|
thechosenone posted:So It is just lip service then? It doesn't actually provide transparency to the public? I don't think it says anywhere that that's what the rule is for, so calling it lip service would be incorrect.
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 06:56 |
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I don't think it aids transparency to make it easier to retaliate against people for votes you don't like, to be honest, so I hope that any changes in that process are forestalled until the political climate is less obsessed with purging and punishment. So would you agree that congressmen should not have to disclose what they vote for or against? BI NOW GAY LATER posted:It was never really intended to do such, nearest I can tell. I think this is literally the first time since the party restructured in the 80's that we've had a contested chairs race. Okay, that makes sense. I wonder if things might get a little more hot under the collar in the future.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:They didn't keep the results secret though? They even had Perez on CNN afterwards telling he won and published the results of each round. Just not the detailed results, which is different. I think what people are getting at is they're not publishing the names of each voter and how they voted (are they? Google brings up a bunch of worthless Trump quotes). This information could be used by progressives and centrists to decide who to try to support or displace within the party organization in future. The point of a secret ballot is to prevent exactly these kinds of reprisals based on how people voted.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Condiv- ignore list doesn't work from the posting screen sadly. That said, you are still wrong. And still probably a conservative poo poo stirrer. you're the one who threw such a fit you put me on ignore, so don't respond to my posts. you don't want to talk to me so don't talk to me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:Which makes me wonder why they would suddenly be sweating it now, when they wouldn't have earlier? "Votes shall not be taken by secret ballot" doesn't necessarily mean "we will post the full and detailed list of votes on our website". People are forgetting what secret ballot actually means - it means that no one knows what the votes were, and that they are completely and totally anonymous. That's clearly not the case in the DNC election: someone knows who voted what, so the ballot wasn't secret. It's just that no one's released that not-secret list to the public. Similarly, "open meetings" just means "if anyone shows up at the door to this meeting and wants in, let them in", not "distribute literally everything that happens to the entire nation". Is it transparent to the public? No. But it does obey the bylaws.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:I think what people are getting at is they're not publishing the names of each voter and how they voted (are they? Google brings up a bunch of worthless Trump quotes). This information could be used by progressives and centrists to decide who to try to support or displace within the party organization in future. The point of a secret ballot is to prevent exactly these kinds of reprisals based on how people voted. It isn't like I am that mad at those establishment folks anyway, it isn't like they are part of the republicans. I just don't want to support them over people who better represent my ideals.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:So would you agree that congressmen should not have to disclose what they vote for or against? Mu.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
Condiv posted:what is the purpose of taking the signed ballots then? why is it important the vote is not a secret ballot when it's kept secret from the public? That's a substantively different type of discussion from "did the DNC ignore/change/sidestep their bylaws." Nocturtle posted:I think what people are getting at is they're not publishing the names of each voter and how they voted (are they? Google brings up a bunch of worthless Trump quotes). This information could be used by progressives and centrists to decide who to try to support or displace within the party organization in future. The point of a secret ballot is to prevent exactly these kinds of reprisals based on how people voted. Again, I am not saying that you shouldn't ask for this -- I am saying the bylaws do not require them to do that. Most of the people who vote for this are people you would literally never known from Adam or Eve.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_methods_in_deliberative_assemblies It seems like Signed Ballots are just a way of recording ballots and has nothing to do with it being a secret ballot
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:"Votes shall not be taken by secret ballot" doesn't necessarily mean "we will post the full and detailed list of votes on our website". People are forgetting what secret ballot actually means - it means that no one knows what the votes were, and that they are completely and totally anonymous. That's clearly not the case in the DNC election: someone knows who voted what, so the ballot wasn't secret. It's just that no one's released that not-secret list to the public. You got ninja'd on this, but thanks for the confirmation. I think this might bring more attention to the process honestly, and so it means that we can work on it and make things better.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:It isn't like I am that mad at those establishment folks anyway, it isn't like they are part of the republicans. I just don't want to support them over people who better represent my ideals. If somehow primary candidates are in every other way identical maybe their dnc chair vote could be the deciding factor, but that seems so unlikely as to be not worth pursuing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
Condiv posted:what is the purpose of taking the signed ballots then? why is it important the vote is not a secret ballot when it's kept secret from the public? Signed ballots allow you to combat accusations of fraud or miscounting by leaving a record of who voted and how. It's not about transparency at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
? So you have no opinon on it? Then why the opinion on other votes?Nevvy Z posted:If somehow primary candidates are in every other way identical maybe their dnc chair vote could be the deciding factor, but that seems so unlikely as to be not worth pursuing. I think it would be a useful source of information which might have more implications than one might think. The opinions of those one votes for can often correlate to those that vote for them. Not a perfect measure, but not useless. So I don't see why not.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:? So you have no opinon on it? Then why the opinion on other votes? You would be wrong, and that would be why they don't go out of their way to share it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:That's a substantively different type of discussion from "did the DNC ignore/change/sidestep their bylaws." answer the question. JeffersonClay posted:Signed ballots allow you to combat accusations of fraud or miscounting by leaving a record of who voted and how. It's not about transparency at all. how do they do that if you don't show them to anyone? also, that is literally the definition of being about transparency.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:You and what army? I am actually involved int he local democratic party. Also non sociopaths have already declared that this emboldens them to continue to take over state parties. Look I know you hate poor people and all but you see when you work with people for a idea that doesn't invoke loving over the poor you can accomplish alot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:? So you have no opinon on it? Then why the opinion on other votes? I have no desire to engage in Socratic irony, unless it involves ironic hemlock.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:You would be wrong, and that would be why they don't go out of their way to share it. Doesn't really seem that hard. Why do you think it only covers edge cases?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_methods_in_deliberative_assemblies Secret ballot means that no one knows who voted for whom. Condiv posted:answer the question. Maybe because they didn't want to be harassed by people like you? I don't know. Again I don't think the DNC Bylaw was violated or ignored. I don't think it was ever intended to provide the level of transparency you want.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_methods_in_deliberative_assemblies Wrong. Secret ballots are anonymous. Signed ballots are not secret ballots. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_ballot
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
The only argument someone has presented for why the voting record should not be public is for fear of persecution of the voters. Do the rest of you, who support the non-publication, agree with this?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:but if a paper ballot and a secret ballot both do not require us to know who voted, then is there any difference other than we know the result? Knowing the number of people who voted for which person is the transparency? A secret ballot requires nobody to know who voted, because the votes are completely and totally anonymous. If somebody knows who voted what, then the ballot isn't secret, even if everybody doesn't know who voted. Why are secret ballots banned? It's probably not for accountability to the public, given that that isn't exactly what the DNC is all about. Rather than that, it's probably for accountability to the members - it allows votes to be challenged and verified if someone suspects foul play of some sort in the vote. KomradeX posted:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_methods_in_deliberative_assemblies If a ballot is signed with the name of the person who cast it, then it's inherently not a secret ballot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I have no desire to engage in Socratic irony, unless it involves ironic hemlock. I don't think hemlock can be ironic though? It is a plant, it cannot even talk. Besides, you don't seem like you even want to elaborate on your stances, which makes it very hard to agree with you. I'd like to, but I don't see why I should when you don't want to substantiate your claims.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:I am actually involved int he local democratic party. Also non sociopaths have already declared that this emboldens them to continue to take over state parties. Look I know you hate poor people and all but you see when you work with people for a idea that doesn't invoke loving over the poor you can accomplish alot. Your sister's old beanie babies aren't your local Democratic Party. But maybe they will be able to tear down and trample all the DNC if you wish hard enough.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:Doesn't really seem that hard. Why do you think it only covers edge cases? What valuable information do you think it would give other than ammunition for intercene squabbling?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
Fados posted:The only argument someone has presented for why the voting record should not be public is for fear of persecution of the voters. Do the rest of you, who support the non-publication, agree with this? oddly enough, this is exactly the reason for secret ballots. to protect voters from having their votes influenced. odd how this "reading" of the bylaws allows them to get the effect of a secret ballot but it's not a secret ballot huh?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:A secret ballot requires nobody to know who voted, because the votes are completely and totally anonymous. If somebody knows who voted what, then the ballot isn't secret, even if everybody doesn't know who voted. Alright I get it. I think they should set up so that it is public knowledge who voted though. I acknowledge that is not the current state of affairs though. I appreciate your patience with helping me understand, as I know that it is frustrating to say the least. Nevvy Z posted:What valuable information do you think it would give other than ammunition for intercene squabbling? I don't know what intercene squabbling means, but I figure knowing who one appoints lets me see if they like to appoint people I like.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:I don't know what intercene squabbling means, but I figure knowing who one appoints lets me see if they like to appoint people I like. People calling Dem superdelgates who were pledged to HRC and harassing them?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
Condiv posted:how do they do that if you don't show them to anyone? also, that is literally the definition of being about transparency. you show them to a trusted 3rd party who verifies the vote count. You are wrong. Stop.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Your sister's old beanie babies aren't your local Democratic Party. I'm not really mad at the democratic party, I don't really think anyone here is. I might want to promote internal reform though. Guess I'm not really that revolutionary.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:People calling Dem superdelgates who were pledged to HRC and harassing them? You can snowball this argument at will to prevent any type of party transparency.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:I'm not really mad at the democratic party, I don't really think anyone here is. I might want to promote internal reform though. Guess I'm not really that revolutionary. Oh, there's plenty of people here mad at the Democratic Party.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
If party officials, in an organization that they themselves have chosen to join, face backlash or criticism from party members due to their decisions it's not harassment, it's accountability. Which, once again, apparently is hella Un-American.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:I'm not really mad at the democratic party, I don't really think anyone here is. I might want to promote internal reform though. Guess I'm not really that revolutionary. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
Fados posted:You can snowball this argument at will to prevent any type of intra-party transparency. So, harassment is good?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:People calling Dem superdelgates who were pledged to HRC and harassing them? ?? People regularly tell folks to call their congressmen, and honestly some of that probably gets rather harassment like too. It comes part and parcel of doing controversial things. what is the point in not harassing them?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:If party officials, in an organization that they themselves have chosen to join, face backlash or criticism from party members due to their decisions it's not harassment, it's accountability. Which, once again, apparently is hella Un-American. Oh, I think there's a big difference in "backlash" and calling people on their homes and constantly harassing them and leaving threats. There is, you know, a limit to that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:If party officials, in an organization that they themselves have chosen to join, face backlash or criticism from party members due to their decisions it's not harassment, it's accountability. Which, once again, apparently is hella Un-American. Cool, guess I can send death threats to the head of my local Elks Lodge cause I disagree with their decision concerning the stocking of SKYY in the wet bar. After all, what could be more American?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
You can ask them for it. They'll release it if they want. They don't owe you the information.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 06:56 |
|
|
Well, I guess some folks are kind of peeved at them, to say the least, but I don't think we exactly have an easy alternative to them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:33
|
|