Election results

[Andrew Sullivan]

Josh,

On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 11:36:42PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:

> Unfortunately, the quorum parts of our bylaws will paralyze the organization 
> if we do not purge "inactive" members.   

This argument begs the question.  There is a difference between
inactive members who do not care about the organisation and don't
especially want to be members, and members who do care but choose not
to vote.  Defining the latter as inactive deprives those refusing to
vote that option of communicating their indifference to the options
presented.  It's a legitmate democratic tactic, particularly in the
absence of a "none of the above" option on the ballot.

> For example, changes to the bylaws themselves require a majority of
> *all* members, not just voting ones.  With current levels of
> participation that will be impossible to achieve.

This is _also_ question-begging, because it assumes that the changes
should occur if they are desired.  You simply do not know, in
advance, whether the non-voters are refusing to vote because they
don't care about the organisation, or because they're happy with the
bylaws as they are and don't think they need changing.  If you know
that not voting is effectively the same as voting "no", why bother
going on the record?

Note that this isn't an argument against establishing criteria for
participation, but it is an argument for excluding a requirement to
vote in every topic put to vote by the organisation.

> I'd bet you that at least 15% of our membership has gone no-mail on
> the lists and is not even aware that they are still registered as
> members.

This oughta be easy enough to check, no?  I'd prefer a real number to
speculation.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan  | ajs at crankycanuck.ca
In the future this spectacle of the middle classes shocking the avant-
garde will probably become the textbook definition of Postmodernism. 
                --Brad Holland