You point about mass transit is a good one, and indicates that there might be a need for regional variations when determining the criteria for someone being disadvantaged. In L.A., having a bus pass is a strong indication of poverty. In New York, it isn't. So, perhaps we should use that measure in L.A. but not in New York. We could finesse the need for a LAB-specific election rule by stating that a transit pass would be acceptable in areas where the average household income of those using public transit is below a certain level. Your statements in favor of using donations exclusively to validate voters are not supported by any arguments, so there is not much to which I can respond. OK, you say that donations are simpler. Well, so is flipping a coin. You'll have to make a more thoughtful argument than that. Your point about these categories of enfranchisement (e.g., the unemployed) being much larger than the class of listeners can be answered. We need to ensure that the people who are doing the voting from these categories are also *part* of the class of listeners, and are aware of the issues behind the campaign. The way in which we can do this is to make these "registration pending" ballots available only through: 1. Direct request to the station by phone or mail for a ballot (including validation criteria). These ballots would be mailed directly to the person's unique address, one ballot per address, and the main way in which they would hear about their availability would be by listening to an announcementon the air, or 2. At official campaign events to which all candidates have been invited, after the event, to people with positive ID who request them. They would be delivered along with statements from all candidates. Then we can be assured that people are receiving these ballots in their own homes or directly from a rep of the Election Coordinator in person, along with all relevant materials. It would be pretty difficult and expensive to get people to bring those ballots in to a central location, fill them out for certain candidates, and pay off the voters who did so. It would also be easy to detect and would cost a lot more than $25 per vote. Volunteers are already included in the KPFA criteria. I believe that opportunities for volunteers should be vastly expanded through the participation of community organizations in doing the work of the stations, and that such volunteerism should qualify. Documentation of volunteer activity is an issue that will have to be worked out. A secret ballot helps to ensure that management will not be able to coerce volunteers to vote in a particular manner. Volunteers actually care about what is happening at the station enough to do something about it, so their votes are very important and informed ones. Carl On 30 Jan 2002 at 14:47, R. Paul Martin wrote: > Carl Gunther wrote: > > > > So, the question is, how can we have democracy without becoming > > mainstream? > > > > The only answer that I have found is to carefully define those who > > are part of our organization, support its mission, and hence should > > be given the right to vote in its elections. > > > > In other words, you can not open up Pacifica's elections > > indiscriminately to everyone who wants to vote and expect Pacifica > > to survive as a distinct voice. > > If people send in donations they'll have to be allowed to vote. > Period. > > > As a part of doing this, we could lower the bar of entry as voters > > to people > in > > groups such as prisoners, the unemployed, welfare recipients and > > those tossed off welfare when their benefits have expired, the mass > > transit dependent, and those with disabilities. .... > > Most of New York city is dependent on mass transit. The unemployed > vastly outnumber the current listener base, etc. You're not going to > be able to find a PC class to allow to vote for free that won't be > used as leverage for a takeover of the network. > > I say, let's leave it simple: you pay $50 or $25 or more and you get > one vote. Having listeners come around to the station to "do work" > assumes that there's a ton of work that listeners can do there. This > isn't the case, but of course it could be used by Management to > enfranchise a bunch of people whom Management might have arranged to > vote for its candidate. > > Leaving enfranchisement for those who donate more than a set dollar > amount looks like the only viable method of establishing the > electorate to me. -- http://www.glib.com/ > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > > ADVERTISEMENT > Click Here! > > > > > > > New Pacifica Working Group > http://www.egroups.com/group/NewPacifica > 'Save Our Stations!' > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > NewPacifica-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Get your FREE credit report with a FREE CreditCheck Monitoring Service trial http://us.click.yahoo.com/ACHqaB/bQ8CAA/ySSFAA/xYTolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> New Pacifica Working Group http://www.egroups.com/group/NewPacifica 'Save Our Stations!' To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: NewPacifica-unsubscribe@egroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/