Tim wrote: > > However, since I know of no such case, ever happening - if it takes > 10 to do a county - say perhaps Cook County, IL (Chicago) or the > various boroughs around New York City, the areas for Los Angeles, or > even counties that have 250 to 350 years of history - who > is the BRC/AB/EC to say it doesn't take this many folks to adequately > cover these areas? If the state project can live with those numbers > it is not the business of the National folks to question it and they > should have the right to vote on national ballots. It has happened in the past. That's why we limited the number of votes for each county. Our founding fathers saw this problem, too - TX vs RI. I'm still in favor of one voter per county, and in the Archives, one voter per state. Linda

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003, Linda Lewis wrote: > Tim wrote: > > > > > However, since I know of no such case, ever happening - if it takes > > 10 to do a county - say perhaps Cook County, IL (Chicago) or the > > various boroughs around New York City, the areas for Los Angeles, or > > even counties that have 250 to 350 years of history - who > > is the BRC/AB/EC to say it doesn't take this many folks to adequately > > cover these areas? If the state project can live with those numbers > > it is not the business of the National folks to question it and they > > should have the right to vote on national ballots. > > It has happened in the past. That's why we limited the number of votes > for each county. Our founding fathers saw this problem, too - TX vs RI. > > I'm still in favor of one voter per county, and in the Archives, one > voter per state. > > Linda > When did it happen in the past, and where? If you are talking about vote stacking in North Carolina, I believe the SC of that state at the time denied that it had happened. When did we limit the number of votes for each county? According to what I read from the Election Study Committee that Teresa so kindly posted to a web page somewhere (smirk), it was the goal of the ESC that ALL volunteers of this project be able to vote, <except transcribers & lookup volunteers) including all the county archivists, most of whom had no vote at all, and no limit on the number of CCs for a county. All could vote. Texas has 254 counties and 200 volunteers, and they are all eligible to vote. There are 4 counties that have 3 CCs. Things are a lot more democratic now, thanks to the ESC and the EC. The founding fathers were all dead before Texas became a state. When the constitution was passed, the largest state in population was Virginia. The Senate is made up of 2 senators per state, the House is based on population. Even the smallest state will have at least one representative, though. The smaillest state in land (I think), Hawaii, has 2 reps, while Wyoming, a much larger state in area, has only 1. Not sure what that has to do with the USGenWeb Project. Tim, thank you for responding. And I am glad that you have changed your mind about the numbers of voters per county. Roger apparently has a gag order on the committee. Candidates should be able to speak out on voters rights without violating the confidentiality of the committee. They don't have to say how they voted on the issue, but they should certainly have an opinion on a rule that will take away the right to vote for some of our volunteers. David David W. Morgan damorgan@nyx.net Honolulu Hawaii SC - TXGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~txgenweb/ FM - http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/tx/txfiles.htm ** http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~dmorgan/