[HCoop-Discuss] Proportional Representation?

[Michael Potter]

On Wed, 1969-12-31 at 20:15 -0500, Nathan Kennedy wrote:
> Do you really feel that this is the case?  There has been a certain 
> amount of back-and-forth, but I don't see this groundswell of discontent 
> you seem to be describing.  There have been a handful of members with 
> major concerns, but they don't all line up in any cohesive fashion.  

The complaints aren't exactly a movement, more like foreshadowing.
People don't always speak up when they're unhappy. 

> In 
> my opinion our current structure adequately allows for everyone to have 
> input.  Anyone can participate in the process, which is as open as we 
> can make it, and anyone can call for votes and run candidates.

Anyone can post on the lists but there is no real power in that. On the
off chance that 20% of the members will vote, we can call a vote for a
board member removal or a bylaws change only. Not very granular, either
a pop-gun or a cannon. 

> It seems to me that if you are concerned about minority representation, 
> the lack of involvement by many HCoop members that you mention actually 
> allows for _disproportionately_ greater influence by any person with a 
> minority position that they want to advance.

This has not been my experience. 

> I object to your pessimistic assessment of HCoop's membership, and 
> contend that not only is the average HCoop member wiser than the average 
> American, but most members are not Americans.

I am pessimistic about majority rule. 
    
> So how do you want to apportion members for your "proportionate 
> representation"?  You want to have factions and have members affiliate 
> themselves with "parties"?  I don't think I like that idea.  If we had 
> natural divisions, say geographic, or by different services that members 
> use, then it might at some point make sense to have representative and 
> at large seats, but I see no reason to divvy up the membership like this 
> now, that seems needlessly divisive.  Can't we all get along?

I believe divisions are inevitable. The question is, will we plan for it
ahead of time, thus controlling the fault lines, or allow the chips to
fall where they may? 

> Also don't forget that there will be two more board seats in the next 
> election.  I was just about to send a reminder email out urging people 
> to get moving with nominations and pre-election platforms etc.  More 
> seats on the board means more opportunity for direct representation of 
> "minority" viewpoints.  Our system is not entirely first-past-the-post 
> in the American way, everyone gets up to 5 votes, the election is spread 
> out over time and there is lots of room for input from all persons involved.
> 
> -ntk

It will still be centralized, but is an improvement. 

Michael Potter