User talk:CZCharterVote: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Hayford Peirce (a suggestion) |
imported>Joe Quick |
||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Vote counting procedures == | == Vote counting procedures == | ||
| Line 31: | Line 5: | ||
:::I suggest that you contact [[User:Joe Quick]] or some other Citizen about your proposals. He/they/or you yourselves can do it. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 19:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC) | :::I suggest that you contact [[User:Joe Quick]] or some other Citizen about your proposals. He/they/or you yourselves can do it. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 19:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
:::: Hayford. Who is in charge of ballot counting? I need to contact him about this. Joe is a candidate and may decide that his involvement would be a conflict of interest. [[User:Dan Nessett|Dan Nessett]] 17:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::::I am, simply because I happen to be the Constable who is doing it. But any other Constable except Matt Innis (a Candidate) can also step in at any time and do whatever he/she feels is appropriate. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 18:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::::: Understand, Hayford, I am not suggesting you would do anything improper. However, transparency in elections is a very important property. I think it would be wise if more than one constable counts the votes. That is simple prudence and protects you against any charges of impropriety. [[User:Dan Nessett|Dan Nessett]] 18:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::::::See my comments above. I quite agree that eventually other Constables will be needed to certify the final count. If you think that they should be doing something in the meantime, however, please find the list of Constables and send each of them an individual email. Or send a formal letter to the Constabulary about it. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 18:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
[unindent] | |||
I have sent the following email to the Constabulary: | |||
:"Hayford and I have been discussing the process of ballot counting for the draft charter committee election on the charter vote talk page. As of now he is the only constable monitoring the vote. | |||
:"However, election transparency is an important characteristic and I think at least 2 constables should monitor the vote and certainly 2 or more should conduct the final tally. I am in no way suggesting that Hayford would do anything improper. This is simply a matter of good order and professionalism. | |||
:"In addition, I think it is prudent to advertise on the charter committee vote page that these arrangements are in force. At a minimum, this protects Hayford from subsequent charges of impropriety if the vote does not go the way some candidate thinks it should. | |||
:"Regards, | |||
:"Dan Nessett" | |||
::That seems very reasonable to me. --[[User:Joe Quick|Joe Quick]] 19:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 13:35, 6 October 2009
Vote counting procedures
I do not wish to suggest in any way that there will be any impropriety when the draft committee ballots are counted. However, it would be prudent that the procedures used for this are fully transparent. Specifically, assurance that more than one constable will count the ballots would increase confidence in the balloting process. Making this public on the CZCharterVote page (and not just this talk page) would further ensure transparency of the process. Dan Nessett 18:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I hope that this will be stated and implemented. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 18:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- I suggest that you contact User:Joe Quick or some other Citizen about your proposals. He/they/or you yourselves can do it. Hayford Peirce 19:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hayford. Who is in charge of ballot counting? I need to contact him about this. Joe is a candidate and may decide that his involvement would be a conflict of interest. Dan Nessett 17:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- I am, simply because I happen to be the Constable who is doing it. But any other Constable except Matt Innis (a Candidate) can also step in at any time and do whatever he/she feels is appropriate. Hayford Peirce 18:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Understand, Hayford, I am not suggesting you would do anything improper. However, transparency in elections is a very important property. I think it would be wise if more than one constable counts the votes. That is simple prudence and protects you against any charges of impropriety. Dan Nessett 18:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- See my comments above. I quite agree that eventually other Constables will be needed to certify the final count. If you think that they should be doing something in the meantime, however, please find the list of Constables and send each of them an individual email. Or send a formal letter to the Constabulary about it. Hayford Peirce 18:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
[unindent]
I have sent the following email to the Constabulary:
- "Hayford and I have been discussing the process of ballot counting for the draft charter committee election on the charter vote talk page. As of now he is the only constable monitoring the vote.
- "However, election transparency is an important characteristic and I think at least 2 constables should monitor the vote and certainly 2 or more should conduct the final tally. I am in no way suggesting that Hayford would do anything improper. This is simply a matter of good order and professionalism.
- "In addition, I think it is prudent to advertise on the charter committee vote page that these arrangements are in force. At a minimum, this protects Hayford from subsequent charges of impropriety if the vote does not go the way some candidate thinks it should.
- "Regards,
- "Dan Nessett"
- That seems very reasonable to me. --Joe Quick 19:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)