Wikipedia talk:Association of Members' Advocates/2004 Election

message: Questions:
- What kind of majority is necessary? If there is only a plurarlity, must a runoff occur?
- If there is a tied vote (not unlikely given the size of the electorate), then will the counter (or any other person) have a casting vote? Or will there be a fresh election?
-- Emsworth 11:47, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)
:Since there are only two candiates, I think that a simple majority will suffice. I would reccomend that in the case of a tie, a fresh election will be held. --Alex S 16:02, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If the nominations are now closed, why don't we have the election inspectors, or whatever we want to call them, tell us how they want to administer the election. I would gladly accept Alex S and Jwrosenzweig as inspectors. Presumably it will be a (relatively) secret ballot, and I think we should allow at least a week for the election process. Campaigning has started, at least in the sense of the statements and questions on this election page, and can continue through the election, as far as I'm concerned. --Michael Snow 22:56, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

message: So... It seems like we have two candidates (Alex756 and Ed Poor) and two election inspectors (myself and Jwrosenzweig). I'd like to see the AMA on its feet and operating as soon as possible, so I think we should get the election going. My proposal: AMA members have until Monday, April 5th to:
*Extend, withdraw, accept or decline nominations for the position
*Accept or dissent with the choices for election inspectors
*Discuss the details of the election and how it will be run
Starting Monday, the elections will begin. Each AMA member will be required to cast a ballot, even if that ballot is a null vote (just to verify accuracy). The elections will end when all AMA members have cast their vote. At this point the election inspectors will tally the votes indapendantly and announce the AMA coordinator. Sound good? --Alex S 17:21, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Both Jwrosenzweig and I have "E-mail this user" links on our user pages. Of course, voting hasn't started yet. --Alex S 17:49, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer not to "require" a ballot from every member, even allowing for null votes. A member who fails or refuses to vote could drag out the election indefinitely. May I suggest that instead, we notify all members, on their talk pages, when the election starts. The notice can provide instructions and inform everyone of when the election ends. Voting by email is fine - should we send a separate (and hopefully identical) ballot to each inspector? Then the inspectors can just make sure their tallies match. --Michael Snow 19:57, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt that anything like that will happen (on the subject of failing/refusing to vote), but in case it does maybe the deadline for voting should be Monday the 12th. That'll give plenty of time just in case. --Alex S 21:44, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Elections!

message: Secret balloting is considered a basic civil right. One of the founding principles of this association is a respect for in human rights. Hopefully we want Wikipedia to respect the human rights of its members. 
::Just to clarify, civil rights are not basic, they are specific as described by various political bodies. And civil rights are not human rights, which are also a subject of disagreement, such as between China and the United States, over whether housing is a basic human right. Uh, can I just offer to help and not be required to join anybody's subjective notion of a community? Mrs.HippieBurning 04:12, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: To cast a free ballot and minimize the opportunity for intimidation, voters in a democracy must be permitted to cast their ballots in secret.
The "Just because everyone else does it" argument does not deal with the real issue, if someone's vote is to be unbiased (i.e. they have to worry what the public perception of their vote will be) they should not have a record available so they can later be called to task for that vote.  Regaring sysops and bureaucrats I do not think that sysop nominations are really voting, it is more like a vetting process, if someone objects because of an individual's behavior then they bring forth those allegations, there is no canvassing of all the members of Wikipedia or Wikimedia to give out these responsibilities. Also there is no representation involved in being a sysop or bureaucrat, here the coordinator will play some rôle in representing the members to non-members. 
Regarding the idea that non-members should vote in our association, this is really a scary idea in my opinion. Are there are people on Wikipedia who are trying to control everything around here?  That, in my opinion is really not good; Wikipedia should function to allow people to have some independence. The AMA is not a prosecutorial office, it is here to help individuals.  In fact suggesting that all Wikipedians be given a vote in our association shows why it is a good idea to have independent advocates that want to stand up for individual rights, freedom of association and other such fundamental ideas. If someone wants to become part of this association all they have to do is join, participate and try and learn what it means to be an advocate; there are no ulterior motives here, we need a coordinator to make the association work better and deal with the arbitration committee with a group voice. If anyone is joining to get the opportunity to vote on a position that is really a responsibility towards other members they are really confused about what is going on here.  
A voluntary association is a private group that are allowed to do what they want (within the limits of the law). If we are not allowed to do that then Wikipedia is really promoting a digital form of tyranny, not "open content" but "closed minds". The AMA is not part of Wikipedia or Wikimedia. We are just using Wikipedia name space to develop tools to try to help Wikipedia members that are facing the new bureaucracy that has developed here. Our willingness to work together is beyond the scope of developing an encyclopedia; it is community oriented and we should have the right to develop as an independent association without interference from non-members. Certainly non-members are able to express their opinions here (and they should be encouraged to do so), but we should consider the question of deliberative assembly guidelines in which situations only members would be allowed to participate; in some situations those deliberations may be best done off of Wikipedia. — ©    Alex756   22:16, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons for secret balloting

message: We now have two independent and reliable individuals who can act as ballot counters,User:Jwrosenzweig and User:Zanimum. They are both sysops and not otherwise involved with the organization. I can state that I have no real relationship with either of these individuals. I do not know them personally and have not otherwise communicated with them outside Wikipedia. I think that Ed Poor should also disclose if he has any relationship or is in communication with these individuals in order to assure the members of AMA that the inspectors are, indeed, independent. This now means that Alex S can vote without being involved in the balloting process and a secret ballot can easily be done with votes being sent via email to each ballot counter/inspector. Any other suggestions?  — ©    Alex756   15:22, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know who Zanimum is. I have communicated ith Jwrosenzweig only on Wikipedia. --Uncle Ed 12:38, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Independent Inspectors/Ballot counters