[Ndca-l] Results of the Ethics Statement voting

Michael Antonucci antonucci23
Wed Nov 4 16:42:18 EST 2009


To be clear - my point is not that 60% - or even 75% - is too high a
threshold.  It is perfectly reasonable.

My point is that non-voting should not count as "no."

Imagine an election in which non-participation counted as a vote for the
incumbent.  Elections wouldn't be worth having.

On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Stefan Bauschard <stefan.bauschard at gmail.com
> wrote:

> It's hard to figure out what the process should be...
>
> -By design, the organization solicits the memberships form individuals who
> are not in any way impacted by its voting decisions....
>
> -60%, 51% -- depends on what it's for, I guess.  51% may be sufficient for
> most things, but for an ethics statement? I don't know. If only 51% vote for
> it, it just risks creating a schism in the organization. "Major" changes--
> not just those involving ethics -- should perhaps require more than 50.01%
> to pass...2/3 is not uncommon in other organizations for major changes..
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Michael Antonucci <antonucci23 at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> I agree.  We just don't know.
>>
>> I think that proves that the current voting procedure is extremely
>> problematic.  The NDCA shouldn't have to have a Rock the Vote campaign every
>> time it wants a barometer of community opinion.
>>
>> While I suspect it would have passed, we can't say for sure.  My problems
>> with the voting are genuinely procedural, although I wouldn't have thought
>> much about the procedure absent the frustrating substantive outcome.
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Stefan Bauschard <
>> stefan.bauschard at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The problem is that in this instance it was explicitly explained that not
>>> voting is voting no...so many people who did not vote could potentially
>>> expressing a no vote.
>>>
>>> 28 yes people supported it
>>> 4 no people (probablystrongly) oppsed it
>>> (xy) people did not vote
>>> (x) opposed
>>> (y) didn't care
>>>
>>> Since we have no idea how many peopel are in each category of xy, it's
>>> impossible to speculate whether or not it would have passed if the voting
>>> procedures would have been different.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Speer, Mike <SpeerMik at berkeleyprep.org>wrote:
>>>
>>>> While reasonable people can certainly disagree, the Ethics Statement
>>>> seemed like a pretty gentle nudge in the direction of some community
>>>> norms on these important matters.
>>>>
>>>> If the NDCA members are concerned about the potential chaos of
>>>> unfettered democracy, maybe a rule requiring 60 percent approval of
>>>> respondents would an appropriate compromise.
>>>>
>>>> I am not completely convinced that the majority of the 90 members who
>>>> did not vote intended their "non-vote" to be counted as a "no."
>>>>
>>>> Mike Speer
>>>> Debate Coach
>>>> Director of Technology
>>>> Berkeley Preparatory School
>>>> Tampa, FL 33634
>>>> (813) 777-4298
>>>>
>>>> Berkeley puts people in the world who make a positive difference.
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: ndca-l-bounces at lists.debatecoaches.org
>>>> [mailto:ndca-l-bounces at lists.debatecoaches.org] On Behalf Of Michael
>>>> Antonucci
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 2:53 PM
>>>> To: Tara Tate
>>>> Cc: <ndca-l at lists.debatecoaches.org>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Ndca-l] Results of the Ethics Statement voting
>>>>
>>>> I feel the 60% threshold should be directly repealed.
>>>>
>>>> If America maintained this voting threshold, we would have lapsed into
>>>> anarchy long ago.
>>>>
>>>> many members of the Ndca are not very participatory.  this is fine.
>>>> It just shouldn't be a block on ever doing anything.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, I am not sure how you can repeal the rule absent 60%
>>>> approval?
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 3, 2009, at 2:32 PM, "Tara  Tate" <ttate at glenbrook.k12.il.us>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > The NDCA Ethics Statement failed to receive 60% approval of the
>>>> > membership body.  At the time elections were closed, the NDCA had
>>>> > 122 members.  74 "yes" votes were needed to pass.
>>>> >
>>>> > 32 members did vote in the process.  Of those that did choose to
>>>> > vote, 28 voted yes and 4 voted no.
>>>> >
>>>> > We will be starting a discussion the NDCA listserv about possible
>>>> > amendments to the document (if the body feels like a statement is
>>>> > necessary) and a discussion about the 60% threshold.  The discussion
>>>> > will just be some informal dialogue about how the membership wishes
>>>> > to proceed on this issue (or to proceed at all).
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Best,
>>>> > Tara L. Tate
>>>> > Director of Debate, Glenbrook South (IL)
>>>> > Executive Board Member, National Debate Coaches Association
>>>> > Co-director, The 2009 Glenbrooks
>>>> > 4000 West Lake Avenue
>>>> > Glenview, IL 60026
>>>> > (847) 486-4746
>>>> >
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Ndca-l mailing list
>>>> Ndca-l at lists.debatecoaches.org
>>>> http://lists.debatecoaches.org/listinfo.cgi/ndca-l-debatecoaches.org
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Ndca-l mailing list
>>>> Ndca-l at lists.debatecoaches.org
>>>> http://lists.debatecoaches.org/listinfo.cgi/ndca-l-debatecoaches.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Stefan Bauschard
>>>
>>> President & Co-Founder, PlanetDebate.com
>>> Debate Coach, Harvard Debate
>>> Director of Debate, Lakeland Schools
>>> Director of Development & Operations, NFL National Tournament 2011
>>>
>>>
>>> (c) 781-775-0433
>>> (fx) 617-588-0283
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Michael Antonucci
>> Debate Coach
>> Georgetown University
>> Mobile: 617-838-3345
>> Office: 202-687-4079
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Stefan Bauschard
>
> President & Co-Founder, PlanetDebate.com
> Debate Coach, Harvard Debate
> Director of Debate, Lakeland Schools
> Director of Development & Operations, NFL National Tournament 2011
>
>
> (c) 781-775-0433
> (fx) 617-588-0283
>
>
>
>


-- 
Michael Antonucci
Debate Coach
Georgetown University
Mobile: 617-838-3345
Office: 202-687-4079
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.debatecoaches.org/pipermail/ndca-l-debatecoaches.org/attachments/20091104/a3d47f61/attachment.htm>



More information about the Ndca-l mailing list