think that a one IP, one ote rule should be applied, simply because it's easy to enforce and check if people have violated it (at least I assume it is, I've never moderated an IPB before&#33. Yes, people have different usernames for accounts and by doing this I would be denying myself a vote, but If my dad had registered under the name "Team Blitz" would it be any different?

    Another thing that needs to be looked at (sorry for going off topic a bit) is the fact that you can see who's in the lead and influence the votes of others.

    All simply MHO

    Mike

  7. #7
    BugznElm'r Guest

    Default

    Some more thoughts ...

    I think we need to be careful of witch hunts ... the more the GAGB does because of a distrust of the membership, the more problems there will be down the line. Personally, I think that the format of the last set of elections was fine - one member, one vote and you had to be a member for a fixed period of time prior to the elections to be eligible to vote.

    One change I'd add is the timescale of the vote ... personally I think that the shorted the better - the longer the pols are open the greater the scope of trouble. I'd be happy with the voting being open for a weekend or a few days and if that wasn't good for someone, they should be allowed to cast a vote by email.

    One possible change ... do the elections need to be secret? Why not open the logs and see who voted for who? I'd have no problems with that as long as it was screen names.

    All MHO ...

  8. #8
    Paul G0TLG Guest

    Default

    I'm the moderator of another IPB board, and I don't think I can see the IP addresses or identities of people who have voted...I could be wrong though.

    One problem with the "one IP one vote" idea, is that I guess more than half of us will have multiple IPs, e.g. home and work, so we COULD set ourselves up with a spare account and still vote twice. Meanwhile genuine "second member on the same IP" members (e.g. Mike Blitz) would lose their vote.

    Also, something I'm not sure of...how would that affect members who log in on, for example, a library or internet cafe computer?

    I'm sorry if I'm raising issues rather than answering them, but I think before we have another vote (hopefully we've got until the next committee elections), we need to ensure that we can fairly enforce the "one 'voting entity', one vote" rule. Unless we can do that, deciding whether a voting entity is an individual, a team or a household is of secondary importance.

    Paul

  9. #9
    Teasel Guest

    Default

    I'd like to see "one active adult geocacher, one vote" (sorry Michael, nothing personal&#33. I would like to establish this by posting an individual membership card to named people at postal addresses. The cost of postage could be offset by requesting that enthusiastic members mail back a postage stamp or two to the committee on a voluntary basis.

    I realise that the association knowing the names and addresses of its full members will not go down well with those who wish to remain their anonymity, but that does seem to be the way that 99% of associations out there work.

  10. #10
    Ashandes Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Teasel@Nov 9 2003, 02:15 PM
    I'd like to see "one active adult geocacher, one vote" (sorry Michael, nothing personal&#33. I would like to establish this by posting an individual membership card to named people at postal addresses. The cost of postage could be offset by requesting that enthusiastic members mail back a postage stamp or two to the committee on a voluntary basis.
    I agree with Teasel on this. One adult geocacher, one vote.

    But with the option for younger geo-cachers, and team members who aren't that bothered about voting to be non-voting members if they wish.

  11. #11
    Teasel Guest

    Default

    My expectation was that an "Associate Member" (ie someone who is either not yet 18, or has not yet given name and address, or who is an alias* of a full member, or simply who doesn't want to vote) would still have full rights to post on the forums, would still be able to use GAGB services (eg the phone message service), would still have their voices heard (except in elections), and would still very much be a valued member.


    (*) I've said "alias", rather than "sock puppet" as there may be valid reasons why an individual would want to go under more than one name on the forum (moderators for example).

  12. #12
    Team Paradise Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by seifer@Nov 8 2003, 11:32 PM
    For the purposes of simplicity and fairness I think that a one IP, one ote rule should be applied, simply because it's easy to enforce and check if people have violated it
    Not gonna work... Most folks have dymanic IP addresses allocated by their ISP, so the IP changes every time they dial-up (or get disconnected in the case of BTO Broadband).

  13. #13
    paul.blitz Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by marinor@Nov 8 2003, 10:11 PM
    why should we need to vote on anything else,
    An interesting question(and thank you for your trust in the committee&#33.

    I can see times when, even if you trust the committee to get on with things, you still need a vote:

    1) I'm sure you'd all like to express your opinion on who should be chairman
    2) if the whole committee, en-bloc, should stand down, what would you do?
    3) Some thing important / contentious will come up, sometime, and will need a vote.

    In those cases, we just need to define who may vote, how we're gonna do it etc.

    Not to mention that other members might like to feel that GAGB is being run democratically!


    Paul Blitz

  14. #14
    paul.blitz Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by seifer@Nov 8 2003, 11:32 PM
    Another thing that needs to be looked at (sorry for going off topic a bit) is the fact that you can see who's in the lead and influence the votes of others.
    That aspect DID worry me and a few others: personally, I feel that if you are going to have a secret vote, it has to stay secret until the vote is announced.

    I also like the idea of some sort of "visibility" of voting, but with a certain amount of "secrecy": one simple way is to make all voters give a "secret word". At the end of the election, and before the final result is announced, the returning officers lists (i) the names of those who voted; (ii) lists the "secret words" against who the votes were for. That way, everyone can be sure not only who voted, but that their vote went to the right candidate!


    Paul Blitz

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Wiltshire
    Posts
    5,520

    Default

    I like Teasel's suggestion of 'one active adult geocacher, one vote', and membership cards posted to a named individual. I don't want to publish my full name and address on the web, but I'm quite happy to let the committee have the information. Indeed, I feel that the committee should have that information - I don't like the idea of an association with anonymous voting members (even though that's effectively what we have at the moment).

    Edit: changed to 'anonymous voting members'
    ​​Do not go gentle into that good night.
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light. (Dylan Thomas)​


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •