|
Asking for transparency is not unreasonable. Actively ignoring the meaning of words to make some harebrained argument about the DNC changing its rules to hide a nefarious plot to deny Bernie his rightful stature in the party is unreasonable.
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 16:45 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The Bernouts are mad as hell and they're not going to let little things like what words actually mean stop them from feeding their insane persecution complex. considering the following section covers making party financials open to the public, your reading is completely wrong. what you've described is still a secret ballot under the bylaws.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I don't think it's an unreasonable demand, I am simply saying that it's not a requirement of the bylaw. okay, but what does the bylaw actually say about transparency regarding voting, if anything?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
Where the hell did you people drag this "just asking questions" guy out from and why are you resorting to terrorism by using him if the Democratic Party is dead and irrelevant?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Asking for transparency is not unreasonable. I am willing to accept the idea that they did not change their laws, I would just like to know what they are in regards to the subject.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:I thought you were saying the bylaws or whatever of the DNC said that meetings had to be open in some manner? What does that mean, whatever they said, and why is it useful when it doesn't include who voted for what? I would like to know that it is useful since it would help me to think they weren't just paying lip service or something. Well you see sociopaths like him and clay know better then us. Now we have to kiss their rear end because they found a loophole in a rule.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:Ruh-roh, there it is. The DNC changing party rules to reduce transparency is a bad sign, even if you don't think the Democrats need to reform it's a good way to alienate progressives. Maybe the thinking is progressives weren't going to turnout in 2018 anyway. The Iron Law of Institutions. They'd rather hold on to their authority in a failing institution than lose influence in a successful one
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
Condiv posted:considering the following section covers making party financials open to the public, your reading is completely wrong. what you've described is still a secret ballot under the bylaws. If secret ballot isn't defined then the ordinary definition "The secret ballot is a voting method in which a voter's choices in an election or a referendum are anonymous," is used. Just becuase YOU don't have access to the results doesn't make them anonymous. thechosenone posted:I am willing to accept the idea that they did not change their laws, I would just like to know what they are in regards to the subject. Condiv posted:"All meetings of the Democratic National Committee, the Executive Committee, and all other official Party committees, commissions and bodies shall be open to the public, and votes shall not be taken by secret ballot. "
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
Condiv posted:considering the following section covers making party financials open to the public, your reading is completely wrong. what you've described is still a secret ballot under the bylaws. Quote where the bylaws define a secret ballot differently than the standard definition I'm using. You won't be able to because you're wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:I am willing to accept the idea that they did not change their laws, I would just like to know what they are in regards to the subject. Section 12. All meetings of the Democratic National Committee, the Executive Committee, and all other official Party committees, commissions and bodies shall be open to the public, and votes shall not be taken by secret ballot. the laws weren't changed, they were ignored
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Where the hell did you people drag this "just asking questions" guy out from and why are you resorting to terrorism by using him if the Democratic Party is dead and irrelevant? I dragged myself out from hell, and my name is
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:okay, but what does the bylaw actually say about transparency regarding voting, if anything? It says no secret ballots. Signed ballots aren't secret and Ellison was well aware of the process going into it, so it's not like this was sprung on him. Condiv posted:Section 12. All meetings of the Democratic National Committee, the Executive Committee, and all other official Party committees, commissions and bodies shall be open to the public, and votes shall not be taken by secret ballot. Signed ballots aren't secret. I don't know why that is so very hard for you grasp.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
Condiv posted:Section 12. All meetings of the Democratic National Committee, the Executive Committee, and all other official Party committees, commissions and bodies shall be open to the public, and votes shall not be taken by secret ballot. They weren't. The secret ballot is a voting method in which a voter's choices in an election or a referendum are anonymous
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I am explaining how it works. If you don't like it, lobby for change. I am trying to make you understand that it wasn't "rigged" against Ellison, it's simply the way inwhich it's always been done. And I'm explaining to you that your interpretation of what the rules require is absurd if one wants actual transparency. Also you're the one who started talking about some kind of rigging of the election, I haven't even mentioned that idea with a single world before now. In general one would think that with the Democratic party being run as shittly as it has been everybody should welcome more transparency and accountability to the process, but apparently not.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:I dragged myself out from hell, and my name is Anyone who is willfully stupid is the enemy of anyone who doesn't wish to be.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
Condiv posted:Section 12. All meetings of the Democratic National Committee, the Executive Committee, and all other official Party committees, commissions and bodies shall be open to the public, and votes shall not be taken by secret ballot. BI NOW GAY LATER posted:It says no secret ballots. Signed ballots aren't secret and Ellison was well aware of the process going into it, so it's not like this was sprung on him. Ten every member of the DNC will be purged. if they cannot come up with a list of who voted. If they want to keep their jobs tell us who is a centrist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Ten every member of the DNC will be purged. if they cannot come up with a list of who voted. If they want to keep their jobs tell us who is a centrist. You and what army?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:And I'm explaining to you that your interpretation of what the rules require is absurd if one wants actual transparency. Also you're the one who started talking about some kind of rigging of the election, I haven't even mentioned that idea with a single world before now. I mean, yeah, it might be better if all votes were totally open, but as things stand it was conducted in accordance with the organizations bylaws.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
Condiv posted:Section 12. All meetings of the Democratic National Committee, the Executive Committee, and all other official Party committees, commissions and bodies shall be open to the public, and votes shall not be taken by secret ballot. so we know who signed each ballot? If not, then what is the definition of signed ballots, and secret ballots? Because I am confused as to how it wouldn't just be a type of secret ballot. I'm real sorry about this, I honestly don't know much about this stuff, so any help would be appreciated, since I've honestly only been aware of the DNC for a few years at most?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Anyone who is willfully stupid is the enemy of anyone who doesn't wish to be. I thought you said it was about me using the term socially liberal? Brainiac Five posted:You're not important, bucko, and using "social liberal" makes it clear that you are definitely an enemy of mine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:so we know who signed each ballot? If not, then what is the definition of signed ballots, and secret ballots? Because I am confused as to how it wouldn't just be a type of secret ballot. I'm real sorry about this, I honestly don't know much about this stuff, so any help would be appreciated, since I've honestly only been aware of the DNC for a few years at most? WE don't know. Obviously, that's the source of the latest round of random accusations of unfairness.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Quote where the bylaws define a secret ballot differently than the standard definition I'm using. You won't be able to because you're wrong. the part where you pretend it's not a secret ballot cause the dem party is keeping it secret. the party charter wouldn't disallow secret ballots if keeping the results of votes secret was ok. it also wouldn't have other sections like this if that bylaw wasn't regarding transparency: Section 13. The Democratic National Committee shall prepare and make available to the public an annual report concerning the financial affairs of the Democratic Party. it's pretty clear what the letter and spirit of the laws say and it's not that you can have a secret ballot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
Condiv posted:the part where you pretend it's not a secret ballot cause the dem party is keeping it secret. Look at this idiot who doesn't understand the meaning of the phrase "secret ballot" even though it's been repeatedly defined. Idiot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Asking for transparency is not unreasonable. I see what you're saying, but at the same time I think you can understand why people (myself included) are confused. How is that signed ballots that aren't viewable by the public don't count as "secret ballots" that are forbidden by the DNC rule? It's not like I was personally going to do anything with this information, but if you were a progressive organization interested reforming the Democrats that information could have been marginally useful. As for as they're concerned this ballot was effectively secret.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:WE don't know. Obviously, that's the source of the latest round of random accusations of unfairness. So is the rule to maintain transparency in the committee? I thought it was for transparency to the public? I didn't know, so I apologize.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:I see what you're saying, but at the same time I think you can understand why people (myself included) are confused. How is that signed ballots that aren't viewable by the public don't count as "secret ballots" that are forbidden by the DNC rule? Because "secret ballot" is a phrase with a specific definition. thechosenone posted:So is the rule to maintain transparency in the committee? I thought it was for transparency to the public? I didn't know, so I apologize. It's just their general rules. I dunno why, but they weren't broken .
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I mean, yeah, it might be better if all votes were totally open, but as things stand it was conducted in accordance with the organizations bylaws. If this was the case the organization's bylaws are completely toothless WRT actual transparency, and they should release the rest of the information voluntarily instead of squirreling it away.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Ten every member of the DNC will be purged. if they cannot come up with a list of who voted. If they want to keep their jobs tell us who is a centrist. You are a such a moron it hurts. They have a list of who voted, but feel free to email them: secretaryoffice@dnc.org They likely won't tell you who each of them voted for, though they might if you manage to put together a sentence that doesn't read like a deranged crazy person wrote it. Cerebral Bore posted:And I'm explaining to you that your interpretation of what the rules require is absurd if one wants actual transparency. Also you're the one who started talking about some kind of rigging of the election, I haven't even mentioned that idea with a single world before now. I just said, I don't think they ever really gave it a whole lot of thought beyond glancing transparency since it's literally never came up. Again, I welcome more transparency, but the mistake here is to frame it as they're ignoring or breaking some kind of rule when they very clearly aren't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Because "secret ballot" is a phrase with a specific definition. Is the DNC using a specific definition? the google one just says votes where ballots are cast in secret?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
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.thechosenone posted:Is the DNC using a specific definition? the google one just says votes where ballots are cast in secret? Which they weren't. The ballots were literally signed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Yes, and part of mandating trasparency to the public as well as open ballots means that the public ought to be able to follow who voted for what. Otherwise the requirements are pretty drat meaningless. They are not meaningless for the insiders who get to see who voted for what and take measures accordingly...
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Look at this idiot who doesn't understand the meaning of the phrase "secret ballot" even though it's been repeatedly defined. why do you even respond to me when you have me on ignore? it's p pathetic nevvy
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:Is the DNC using a specific definition? the google one just says votes where ballots are cast in secret? There's only one. It's the ordinary definition. It's not "they won't show me the ballot so it's a secret ballot" 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.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:You are a such a moron it hurts. They have a list of who voted, but feel free to email them: secretaryoffice@dnc.org So It is just lip service then? It doesn't actually provide transparency to the public?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I just said, I don't think they ever really gave it a whole lot of thought beyond glancing transparency since it's literally never came up. Again, I welcome more transparency, but the mistake here is to frame it as they're ignoring or breaking some kind of rule when they very clearly aren't. If they're not ignoring the letter of the law, then they're at least doing their best to pretend that its spirit isn't anywhere in sight. I'm still not convinced that this is on the up and up, since I can't see how the outcome here could be in accordance with the intent of the bylaws, assuming that they were written in at least some semblance of good faith.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:So It is just lip service then? It doesn't actually provide transparency to the public? 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. Cerebral Bore posted:If they're not ignoring the letter of the law, then they're at least doing their best to pretend that its spirit isn't anywhere in sight. I'm still not convinced that this is on the up and up, since I can't see how the outcome here could be in accordance with the intent of the bylaws, assuming that they were written in at least some semblance of good faith. I don't think the bylaws were ever really written in very good faith, tbqh. Again Ellison didn't object to this at all and certainly had every opportunity to do it, since the plan for a non-voice vote or show of hands was known well in advance (they originally were going to use machines, but were concerned they couldn't verify them as well, and so went with all paper, signed ballots.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
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. 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?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:There's only one. It's the ordinary definition. It's not "they won't show me the ballot so it's a secret ballot" 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?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 16:45 |
|
|
Condiv posted:the part where you pretend it's not a secret ballot cause the dem party is keeping it secret. No, what's clear is you're wrong, that your objection here is based on a toxic mix of ignorance and rage, and that no amount of patient explanation about the meaning of terms like "secret ballot" will stop you from spreading your stupid nonsense. I can't imagine why the party consistently rejects allowing people like you to have any influence or power.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:16
|
|