mhuttman
Full Member
People First
Posts: 124
|
Post by mhuttman on Jun 12, 2012 11:06:28 GMT -5
To save money, since this project has already cost enough money as-is.
I posted this on Facebook also: How about instead of having keypads for all delegates, that we just use a paper ballot/form instead? Give each individual grievance an ID#, and then on the form delegates can mark Yes/No or Yay/Nay beside the IDs. Someone (or a few someones) will need to count these ballots on the last day and stick the votes into an Excel spreadsheet, but the cost of printing off a few hundred forms seems much lower than having that many keypads available.
|
|
|
Post by jondenn on Jun 12, 2012 11:43:42 GMT -5
I had suggested, there be a pre-vote or a "loving edit" of all the items that would likely get no dissent, like ending gerrymandering. These can be done with a show of hands, and quickly start building consensus so when the going gets tougher folks will stay in the room. Then when we get into the cusp items or contentious issues we could use secret ballots, that could be a simple as index cards. Is it a "nail" or is it a "hammer"? For those of you who have not heard this suggestion, a nail is an item that we could reasonably expect to pass as a constitutional amendment—today, not in years or decades. Hammers are all the things that would be on the table of an Article V States Convention to amend the constitution if Congress and the President don't pass the nail. This strategy worked the last time an Article V was threatened to elect Senators and not appoint them.
|
|
mhuttman
Full Member
People First
Posts: 124
|
Post by mhuttman on Jun 12, 2012 11:50:25 GMT -5
That sounds good to me, although I'm not sure how apprehensive the group will be to have "public" votes at first.
|
|
|
Post by jondenn on Jun 12, 2012 12:32:34 GMT -5
Maybe the first consensus items are only electoral reform? I'm actually ok with voting; hammer or nail on all of them.
|
|
mhuttman
Full Member
People First
Posts: 124
|
Post by mhuttman on Jun 12, 2012 12:52:42 GMT -5
I'm fine with it also. This thread was more about the physical voting process. I know that there was talk of buying a keypad system for people to vote with, but I can't see any value in that compared to just using paper or hands.
No one had computers at the first Constitutional Convention, and I think they did just fine.
|
|
|
Post by maureenmower on Jun 12, 2012 16:58:31 GMT -5
We already know who we all are, or can find out (all that is needed is to go to the website and click on any state, then on each district in the state, to find out who the delegates are - especially since all candidates are going to be delegates now, regardless of the vote results). After all, if you were elected to Congress, then everyone in the country would know how you voted on every issue they take up. Well, this is a "Congress" too, and we should not be afraid to take responsibility for our votes.
However, I'm all for facilitating anything that gets more delegates involved in the process, so...
If we do have an in-person only Congress (I've posted in other areas that we might get more participation if we did the whole thing online instead), then there are many ways (including the index card idea) to make all votes anonymous.
Whatever gets the job done, and gets the largest number of delegates participating, is okay with me.
|
|
|
Post by maureenmower on Jun 12, 2012 16:59:39 GMT -5
I'm fine with it also. This thread was more about the physical voting process. I know that there was talk of buying a keypad system for people to vote with, but I can't see any value in that compared to just using paper or hands. No one had computers at the first Constitutional Convention, and I think they did just fine. True, but they didn't have as many participants as we *hope* to have - and they took 6 weeks to get to consensus, where we only have 3 days.
|
|
|
Post by Matt Forbes on Jun 12, 2012 17:10:59 GMT -5
At most, we'll have 787 delegates, with the assumption that every single delegate candidate shows up and that not a single one of the profiles was a double/triple/etc.
I think we can safely estimate we'll have half that number, at best... a fairly easy amount to quickly count by hand, even if there are only one or two volunteers counting the ballots.
The savings compared to the cost for the keypad system is well worth it, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by maureenmower on Jun 12, 2012 18:02:57 GMT -5
I agree, Matt... but I'm also thinking that if we moved the whole process to an "online" Congress, we might get the participation of ALL the delegates. After all, we know they all have access to a computer and the internet, or they would not have been able to sign up in the first place.
Unless someone knows of a way we can do that for free, we'd still have to pay for it, but it might be a lot less expensive than the convention center was - and we could get a refund of the convention center fee (minus cancellation charges) to help pay for it.
It's worth considering at least - especially since it could mean the difference between having 700 delegates participate or only 70.
|
|
dawnh1
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by dawnh1 on Jun 12, 2012 19:32:55 GMT -5
I don't see how paper ballots can reasonably be used if you have say 300 people there and there are over 100 potential grievances. How do you plan on narrowing the number of grievances? Do you decide on the number of grievances before hand? How do you decide which grievances are included in the petition? Not trying to be arguementative but trying to understand what you are proposing.
|
|
|
Post by Matt Forbes on Jun 12, 2012 19:50:20 GMT -5
First... that's way too many grievances and, yes, I'll be the first to state that some are going to have to be cut from the beginning. Will that hurt some feelings or cause a bit of strife? Likely, but, let's face it, some of the grievances can be combined together, while others are inconsequential at this stage and better suited for a later date when other grievances have been solved.
I'm going to say this rather bluntly: We're not Occupy. While we might attempt to rebuild some bridges and affiliate with Occupy as an allied group, we do not follow their rules of allowing everything into the mix.
Because, honestly, if we put everything in, we may as well just set ourselves aflame and call it a day, because that will likely be less embarrassing and not quite as painful.
I know there are many who are going to disagree with me, but it's foolish to apply our limited time to every single issue out there. There are some that are, without doubt, more important than others in this early stage. I don't intend that we leave the other issues behind us, choking on the dust; rather, I feel that our best chance at success is going to come from a clear and *concise* message, not one cluttered with ideas that will only serve to divide rather than unite.
There are too many issues that go beyond the realm of moderation and are better suited to be decided upon by the people themselves... all we need to do is focus on those issues that will work towards putting the power back into the hands of the people.
Anything else is sheer lunacy and will only paint the entire petition as extremist literature.
|
|
|
Post by Matt Forbes on Jun 12, 2012 19:53:56 GMT -5
Maureen,
It could be possible to get the non-attending delegates involved online, though that would, at the least, require us to purchase some portable WiFi devices and pay a single month's worth of service for each one. Arguably, that's around $200 a device (judging by what we paid here locally for the device and the monthly service charge for unlimited usage with some speed control after a 5 gig data point)... I don't know what the estimate was for the conference center or if the center would allow outside devices in. I know some places like that are very particular on only their tech being used.
|
|
|
Post by mohavehiker on Jun 12, 2012 21:36:57 GMT -5
We could broadcast the proceedings on Ustream or Livestream to whoever signs in. We could allow those watching to post comments. We could also allow those folks that want to vote the ability to vote but first they would have to post a US issued Gov't ID for the tech person to verify. We did this for Occupy Las Vegas. You could post your ID with the picture and some key numbers blacked or blurred out but enough to allow a verification that you were a real person and only one person. At times during the proceedings some of the most pertinent comments could be read and the broadcast vote could be tallied along with the paper ballots. It is not a secret ballot but does allow more participation. We learned that the watching participants came up with the same ideas and conclusions as the people there. But it gave them a a way to participate. Some things were easy to agree on and those things that were too contentious we tabled and had committees look at. We didn't allow blocking unless you wanted to leave the group and the group did split but is now working together again. I recognize that we are a Republic and why. Both the representational model and direct democracy has flaws. If we can get money out of politics our country has a chance thrive again. If not it won't matter what we do. There are groups that have Ustream with them that are coming to Philly.
|
|
|
Post by maureenmower on Jun 12, 2012 22:43:30 GMT -5
Mohave,
I"m not familiar with either of those programs (basically my knowledge of some of the newer technologies and social network tools is how to send a Tweet, how to create a list on Facebook, and how to send a photo from my phone - which is probably smarter than I am, lol). However, if those programs or tools or whatever they are would allow the delegates who can't travel to Philly to participate in both the discussions and the voting, I'm all for it.
If they can do so for free, or for a relatively nominal fee (anything less than the $4600 we're supposed to pay for those keypads - when we may not even have 100 people there in the hall to use them - is good, really), then I'm all for it and will gladly take a crash course in how to use them.
|
|
mhuttman
Full Member
People First
Posts: 124
|
Post by mhuttman on Jun 13, 2012 9:36:00 GMT -5
First... that's way too many grievances and, yes, I'll be the first to state that some are going to have to be cut from the beginning. Will that hurt some feelings or cause a bit of strife? Likely, but, let's face it, some of the grievances can be combined together, while others are inconsequential at this stage and better suited for a later date when other grievances have been solved. I can see us doing a first pass through all of the grievances in the first few minutes. We take the list, vote Yes/No on each, and then count the votes right there to narrow down to, say, top 32. At that point we can continue to hold "rounds" to narrow down to top 16, then top 8 with runoff rounds to determine grievances #9 & #10. I like the direct democracy that Occupy uses, but it is definitely a flawed system once you get past a handful of people. It is too easy for a minority to shut down the whole process with infinite blocks. While in theory this means that every view gets considered, what actually happens is that hours are spent resolving blocks or compromising and there is no net progress after several hours of meeting. Eventually there needs to be closure and a vote to get things approved and to keep the agenda moving. Agreed. Lets get the big ones that everyone can agree with on the final list of 10 grievances, and then we can definitely tackle the others at another time.
|
|