- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Hm. $19 per election for up to 200 people. For several offices we would be incurring the $19 charge several times, but that's still really inexpensive. Should we expect more participants if the meeting is streamed and electronic voting is used? If we have more than 200 people trying to vote, the price goes up to $49, which is still pretty cheap and would give us hugely more participation than any past election for which I can find records. This could be an experiment in true democracy.
Nice find Damian! I did some research to see if there are others with different options and functionality.Election Runner has a mobile phone function but are a little more expensive ($15 up to 100, $29 up to 300) - https://electionrunner.com/ BallotBin is free with unlimited users and ranked choice voting but is really bare bones, computer only via emailing registration codes - https://www.ballotbin.com/index.php I think any one of these would be interesting to try. The two that cost money are actually free for up to 20 voters. We could test them out at some point.
I used the Election Runner calculator to see how much it would cost for 500 people. $45 per election. If 1,000 people participate, $90. Not bad. If all 14,000 Green Party members participate, it would cost $1,120. The ability to use computer, tablet, or phone is an advantage, since some members may be unable to attend in person due to work schedules. Presumably those members would be able to arrange a break from work to vote, if we could send text messages announcing when the voting would occur. I'd really rather have everybody watching throughout the meeting, but maybe people who are unable to get away from work could just listen to the feed while performing their duties.Now, will we be able to do some of the confirmation of membership that is done at in-person meetings? And how about confirmation of identity?
Another electronic voting system to consider is this Forum – GPCO ForumThe forum supports polls. Poll questions can have simple yes/no answers or can be used for elections, using vote-for-one, ranked voting, or approval voting. A person who has experience with polls on the GPCO Forum can create a poll question in few seconds. Green Party members logged onto the forum will see the poll and can vote instantly. I'm suggesting the meeting be live-streamed publicly and all voting be done on the GPCO Forum.Considerations:Colorado Greens wishing to vote would register on the GPCO Forum. [Party affiliation is verified as part of the forum registration process.] We would want to pre-register as many people as possible to avoid registration delays the day of the annual meeting.Authentication of a person's credentials to vote is provided by the fact of being logged on and registered in the GPCO Forum. If there is concern about fraudulent voters, the party could re-verify the party affiliation of all GPCO Forum members shortly before a voting meeting is to be held.
Aha! Voting on this forum would take care of verification. Good idea! And free.Is this forum accessible via tablet and phone, as well as via computer?I think you are adding a factor to your original proposal -- in-person-only meeting versus option to participate electronically -- and I will add that to the set of options that our chapter is discussing. I know for me it will make a difference in what I decide about the other factors. We will make some sort of decision (perhaps a consensus up or down, or at least the majority leaning toward) after tonight's meeting, which will be the third meeting at which we have batted around the proposal. Thank you for extending the discussion period.
Works by phone, too? Or is phone the same as tablet in the eyes of the internet? I recall lots of advertisements for “all devices” and talk of designing for “all devices” as if maybe phones and tablets need different interfaces.
Harry, I can see the posts from my phone using Safari. But I can't see the poll. And I can't see the poll on my computer, either, although I did find it back when you sent the message about it. What do I need to push to see the poll? I'll need that after tonight's meeting.
The poll is here: http://gpco.fullydefiant.com/forum/index.php?topic=309.0It can be seen only by Council members.
Our majority vote was negative on all factors of the proposal as presented. We had a constantly shifting vote split (4-1, 3-2) and a constantly shifting composition of people making up the majority on the various factors, but the outcome was always against the proposal as presented. Several members were strongly in favor of modified versions of certain factors in the proposal. I will give a better breakdown and detail the suggested modifications tomorrow, probably around noon, after I get through my morning meetings.
The system just ate a comment that I spent two hours composing. After I stop being angry, I'll re-type it. Note to self: copy and paste every comment into a temporary Word document so it is not lost if the system eats it.
Poudre Valley chapter results of discussion of Harry’s proposalLocation: three people against both the Carbondale and Frisco locations, two people neutral. I oppose these locations because they are likely to be snowy in the spring. I favor a May meeting, and even in May these locations can still have lots of snow. The other people who opposed these locations were concerned about the lack of a chapter there. They felt it would make organizing the meeting more difficult. The two people who were neutral said the lack of a chapter was not a serious problem, but they would prefer a town with an active chapter. We all like Grand Junction as a location. It is in the western part of the state and it has a new chapter.Co-hosting by chapters not based in the chosen city: none of us like this. People like to welcome others to their own city. It’s a boost for the chapter’s city. No enthusiasm for hosting out of town. Live-streaming/electronic voting: three people like live-streaming but not electronic voting, one person prefers to have people attend the meeting in person, one person likes both live-streaming and electronic voting. There was concern about verifying identity and about configuring the council forum to allow voting by regular party members who are not council members. There was some joking about how someone could select names of multiple party members who are not very active and are therefore unlikely to notice that their name is being used in the forum, could register as all of those selected names, and could cast multiple votes in elections of interest. I doubt that anyone would go to the trouble of writing programs to make multiple votes appear to be coming from various locations instead of coming all from the same machine. But I suppose someone might do it just to prove that the system is vulnerable.Date: one person prefers late August/early September so Andrea can finish her term, one person prefers May, one person likes a May meeting with a summer-long transition of elected officials so Andrea can finish her term, one person likes the late August/early September date this year so Andrea can finish her term but prefers switching to May in future years with a one-month transition period, one person likes both of the previous two suggestions.The two “transition” options are based on the belief that May is a better month for the meeting but it is unfair to cut short Andrea’s term and there is a way to satisfy both goals at the same time. The transition option that switches to the May date for future meetings envisions that whoever is elected this year will understand that the term of office will likely be a bit shorter than two years. Subsequent terms can be two years if the party is consistently able to organize a meeting in May. I prefer a May meeting because I believe (from reading old posts/minutes) that the purpose of switching to two-year terms was to get the co-chair cycle in sync with the two-year election cycle. After the presidential election or the mid-term election, the party can elect leaders and plan a two-year strategy toward the next election. Holding the meeting in the early spring after an election allows maximum time for carrying out the strategy. Delaying the party meeting reduces the time for implementation of the strategy. If the two purposes of the meeting are decoupled and the co-chair election occurs six months after the strategy meeting, there is a chance that new co-chairs will be saddled with a strategy prepared by previous co-chairs, or that new co-chairs will develop their own strategy with only one year to implement it, which negates the purpose of the two-year term.An additional reason for preferring a spring-ish meeting is that a fall-ish meeting interferes with campaigning for issues that appear on county-wide ballots in November of the “off” years. August/September is a poor time to be thinking about state party leadership changes and/or strategies when there are local issues that Greens might be trying to influence.Given all of this, I should prefer a meeting in February or March. But I don’t, because of the snow. People who can’t or won’t brave a snowy journey, and people like one of our members who drives a snow plow when there are storms, shouldn’t have to worry that their ability to participate will depend on the weather. A factor that would persuade me to consider February/March as a reasonable time for a meeting is the possibility of electronic voting. If we could get a secure system set up, a sudden snowstorm would not hinder party members state-wide from participating.On a more local note, electronic voting could occasionally make participation easier for us in Fort Collins. We have city council elections in early April. The election is non-partisan, with no official political party label on any candidate, but still the early months of the year are an opportunity for us to work toward putting leftist, environmentalist people into council seats. In the years when we are so fortunate as to support hot candidates running in hot races, we could choose to participate in the Green Party meeting via live-stream and electronic voting instead of spending a whole weekend out of town. This is not a huge, overriding factor, but it is something to think about. Perhaps other chapters have local election seasons that bump up against state party events. While I agree that in-person participation is preferable, there are times when it is nice to have the option of remote participation.I hope this provides enough positions and suggestions to be helpful.
Judy, Scott, Damian, and Poudre Valley Greens,Thank you for participating in this discussion of the 2017 Annual Meeting. I posted the following summary of the discussion in 2017 Annual Meeting - Date and Location at http://gpco.fullydefiant.com/forum/index.php?topic=309.msg1603#msg1603
. . . . there has been significant discussion of the 2017 Annual Meeting date and location in the topic History of GPCO Annual Meeting Dates and Locations http://gpco.fullydefiant.com/forum/index.php?topic=308.0Feedback from that discussion is:Location: Preference is for a location with an active chapter. Grand Junction was suggested as a western slope location with a new chapter.Date: Strong preference is for May. Snow was a concern for March and April.Transition of Officers: Ideas for transitioning gradually from current party officers to 2017/2018 officers to satisfy Andrea Merida's claim to a 24-month term were discussed, without a conclusion.
Electronic voting and security of the GPCO Forum probably deserve more discussion, but not under this topic. I would like to end the discussion under this topic which, after all, has the subject History of GPCO Annual Meeting Dates and Locations.Please go to the topic 2017 Annual Meeting - Date and Location at http://gpco.fullydefiant.com/forum/index.php?topic=309.msg1603#msg1603 for further work on setting the meeting date and location.Harry
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.