Father Cadan Posted May 19, 2016 at 09:08 AM Report Share Posted May 19, 2016 at 09:08 AM I would greatly appreciate your assistance. A challenge has been made as follows (I've tried to remove identifying information): On [DATE], {A} got 97 Delegates, {B} got 219, there was 1 uncommitted delegate. At the county convention, they seated 97 {B} delegates, 222 {B} delegates. We won 5 of 18 delegates to the {current/about to happen meeting}, but if you take away the 2 extra delegates seated (assuming the 1 uncommitted went for {B} ... not sure that this is the case, but it doesn't matter) we would have won 6 of 18 delegates. Math as it was done: 97 of 319 total delegates. That came out to .30407 X 18 = 5.47 CD delegates. Rounds to 5. Math as it should have been done: 97 of 317 total delegates. That equals .30599% x 18 = 5.507 CD Delegates. Rounds to 6. Proposed Solution: As the vote numbers are unavailable to us, we are proposing that an alternate from the same {area/district} fill the spot. *** The challenge has been submitted to the challenge committee which reports to the credentials committee. The challenge is referencing an election done by a different set of delegates at a previous, lower level meeting of different delegates. I'm not sure who 'we' is but I assume it is a proponent for {A}. The questions I have are as follows: Is this a violation of a continuing nature? If yes how do you fix as it is not practical to reconvene the previous delegates? Note: it is not in the bylaws but it is in a higher authority document. Is a delegate disqualified because the election was done wrong? What do you think of the proposed (not be me) solution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted May 19, 2016 at 10:01 AM Report Share Posted May 19, 2016 at 10:01 AM If I understand this correctly, there were 222 delegates from B seated at the county convention, when only 220 should have been seated. Is this correct, and if so, isn't this where the mistake occurred? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Transpower Posted May 19, 2016 at 02:53 PM Report Share Posted May 19, 2016 at 02:53 PM It seems to me that a list of delegates from A and B should be requested and then checked for accuracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Goldsworthy Posted May 19, 2016 at 04:53 PM Report Share Posted May 19, 2016 at 04:53 PM Just now, Kim Goldsworthy said: >> 97 {B} delegates >> 222 {B} delegates. There's one error. -- There is no "A" grouping. *** >> Is this a violation of a continuing nature? No, I don't think so. A delegation count is a continuum, which is to fluctuate naturally, from minute to minute, with only the credentials committee report fixing the number, but at best, only temporarily, only for that moment. The committee report is subject to challenge and subject to approval, so the whole assembly is "at fault" if there is an error, since the assembly has the final word on the delegation count. So I cannot see the math as a continuing breach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted May 19, 2016 at 05:13 PM Report Share Posted May 19, 2016 at 05:13 PM The question as to whether or not a mathematical error gives rise to something in the nature of a continuing breach is a very interesting one, and I hope that Father Cadan will return soon to provide some additional facts so that it can be determined whether or not we are concerned here with nothing but a mathematical error. Based solely upon what has been posted, this does not appear to be the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted May 20, 2016 at 12:14 PM Report Share Posted May 20, 2016 at 12:14 PM Well, I think it's too bad that Father Cadan hasn't returned to provide us with a more detailed statement of facts, because they might provide us with an opportunity to revisit the question discussed at length in this thread, but I suppose it's not to be. All you can do for now is keep in mind that, in that thread, I was absolutely right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nancy N. Of The Spaceways Posted June 11, 2016 at 01:37 PM Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 at 01:37 PM On 5/20/2016 at 8:14 AM, Daniel H. Honemann said: Well, I think it's too bad that Father Cadan hasn't returned ... Be ye not faint of heart, erstwhile prodigious Lt** Of The Spaceways; for yea, Estimable Cadan is young yet, and time passeth less fleetingly for him and his than for those like you and I* of epinephrine years ( I remember, fifteen or so years ago you referred to yourslef as the "old geezer." I have been hunting ever since for some usage of a "young geezer, " but alas:" the time passeth fleetingly enough, like perhaps an errant passing wind, or the noxious vapourous passing wind of an elephant eating beans, like that time back in San Antonio, which you don't remember because you weren't there or some such excuse. But I wrote it up, for APA-Q ,,, so, did you read it?). _________ *Hypercorrection for the masses, all dozen or so of us **J.G., was it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.