Results 1 to 15 of 29

Thread: Voter fraud? or over the top accusations?

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    726

    Default

    Hi Dave, I'll take that bait!!

    Here are a few more examples:
    • It is 7:35pm, and although the Town Clerk indicated there was a quorum at 7:25pm, the meeting has not been called to order.
    • A person who is not registered to vote in the Town has not sought permission to speak, but someone has asked to hear from him. The moderator asks the assembly to vote whether he should speak.
    • A person, recognized by the moderator, begins their remarks with, "Can I ask you...?"
    • A motion that exceeds ten words in length is made, but not presented to the Moderator in writing. The moderator accepts it.
    I believe, though they vary greatly in importance, they all are violations of the Moderator's Rules. In order they violate: IV.A.1., IV.B.4, IV.C.1(c), IV.C.5(c)

    Other examples of violations:
    • A resident's child has vomited, and she has caught the vomit in her hands to prevent soiling the bleachers. (To those who are not parents, I will tell you from personal experience that this is not unrealistic.) She asks her husband to push the Yes button to vote for her before she heads off to the bathroom. (violates IV.D.1b.)
    • The resident who just caught her child's vomit heads off to the bathroom without retaining her handset. (violates IV.D.1b.)
    • A resident chooses not to touch his handset knowing that prior users might have taken it into the bathroom, or have handled it after sneezing or vomiting. He asks his spouse to do the button pushing on his behalf, even though they disagree on about half of the votes. (violates IV.D.1b. - and I do note that people do not have to use handsets if they do not want to; however they are then required to sit in a special section and vote on paper which is sent in to the Moderator via carrier pigeon. OK, that's not 100% true.)
    The point is that if we are reasonable, we try to accommodate each other and we recognize that the purpose of the meeting is to find out the will of the people. I would suggest that if we truly expect people not to vote in the examples above, then the Moderator must be clear that ANY use of anyone else's handset is strictly forbidden. Otherwise, this rule should be treated like all the examples I gave above, and we should expect people to treat them as "obey within reason".

    In the examples above of the vomiting child, I wonder what you would suggest that mother do. Should she call out, vomit in hand, and let the assembled meeting know that she cannot vote because her hands are unavailable to touch her handset? or should she be forced to abstain from the vote? And how should she go about retaining the handset while she cleans her hands?

    My main point in starting this thread was to negate the unreasonable articles and letters and public complaints that we all have read or heard or heard about. To use the word "fraud" or worse a phrase like "widespread fraud" when all that is known that a couple of people might have had their spouses' handset by their side, is irresponsible. To blame this "fraud" on an amorphous group of people who coincidentally all must have voted the same way and disagreed with the viewpoint of an individual writing or talking about it - without knowing who they are, or whether they even did what they are blamed for seems preposterous. I hope we can agree on that.
    Last edited by Kim Reichelt; 04-25-2015 at 06:09 AM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •