From: dseal@armltd.co.uk (David Seal)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Improprieties (soc.culture.indian.american and soc.culture.tamil
Date: 3 Sep 92 13:22:14 GMT
Distribution: news
Organization: A.R.M. Ltd, Swaffham Bulbeck, Cambs, UK

In article <1992Aug31.220216.26754@cbnewsi.cb.att.com>
alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia) writes:

>In article <92242.190548JLM@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>, JLM@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU writes:
>
>>  OK, one more time I'll try to get through to you and tell you what was
>> wrong:
>> 
>>  If the proponent and the vote-taker are one and the same, then *any*
>> vote canvassing (however subtle) by the vote-taker during the course
>> of the vote is *unfair* 
>...
>> since the vote-taker knows whether one more YES vote is needed for the 
>> proposal to pass.
>
>This is an erroneous assumption. Vote taker does not always know
>that. Not all vote takers are keeping a running count of YES/NO votes.
>Some vote takers do not even count the votes at all until the close of
>the voting.

This doesn't matter: the vote-taker is able to get this information if he or
she wants it, and nobody can tell whether he or she did so. Other people
cannot without the connivance of the vote-taker. Hence the rules: the
vote-taker mustn't campaign during the voting period himself, and mustn't
disclose anything about the results to anyone else before the end of the
voting period.

I know it can be difficult to get evidence that the vote-taker broke these
rules, especially the second one if it was done by word of mouth and the
recipient doesn't want the vote invalidated. But unless you can get such
evidence, I can safely predict you won't get the vote overturned.

>>  If the proponent and the vote-taker are two different persons, then
>> the proponent may campaign for votes *provided* that he has not been
>> informed by the vote-taker as to how the vote is going. Unfortunately,
>
>I don't think any canvassing at all should be done after the issue of CFV.
>Whether it is negative or positive or whether it is by the vote taker or 
>anyone, it is not good to have it.

This just isn't practical. If you have such a rule (or guideline if you
like), *any* opponent can invalidate *any* vote simply by canvassing during
the vote period. I've never seen a Usenet vote without someone voting NO:
with such a rule, I predict that very few votes, if any, would be completed
without "misbehaviour".

>>  If you have irrefutable evidence that the *VOTE-TAKER* was involved in
>> campaigning for votes or disclosed the preliminary results to the other
>> proponents, then present it *HERE* and I will join you. Otherwise, anything
>> you say is nothing more than an unsubstantiated accusation ...
>
>The evidence was shown by Kuram Narayan. He pointed out a mail by the
>vote taker to a prospective voter in which the vote taker advised him to
>vote YES or abstain. The fact that this was done just before the issue of
>CFV set the tone of the other organizers/canvassers who solicited votes
>during the voting using similar theme. 

You've said it yourself: it was done *before* the vote started. We know the
vote-taker didn't have access to any partial results at the time, because
there weren't any!

Look: like it or not, the guidelines and precedents as they are at present
are directed towards ensuring that people can't campaign based on partial
vote results, and *not* towards ensuring that they can't campaign during the
voting period. If you want this particular vote overturned, you have to find
evidence that the vote-taker himself campaigned during the voting period, or
that he disclosed something about the partial vote results (other than the
allowed acknowledgements) before the end of the voting period. Nothing else
will do.

If, on the other hand, you want the rules changed so that campaigning during
the voting period is disallowed, please suggest the changes. But don't
bother us with them unless you can make them practical: i.e. people should
not be able to achieve their aims easily by deliberately and openly breaking
the rules.

And *don't* expect any such changes to apply retrospectively to the
soc.culture.tamil vote or to any others.

>The vote taker's behaviour in case of soc.culture.tamil violated the 
>appearance of the vote taker to be unbiased. After making such biased
>and improper remarks, he went on to issue the CFV and selected himself
>to be the vote taker.

Again: the current procedure is designed to stop campaigning based on
partial vote results. It is *not* designed to make the vote taker appear to
be unbiased. Indeed, the most usual pattern is that the proposer of the
group takes the votes, and the group proposer can hardly appear to be
unbiased, can he?

Indeed, having the vote-taker biased towards the group may be an advantage,
provided he keeps quiet during the voting period: at least you know he has
no interest in disrupting the vote. A supposedly neutral vote-taker who was
in fact against the group and acting as a "Trojan horse" could very easily
destroy a vote and waste a lot of people's time.

David Seal
dseal@armltd.co.uk

All opinions are mine only...
Newsgroups: news.groups