07-08-2013, 11:34 PM
Hmm …
‘Fanning the flames …’ If that’s the impression I created, then I did not express myself well.
That electoral fraud is a crime is a fact, not an opinion. That is why in our electoral system, the postal vote is so tightly monitored. The system to which David Congalton alludes also recognises the danger by restricting the number of proxies that any individual can represent. Robin Moore quotes from Chess Scotland’s constitution, which is fine so far as it goes. But, if Andy Muir can cite an instance wherein that same constitution permits a certain Mr X to wield disproportionate influence by commanding Y number of proxy votes, then he may bear the stamp of authority. But, without broadly based consent, however efficient his administration may be, it is likely to arouse growing division. Really, all that Andy’s example suggests is that the CS constitution could do with a bit of redrafting to prevent the emergence of such a Mr Big.
Ultimately, all politics is subjective and based on opinion - some would say values. But, I hope too that a society such as ours can be consensual. Certainly, this requires transparency of information and the free expression of views whereby issues can be examined and modified. It also requires mutual respect.
I believe David Congalton is right and that the issue of the proxy vote does pop up from time to time. But, it’s an elusive concept. Whether technology would overcome this difficulty by allowing CS members to follow and even contribute to discussion at an AGM, I am not qualified to say. It’s an interesting idea.
I am a great believer in freedom of speech. But, it comes with responsibility. A good speaker is first a good listener.
‘Fanning the flames …’ Dear me, I gave up smoking more years ago than I care to remember.
‘Fanning the flames …’ If that’s the impression I created, then I did not express myself well.
That electoral fraud is a crime is a fact, not an opinion. That is why in our electoral system, the postal vote is so tightly monitored. The system to which David Congalton alludes also recognises the danger by restricting the number of proxies that any individual can represent. Robin Moore quotes from Chess Scotland’s constitution, which is fine so far as it goes. But, if Andy Muir can cite an instance wherein that same constitution permits a certain Mr X to wield disproportionate influence by commanding Y number of proxy votes, then he may bear the stamp of authority. But, without broadly based consent, however efficient his administration may be, it is likely to arouse growing division. Really, all that Andy’s example suggests is that the CS constitution could do with a bit of redrafting to prevent the emergence of such a Mr Big.
Ultimately, all politics is subjective and based on opinion - some would say values. But, I hope too that a society such as ours can be consensual. Certainly, this requires transparency of information and the free expression of views whereby issues can be examined and modified. It also requires mutual respect.
I believe David Congalton is right and that the issue of the proxy vote does pop up from time to time. But, it’s an elusive concept. Whether technology would overcome this difficulty by allowing CS members to follow and even contribute to discussion at an AGM, I am not qualified to say. It’s an interesting idea.
I am a great believer in freedom of speech. But, it comes with responsibility. A good speaker is first a good listener.
‘Fanning the flames …’ Dear me, I gave up smoking more years ago than I care to remember.