I have been told that there will be a run-off, but I cannot find where to vote. There is no new ballor, and the ballot I used to vote in round one can no longer be accessed.
There will be a new ballot after this session, which will use ranked-choice voting. There will presumably be more discussion today, otherwise I donât really understand why it is being redone.
Sally, I think there will be a vote to determine if there needs to be a new vote, correct?
2 Likes
From the Zoom chat that I found helpful:
The three CSAI proposals were not given the same number of speakers pro/con. the time was messed up so many people were not in the hall. And the presenters had been told they had three minutes to present and were only given 2 minutes.
AND
The discussion started almost an hour earlier than scheduled.
4 Likes
Why is there ranked choice now, but not earlier? Offering to have a to re-vote AND change the voting format AND revealing how much of a âgapâ is needed to change the outcome is⌠a lot.
I do think everyone is working in good faith. But this does seem like a lot of pivots, especially for a vote that was not statistically close.
3 Likes
I know that when voting, I was conflicted about which CSAI to choose as my first choice. As a result, I could definitely be persuaded by what others have to say who have spent more time working on and thinking about these proposals. I did read the proposals and the comments that people put online, but I know that not all delegates are engaging in the discussion forums, and Iâd really like to hear more of what people have to say on these topics.
And Emily, I hear your point that the proposed remedy makes several procedural changes at once, which is not ideal, but I donât see any other remedy they could have proposed given the current format and related time constraints. Now we get to choose whether we want to accept the proposed remedy or accept the flawed process that led up to the initial vote. To me, it feels more democratic to ensure that debate is as robust as possible.
4 Likes
I understand from watching video that there were missteps that affected the presentation of the CSAIs and therefore people are calling for another vote. I too presume people are acting in good faith. However, Iâm concerned about the simultaneous change in voting system and potential unintended messages if this changes the results.
2 Likes
I decided to vote against bringing the CSAIâs to a second vote. I agree there were irregularities in the discussion process, but given the discussion that did occur, and the results of the previous ballot, I donât think that the outcome will change. I appreciate the moderators offering this remedy for the problems that occurred, but I would rather devote the time to a different need.
2 Likes
Agreed.
Denise Moorehead
Please excuse brevity and informality in email communications.
I will just offer this: sometimes the procedure itself is important regardless of what the outcome may or may not be.
The mistakes made yesterday caused an inequality in the presentation of the information we were basing our votes on. To me, it seems fair to rectify that. Even if the variance in votes was 100 vs 1, it would matter to do things correctly and according to proper procedure. This is part of being a democratic organization.
7 Likes
We have no way of knowing how many delegates missed the initial conversation because the discussion started almost an hour earlier than scheduled. That alone is justification for a revote.
6 Likes
Sorry for the delayed reply; yes, we vote tonight on whether to rehear the CS/AI discussion and revote. If we do revote, it will be by ranked-choice voting (you need not rank all 3 if you donât want to; you can rank only 1 or 2 choices if you prefer).
It may not be easy for all presenters to line up their speakers again; I personally donât think that the errors were serious enough for a redo, which has often been denied in the past.
I understand, but it takes 40 minutes out of tomorrowâs session, taking time away from another group of speakersâso fixing procedure for one group and breaking it for another. To me, it was a learning experience, a reminder of why not to schedule programming opposite business sessions (or why, if one takes on the responsibility of being a delegate, one must then maturely accept the responsibility to attend the general session instead of alternative programming).
2 Likes
The shift to ranked choice is needed because there wouldnât be time for a second vote if none of the proposals received a majority vote. Additionally the existing process in the bylaws is basically ranked choice voting, just done with two separate votes.
383 Each of the Proposed Congregational Study/Action Issues
384 shall be presented to the General Assembly by a delegate,
385 and one such proposed Congregational Study/Action Issue
386 shall be referred for study by virtue of having received the
387 highest number of votes among all proposed
388 Congregational Study/Action votes cast by the General
389 Assembly; provided, however, that if no proposed
390 Congregational Study/Action Issue receives a majority of
391 the votes cast, then a second vote shall be taken between
392 the two issues receiving the highest number of votes cast
393 in the initial election.
1 Like
As far as I am concerned, it should have been ranked-choice voting (RCV) from the beginning. We have used ranked-choice voting in a presidential election (Susan Frederick-Gray; not sure of year; 2017? yes, New Orleans). I see the by-law section that Larry posted, and that is one of the sections that I think could be easily updated to make it a ranked-choice vote. (There has not been a CS/AI process since at least 2017, so the situation has not come up since our first use of RCV.)
1 Like
For starters, there were more errors than just the alternate programming on the schedule at the same time. The different CSAIâs were also given uneven amount of speakers and time to speak.
As far as âmaturely accepting the responsibilityâ - that alternate programming was specifically listed as being a good idea for delegates because: "New this year, weâre offering alternative programming during the first 90 minutes of the Thursday, Friday, and Saturday General Sessions. The final 90 minutes, focused on essential delegate work, will not have alternative programming. "
Many delegates read that statement and believed that all of the essential work, talking about the issues we were voting on, for example, would only be happening in the later half of the session, a reasonable assumption given that description.
Again, there were multiple different issues that happened yesterday that could have impacted the way people voted. To me, it seems to be the most reasonable and fair thing to re-vote. But of course, vote your own conscience!
1 Like
Several mistakes were made regarding the discussion of the CSAIs. But no one missed the opportunity to vote because the ballot is open until the following morning.
3 Likes
I guess I tend toward the cynical/skeptical; I saw that message and thought, No, I would be afraid to miss something importantâespecially knowing that this was the first time it was tried. I consider ALL of General Session âessential delegate workâ, despite statements indicating otherwise. Reading that statement, it seems to minimize the importance of delegate work and knowledgeâas did the unfortunate comment from the podium that one need not attend a session to voteâbasically asking delegates to vote without full information. There is a global trend toward centralized, authoritarian governmentâI donât see authoritarianism here, but I do see more centralization, less democracy than in the past; not a good trend IMHO.
3 Likes
Iâm an anxious person by nature so wasnât going to take the chance myself, either. But I can understand why other people might.
Some people might have trouble focusing on primarily auditory information like in a general session and especially the more dry aspects of the recounting of association business. So some delegates might have relished the seeming opportunity to spend the first half of the session (presumably some of the non-voting-issue business) at other learning/community building sessions while tuning in to the second half of the session for the speeches primarily about the topics weâd be voting on. Since it was framed that way, it was reasonable to assume thatâs how the schedule would play out.
Again, as for myself? I assume anything can and likely will happen and made sure to be there for the full session. But people shouldnât have had to assume that the program descriptions might be wrong.
3 Likes
very reasonable; good pointsâbut given the availability of the recording, I donât think the problems rise to a level that required a do-over, but more folks want it than donât, it seems