|
Post by craigwood on Jun 11, 2012 1:29:51 GMT -5
Readers Action Vote Priority: 1[/size] [Readers may vote with their reply below] Subject Tags: Delegates
Who are the Delegates?[/color]
Solution A: All active delegate candidates.[/font][/b]
All who ran with pictures/biographies, so they can be identified, will be voting/speaking delegates.
[We had six candidates with no pictures, different names, but the same biography -- maybe that is one delegate. A number of the candidates got listed just to check out what we were doing -- no activity.]
Solution B: We wait for a declared result.[/b]
A declare result may result in more problems. Zip codes were off, no one was really running against anyone and the ballots did not automatically show voters pictures/bios/any information to choose -- just names, there was no real vote for anything.
Solution C: Reply with another solution or reply by vote A or B.[/b]
[Priority 1 problem vote needed now since reservation space on planes, train, buses, car pool organization and places to stay are delegate options that disappearing with the times of sand now flowing against CC2.0)
|
|
|
Post by maureenmower on Jun 11, 2012 3:28:23 GMT -5
I say all active delegate candidates. We didn't have enough as it was, and those who lost contested races can represent other districts in their state that had no delegate at all (of which, there were many in every state).
|
|
|
Post by craigwood on Jun 11, 2012 13:42:20 GMT -5
A
|
|
mhuttman
Full Member
People First
Posts: 124
|
Post by mhuttman on Jun 12, 2012 10:58:33 GMT -5
A
|
|
|
Post by maureenmower on Jun 12, 2012 17:06:58 GMT -5
As of today's release of the voting results, and the announcement that went with it, ALL delegate candidates are to be invited to participate in the Congress, with full voting rights.
So this issue is now resolved, and in my opinion, it was resolved in the best possible way. Therefore, I think we should thank the Steering Committee for coming to that decision, as it would have been extremely unfair for the losing candidates to be shut out when the voting itself was such a mess.
In fact, if I were on the SC, I'd be asking Votenet for a refund since they screwed things up so badly.
|
|
|
Post by dunnnathan on Jun 12, 2012 17:26:25 GMT -5
I second the "ask for a refund" motion. Even a partial one would do.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Gentilucci on Jun 13, 2012 0:55:51 GMT -5
I say the vote failed. Everyone is invited. We can represent the district we are from, but more importantly, we represent our own interests.
I am trying to represent the 99% of the People of the United States of America, and humanity in general.
I also represent the Concerned Citizens Coalition, the Save America Movement, and LFGSD.
|
|
|
Post by maureenmower on Jun 13, 2012 1:09:20 GMT -5
I was just reviewing some of the posts on the Facebook page and came across one where it says that WE (ie: the 99D group) paid Votenet $40,000. Seriously? We shelled out $40,000 for what amounted to a gigantic cluster-you-know-what? Forget about asking for a refund - DEMAND a refund! I mean, really - do we even have any proof that they actually emailed those 3 million additional ballots? Or did we just take their word for it? You certainly can't tell from the number of people who actually voted!
|
|
|
Post by Mike Gentilucci on Jun 13, 2012 2:43:44 GMT -5
I have to wonder how much of that was their incompetence and how much was ours?
Even if we'd done an amazing job at getting our name out their with positive press, 3M ballots wouldn't yield more than 30,000 votes. Normal circumstances would be 6-12,000, and that still requires some degree of outreach. How many did we get? 1500?
You don't get people to vote by sending out ballots to strangers who have never heard of this, you get them by engaging people. THAT was the problem. You want people who are enthusiastic about voting. 30,000 supporters/enthusiastic voters shouldn't have really been that hard.
The fact that i didn't get an email about voting until the 8th may give us a case though. when was voting supposed to end?
|
|
|
Post by jondenn on Jun 13, 2012 5:09:03 GMT -5
The failed CC2 election is a glaring metaphor why under-funded government elections would be a REALLY bad choice for America. I'm okay with generously or lavishly funded systems, like voucher with multiple matching funds, but who administers the system is fraught with complexities. Congress, SCOTUS, Executive Branch? Stephen Erickson suggests an independent commission with appointments from a near consensus of SCOTUS. But this, imo, is a "hammer" issue not a "nail" for CC2 2012. Way too complex to resolve in three weeks. "Barring corporate political expenditures to or for (or against) candidates, elected officials, and political parties" is a great nail because it forces Congress to do the rest of the work, which probably would be Lessig's voucher system with x times matching funds.
|
|
|
Post by vconsults on Jun 13, 2012 18:49:07 GMT -5
Here is a tally of the results of the delegate elections that closed on 11 June 2012 and reported by the CC2.0 Board/Steering Committee on 12 June 2012:
(1) Total Number of Voters Listed / Ballots Issued: 450, 289
(2) Total Number of Actual Votes Cast: 1, 326
(3) Percent of Voters that Voted: 0.294%
(4) Total Number of Delegate Candidates Listed: 780
(5) Total Number of Delegate Candidates That Received Votes: 523 (67.051%)
(6) Total Number of Delegate Candidates That Received Zero Votes: 257 (32.949%)
Although 523 candidate delegates received votes, this tally does not tell us how many persons actually won delegate seats (i.e., could have 3 delegates in a district that received votes totaling 100% for said district).
The Steering Committee as of yesterday made a decision to have "ALL delegate candidates ......invited to participate in the Congress, with full voting rights". Is the Steering Committee empowered with legitimate/legal authority to render such a decision after the fact? What is the legal standing and legal sufficiency of such an action relative to possible future legal challenges in the event that ‘Redress Grievance’ law suits are filed against the government?
What are the provisions in the corporate by-laws and policies relative to such a decision? This topic would be of interest to the media.
|
|
|
Post by maureenmower on Jun 13, 2012 19:03:34 GMT -5
I don't know if the Steering Committee or even M Pollok himself had any authority relative to the by-laws or the law itself to render that decision. However, I can tell you that the majority of delegates and delegate candidates who participated both in the old forum (which is not retrievable by anyone except, perhaps, MPollok) and those who have participated here and on the Facebook pages agreed with the decision to let all delegate candidates attend with all voting rights.
In fact, it was my own suggestion, which was supported by many others, that those who lost their races might be invited to come anyway to represent the many districts in every state that had NO representation because no one from that district chose to be a candidate.
The reason for this is simple - the idea from the beginning was to ensure that every district in the nation had representation. Unfortunately, we did not get candidates for every district, and it would have been wrong for those districts to be disenfranchised. So we felt it was better to use those who lost the race for their own district to represent other districts in their own state that had no other representative than to have those districts be left out of the debate.
So whether we have the legal authority or authority via the by-laws or not, we feel that this choice was more fair to the American people we are trying to represent than leaving many districts across the country with no representation at all.
|
|
mhuttman
Full Member
People First
Posts: 124
|
Post by mhuttman on Jun 14, 2012 11:25:11 GMT -5
Heck, there were several States that only had one delegate. Some of the territories also didn't have anyone signed up. At least with this setup we can assign some delegates to represent the Samoa or Alaska, for example.
|
|
|
Post by frankleespeaking on Jun 14, 2012 20:46:25 GMT -5
I don't think we need to appoint delegates to represent geographic locations they are not from and don't reside in.
I don't even really think the delegates need to be representing geographic locations at all.
I am representing the 99% of the American People, as we all are.
The representative by district strategy was supposed to be a part of Michael Pollok's legal strategy that involved a democratically elected representative group, which he thought would give us legal standing to file our petition in federal court if our grievances are not redressed.
There are several problems here. First, all of the other lawyers I and others have spoken to think the lawsuit would be thrown out almost immediately even if our elections had been successful. But second, our elections were a dismal failure. Plenty of seats did not have anyone run, over 80% were uncontested, and less than 1,500 votes were cast. And we decided to invite all the candidates whether they won or lost, so really no one was "elected" nor can we claim to be representative of anything, seeing how we have no outside support.
So forget the legal strategy, and forget representing your district (although I definitely still support the idea of asking as many people as possible about their feedback on what should be included in the petition). It was never viable anyway; the real strategy is to gain mass support.
So now the question becomes how do we do that?
I will be posting more on this as soon as we have a folder for delegate questions rather than a single thread, but my basic idea is get an accurate count of how many actually plan to attend, and then start inviting the leadership of organizations left right and center that should be supporting us to send one or two representatives.
|
|
|
Post by maureenmower on Jun 16, 2012 1:15:55 GMT -5
I agree Frank, and so do many others here. In fact we've had several off-forum discussions about it (mostly before the forum was up and running).
We are all acting as representatives of the 99% - whether 99% of the 99% knows it or not, lol.
Unfortunately, getting any kind of accurate count of who is going to be there is much more of a challenge than it should be. Neither MP nor the Steering Committee will part with email addresses of delegates so that we can tell them about this forum OR find out if they are coming. I do know that when the email was sent out by the SC asking delegates to contact their state liasons to confirm if they were coming or not, the response was very low.
The truth is, we may not know how many are going to show up until we get there - and unless we can figure something out in the next two weeks, those who can't get to Philly are going to be shut out, because the promised system for them to participate electronically was never obtained.
|
|