Wikipedia talk:Association of Members' Advocates/2004 Election

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)

It seems now that the nomination period has closed we need some kind of consensus about the voting procedure. Should there be a poll to determine if Woodrow's proposal (or some modification of it) be accepted? I think it is better to have two inspectors of the election (and we already have to nominees who we can reasonable conclude are both verifiably reliable individuals. Should there be a period of campaigning before the election occurs or should elections commence once the procedure is finalized? &#8212; &copy;   Alex756   17:13, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * 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)

Elections!
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)

We, of course, need an e-mail address in order to be able to cast the vote. -- Emsworth 17:35, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Proposal
Here are the proposed guidelines of AMA Member Woodrow:

Last amended April 4, 2004.
 * All dates in these guidelines are by UTC.
 * The electorate shall consist of all members of the Association of Members' Advocates, except the ballot counter and anyone banned from participation in the election.
 * Nominations may be made at any time prior to the election, even immediately after an election
 * A nomination must be accepted by the nominee so as to prevent someone from nominating everyone else for the purpose of becoming ballot counter by default
 * Elections by open ballot ending on March 31 and November 30 to select impartial ballot counter
 * Nominees may not be elected ballot counters
 * If every member is nominated except one, that person may not be nominated and becomes ballot counter by default.
 * Whoever is elected ballot counter may refuse the position if they will be unable to fulfill their duties.
 * From April 1 to April 7 and from December 1 to December 7, electors shall e-mail their votes to the ballot counter. The ballot counter shall post the results as soon after the election as possible.
 * Only nominees may be voted for.
 * An elector may change their vote if they contact the ballot counter before the end of the election and make it clear who they are voting for instead.
 * If there is any evidence that the ballot counter has lied about the votes, anyone has voted for more than one nominee, anyone has voted for the same nominee more than once, anyone has voted for someone else, or the ballot counter does not reveal the results, the AMA shall discuss whether to have another election in a manner to be proscribed when the time comes. If the consensus is to do so, the election shall be held again after one week and all those who have committed fraud banned from participation in AMA elections for 1 year.
 * If, for any reason, the election does not take place, another election shall be held after 1 week.
 * A Coordinator's term begins immediately after they are pronounced winner of the election.
 * A Coordinator may be removed from office by the consensus of the AMA's member or by resignation.
 * After the Coordinator announces their resignation, 48 hours must pass. After that period, the Coordinator will have 48 hours to confirm their resignation.
 * In the event of a vacancy of the office of Coordinator, an election shall be held 3 days after the office is vacated.

A bit overly complex, but you never know what kind of people you'll get on Wikipedia. Comments? - Woodrow 17:42, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I want an open ballot, and for Alex S to vote, assuming he is willing. I also would like to hurry things along, assuming nobody else wants to nominate or self nominate. Sam Spade 03:04, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Any reason you feel that the election has to be open Sam? A closed election would be better as it is really no one's business who anyone votes for. Can we have a vote about the type of election? I thought that someone suggested April 12 as the deadline for voting? There hasn't been much of a campaign by either of us candidates yet. Is soft money allowed? I am thinking of starting my own "political action committee" of course donations will not be tax deductible (just joking). &#8212; &copy;    Alex756   04:21, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

just to make it simpler, and so as not to require ballot counters. why would we need or want a secret ballot? Sam Spade 04:23, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nothing else on Wikipedia is done by secret ballot. I'd like to know the reasons you are intending to have one in this case. Angela, ex AMA member.


 * This would elevate someone to a unique position. Not exactly a position of power, but an important position. - Woodrow 04:34, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * In which case, should it not be voted on by everyone, not just those on the AMA? Anyway, all other positions are voted on openly, such as sysop and bureaucrat nominations, and I expect the Wikimedia Board elections will be open as well. Angela. 04:43, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * In those cases, we are electing someone to power over Wikipedia or Wikimedia. In this case, it's power over the AMA. - Woodrow 04:48, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Is it really a power or is it a responsibility that the AMA coordinator will have? &#8212; &copy;   Alex756   22:16, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * There's the word I'm looking for! - Woodrow 00:29, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My input on the open vs. secret ballot question. This is an election, and democratic tradition has evolved in favor of secret ballots, to preserve voters from undue pressure or inappropriate consequences for their votes. An election is not a consensus-based process, like sysop/bureaucrat nominations. We're not voting yes-or-no on either Ed or Alex; we're choosing between Alex and Ed. By its nature, that has to be majority-oriented, whatever the actual voting formula. So unless our consensus is to reject an election process altogether, I think a secret ballot would be better. Of course, anybody can still openly declare how they're voting if they wish. But I do want to know, does anybody actually object to using an election process? That's a serious question, and we can't merely dismiss objections if there are any. --Michael Snow 04:32, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Reasons for secret balloting
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)

To quote a famous online open content encyclopedia:


 * 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. &#8212; &copy;   Alex756   22:16, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Independent Inspectors/Ballot counters
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? &#8212; &copy;   Alex756   15:22, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't know who Zanimum is. I have communicated ith Jwrosenzweig only on Wikipedia. --Uncle Ed 12:38, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Coordinator job description

 * I think that we should define exactly what the Coordinator will do a little more. Other than that, I saw we get the elections moving as soon as we can. Let's not lose momentum. --&#913;&#955;&#949;&#958; &#931; 14:35, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Also, let's state what the coordinator is not. This is what it currently states on the election page:


 * Job description: Connect users who request general advocate assistance with individual advocates who can represent them, co-ordinates policy discussion and maintains meta page


 * To get the discussion going, I am suggesting that the coordinator is not a publicist or official representative of the association in the sense of having any power of representation. If the members want the coordinator to promote a position on behalf of the association, the coordinator would have to be willing to follow the will of the membership, however we could also elect someone else to be the official spokesperson of the AMA if the AMA wanted to take an official position on a certain topic or participate in policy discussions outside of the AMA. I see the coordinator's role as that of (1) faciliator, (2) a communication channel between AMA members, (3) someone who can help Wikipedians find an advocate, (4) someone who can discuss issues amongst advocates in an informal, collegial manner and (5) do some maintenance and contact tasks (like getting members to vote in internal straw polls). &#8212; &copy;   Alex756   02:38, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with Alex756, and should he be elected I will be happy to help in any way he asks. --Uncle Ed 13:01, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I see it as important that that they also make minor, or on the spot decisions, and be responsible for maintaining the meta page/sub pages. Sam Spade 04:32, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)~


 * That is sort of what I had in mind regarding maintenance and contact tasks. Do we want to define minor any more specifically? &#8212; &copy;   Alex756   05:47, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * No, I prefer it to be impossibly vague ;). If the coordinator oversteps, we can call him on it, and have a vote if necessary. Otherwise I want him having pretty free range, w only symbolic barriors for the most part. Thats my view, anyhow. Sam Spade 05:51, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think that the coordinator should be available to advise members who have questions relating to ethical issues. The advice of the coordinators should not carry more weight than any other member's, but the coordinator should be a reliable source for such advice. -- Emsworth 13:20, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * First of all, I'm glad that the election's being held. I think that as soon as its over the coordinator should be responsible for archiving all of this old election material as his first duty :-). Also, I think we should define a little more closely the requirements for being in the AMA. Just curious, how many members are sysops? Are there any who aren't sysops? Maybe that would be a good requirement. --&#913;&#955;&#949;&#958; &#931; 23:45, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ten vote
Ten members have voted so far, one of which was an abstinence. -- user:zanimum
 * Out of 21 eligible voters, 15 have submitted their ballots. -- user:zanimum
 * Four more, so 19 I believe have voted. -- user:zanimum