At 6:58 PM -0700 6/28/00, Kelly <Kellygirl3398@mpinet.net> wrote: >Debbie, I don't understand the fuss about wording because you say below that >this is an informal poll. If it is indeed an informal poll then there's no >reason to perfect the wording, unless your intentions are to take the results >of this poll and use them for whatever purposes. Kelly, There isn't any fuss about the "wording", there is a point being made about the basic thrust of the question being asked. >> >Should Roger Swafford be disqualified as Elections Chairperson due to >> >malfeasance? This poll closes 7:00 P. M. Eastern time on 6/29/00. Suppose for the sake of argument: 10% of the project members believe that the decisions of the Election Committee are discriminatory and should be overturned, and that removing Roger Swafford as chairman will accomplish that goal. 65% of the project members believe that the decisions of the Election Committee are discriminatory and should be overturned, but that removing Roger Swafford as chairman won't do diddly-squat to accomplish that goal, because the decisions were almost certainly made by a majority vote of the whole 8 member committee, and Roger just serves as the mouthpiece. 25% of the project members agree with the decisions of the Election Committee to disenfranchise multiple co-CC's, local special project coordinators, and new project members. Then the current poll question would get only 10% "yes", and 90% "no". When people vote "no" to the original question, there is no way to tell whether they are voting no because they agree with the decisions of the Election Committee, or they are voting no because they expect that no matter who the chair is, the Election Committee is going to be voting the same way, so it's pointless to replace the chair. But if a poll asked outright whether the decisions of the Election Committee should be overturned, it would get the much different results of 75% "yes" and 25% "no", sending a clear message to the Election Committee and the Advisory Board that the members at large disagree with recent voter-reduction acts. So this isn't pickiness about exact wording, it is that the question being asked isn't the one that it is most important to get an answer to. -- Teri (I am trying to reduce traffic on the discussion lists, and so am not CC'ing any lists except BOARD-L. Permission is granted to forward this to any individuals that you have reason to believe are interested, but please refrain from forwarding it to USGW-CC-L, USGENWEB-ALL-L, or USGENWEB-DISCUSS. The subscribers to those lists are getting fed up with the message volume.)