user warning: Unknown column 'v.vote_source' in 'where clause' query: SELECT * FROM votingapi_vote v WHERE 1 = 1 AND v.content_id = 867 AND v.uid = 0 AND v.vote_source = '38.107.179.242' AND v.timestamp >= 1337254083 in /home/knapp/public_html/bostontea/modules/votingapi/votingapi.module on line 557.

Shall the member overturn the action of the Nat. Comm. in recognizing one of the At-Large positions as being held by NOTA?

No votes have been recorded for this poll.

Submitted by southernpatriot on Mon, 06/07/2010 - 18:46
»

Comments

1

southernpatriot:

In order to save the Party, I will rescend my vote from the poll of membership; the poll will have passed with the required 2/3 majority.

06/19/2010 - 21:41
2

inDglass:

You can't change your vote after the poll closes. That's ridiculous.

If you want to open the floor for nominations, move for it in the nat-com. Let's do as best as we can to handle things according to the bylaws.

06/20/2010 - 10:25
3

southernpatriot:

The motion failed to get a 2/3 majority - the final seat remains vacant.

06/17/2010 - 17:45
4

Thomas L. Knapp:

Hmmm ...

An un-nominated, un-seconded, non-accepting candidate "wins" an "election" (a fake election insofar as it was not held in the manner prescribed by the bylaws).

The rump national committee declines to correct the situation.

The membership declines to require the rump national committee to correct the situation.

I'm still thinking this over. Is there any particular reason why I should not deem the party dissolved due to hostile takeover by a lawless junta, and act accordingly?

06/18/2010 - 12:25
5

VTV:

So let me see if I have this straight...

Darryl decided to change his vote so that the poll that clearly had a majority even if it didn't have the needed 2/3s could pass.

Douglass is upset that he decided to do this.

And Tom is pointing out that some people seem to think it's appropriate for candidates that don't exist to hold positions just because it might be more convienient for the agenda of the current committee.

For the record, the RBEC has no intention of taking over the party entirely. I very easily could of put far more effort into getting people to join and ran candidate for every single seat. I didn't want to do that so I didn't. The Zeitgeist movement has 400k members, and since apparently they don't have to be U.S. Citizens if a mass takeover is what I wanted I could of organized it easily. I just wanted a presence for the caucus. No more, no less.

As new members are joining every day this is going to be a moot point anyway.

06/21/2010 - 22:04
6

southernpatriot:

"The rump national committee declines to correct the situation."
Aside from making a decision without a vote from the Nat. Comm. - which I don't see that I have that authority from the bylaws; what do you suggest I do?

06/18/2010 - 23:07
7

Thomas L. Knapp:

"what do you suggest I do?"

Improvise, adapt, overcome!

06/18/2010 - 23:27
8

Thomas L. Knapp:

One side effect of this situation is that there can be no new state BTP affiliates. Acceptance of new affiliates requires unanimous consent of the national committee, and NOTA, not being a person, can't consent.

06/18/2010 - 20:14
9

southernpatriot:

http://bostontea.us/node/580

Whereas many state and county party affiliates and groups are considering dis-affiliating with a national party organization,

Be it resolved that the Boston Tea Party national committee extends an open invitation to any party group that wishes to affiliate with the Boston Tea Party.

The conditions on party affiliates are:

1. Adopt the platform of the Boston Tea Party.
2. For state party affiliates, to run the BTP's presidential nominee, chosen in convention every fourth year, on the state affiliate's ballot line, if any.

06/18/2010 - 23:04
10

Thomas L. Knapp:

Darryl,

And your point is?

The National Committee may recognize, and accept affiliation with the Party of, new or previously existing state or local political parties. Such recognition shall be predicated upon the unanimous consent of the National Committee and upon adoption by the prospective affiliate of the Party's platform and acceptance by the prospective affiliate of the obligation to run the Party's presidential candidate, nominated in convention, as its own candidate for that office on its ballot line.

The invitation you reference doesn't change the bylaws, nor does the unanimous consent of a prior committee constitute the unanimous consent of a future one -- especially a future one which has a member ("NOTA") who is by definition incapable of consenting to anything.

06/18/2010 - 23:24
11

inDglass:

That's your interpretation.

06/18/2010 - 21:09
12

VTV:

That's not just his interpretation. Our chair said he considered the position held by NOTA. A candidate that doesn't exist.

06/21/2010 - 21:59
13

Thomas L. Knapp:

Yes, it is. I guess I could have offered someone else's interpretation, but it was mine that, you know, happened to be lying around close at hand.

06/18/2010 - 22:35
14

inDglass:

Also, where were these complaints when the previous committee left a seat vacant for a couple months? I suppose you were content with that because your RBE Caucus buddies were represented by Neil on the committee. Now that the RBE Caucus has been defeated in three consecutive polls, you are going to suggest that the party has been taken over. This appears to be less about bylaws specifics and more about you not getting your way.

06/18/2010 - 21:51
15

Thomas L. Knapp:

Douglass,

You write:

"where were these complaints when the previous committee left a seat vacant for a couple months?"

Those complaints? They were wherever complaints about things I haven't noticed hang out at.

"I suppose you were content with that because your RBE Caucus buddies were represented by Neil on the committee."

I'm not affiliated with the RBE Caucus, nor do I support it. Apart from Neil, I don't even know who might or might not be a member of that caucus. And if you think I'm Neil's best buddy or something, you haven't been paying attention.

"This appears to be less about bylaws specifics and more about you not getting your way."

So far as I can tell, "this" is me asking a question -- and you not answering it.

06/18/2010 - 22:33
16

Eternaverse:

I am a member of this party I voted for NOTA, like the majority of other voters. It was not the Nat-Comm who elected NOTA, it was me and the other party members. This poll is trying to undermined the decision already made by the members. I urge all party members to vote NO on this poll.

06/10/2010 - 21:52
17

VTV:

Well if this poll passes, then the worst that can happen is the majority of the party members will get to vote on who will occupy the last seat. The decision to leave the seat vacant came from the Nat-Comm. It seems the votes coming in tell a story that says the party membership does not agree.

06/11/2010 - 08:45
18

Eternaverse:

Yes, because if would be fair if someone decided we were going to dump the results of the Presidential election and redo the entire thing, just for the hell of it. There would be massive outrage. Those who want to redo elections do it with the intent of taking away voter power, not adding to it.

06/11/2010 - 09:28
19

VTV:

Taking power away? All of the people who voted before can simply vote again.

06/11/2010 - 14:39
20

inDglass:

This argument assumes that everyone who voted the first time would come back and do so again. You know this argument is wrong, which is why you are supporting this motion in the first place. You expect that if the election is repeated, you can try again and maybe having a better chance of winning the second time around. That is why the national committee took the correct action (or non-action) in not reopening the election. This is nothing more than a redo so that the unapproved candidates can get another chance to try to win. It is ridiculous.

06/12/2010 - 10:58
21

VTV:

If people don't come and vote again, that is on them. Their votes are not somehow more valuable then the votes that could be cast now.

06/13/2010 - 10:49
22

Eternaverse:

I agree with that, Douglass. The convention was promoted weeks, if not months, before it was held. This allow a large number of members to decide about their decision to vote. I believe many where happy with how outcome of the election looked and, therefore, did not see a reason to vote in the polls. This poll did not have the advance promoting of the convention, and as such, a much smaller amount of people will be allowed to hear about this poll and therefore ponder their vote on it. Those supporting YES on it, like Neil, not only disenfranchise the voters but always the nonvoters who where in solidarity with the decision of the voters.

06/13/2010 - 02:35
23

hale2thenathan:

Should it not be the Federal Committee without at-large members. Should maybe we at least pick one state until such time it's large enough to do more? Maybe districting would be more complicated.

06/10/2010 - 18:23
24

hale2thenathan:

Northeast Ohio Translators Association?
The acronym could be anything. Something like this needs a full wording.

I am guessing None of the Above: http://www.acronymfinder.com/NOTA.html

06/10/2010 - 18:20
25

mikewb1971:

Assuming that the vote in support of NOTA is overturned (thus nullifying my vote in that one), I'm assuming that there would have to be a new election to fill the empty spot.

What's the timetable on this?

Mike Blessing

06/10/2010 - 17:42
26

southernpatriot:

This poll will close at 645P on June 17. After which, if the seat is considered vacant nominations will be open for three days, a poll will begin at the close of nominations and remain open for seven days.

06/10/2010 - 19:56
27

VTV:

What time zone are you basing that on Darryl?

06/10/2010 - 20:23
28

southernpatriot:

Central Daylight Time; apologies for not listing the time zone.

06/10/2010 - 20:34
29

Zeraius:

I'm a supporter of a RBE, and I believe that the closing of voting to new members was a mistake because it does limit new ideas/personnel from being introduced and gaining momentum. That said, Neil seems to carry a lot of emotions into his argument. The argument that makes the most sense so far is that you should check IP addresses rather than limiting new members during a vote, as new members with new ideas should be something that is encouraged instead of limited. Though I follow certain movements, I do not join until I have something worth saying or voting for. This is the same for many others.

06/10/2010 - 10:53
30

VTV:

That's interesting Darryl. Despite the fact that it was not done for virtually any of the elections at all since I have been in the BTP. It wasn't done for Todd Barnett particularly.

06/09/2010 - 09:08
31

southernpatriot:

I don't remember if it was done during the Todd Barnett election or not; I wasn't chair until 7 days ago, so I'm not responsible for whether it was done or not. I just recall that closing registration was done during the 2008 Presidential selection & convention

06/09/2010 - 11:09
32

southernpatriot:

While this poll is open, new member registration has been disabled to prevent voter-fraud.
The poll will close at 7:45P (CDT) on June 17, 2010

06/07/2010 - 18:48
33

Conzar:

How does closing registration prevent voter-fraud?

06/08/2010 - 11:57
34

southernpatriot:

In a similar way that "same day registration" prevents vote fraud. It prevents people from "joining" the party just to vote for/against something during the vote process, thus skewing the vote of legitimate party members.

06/08/2010 - 12:53
35

VTV:

"legitmate party members" meaning those you approve of? I have been in the party for a little over two years yet I am not fit to run for a position.

You talk about past precedent and rules, yet such precedent states that my voicing an interest in the position alone means that an election should be held.

Instead you tried to dodge behind some absurd fiction that NOTA could hold a seat on the national committee.

So what if all the seats were NOTA? Then what?

You arbitrarily did this because it suited your political agenda and nothing more. It's interesting how tyranny takes hold when people are so blinded by their pursuit of their own freedom that they start to seek to take it away from others.

06/09/2010 - 09:18
36

VTV:

The only voter fraud we have had recently was done by Davidson. They tracked his IP and that was that.

06/09/2010 - 09:10
37

Conzar:

Why would someone join a party? Is it not to vote for/against something?

What is a legitimate party member? According to your site, all that is required is a USA citizenship. So why do you deny USA citizens from joining based on your voting schedule?

06/08/2010 - 13:28
38

Thomas L. Knapp:

Conzar,

You write:

"According to your site, all that is required is a USA citizenship."

I'd be interested in where you think you saw that a USA citizenship is required for membership in the party.

06/09/2010 - 09:51
39

inDglass:

Yet another example of Neil making up the story as he goes along, rather than checking the facts. Arguments not backed by facts are nothing more than whining.

06/09/2010 - 15:11
40

VTV:

I don't make up stories and I dare you to come up with a solid example of that. Which facts am I in error about?

06/09/2010 - 18:29
41

inDglass:

Example: You said that we "NEVER" closed membership during polling, despite the fact that we did so at the 2008 convention.

06/09/2010 - 23:19
42

VTV:

I wasn't part of the party at that time. I joined afterward. You did not close down membership during Todd Barnett's election to secretary, or any of the other elections to replace vacant seats.

06/10/2010 - 19:32
43

VTV:

So your saying that being a U.S. Citizen is not required for membership?

06/09/2010 - 11:58
44

Thomas L. Knapp:

Article 6 of the bylaws:

-----
a) Members of the Party shall be those persons who have certified in writing or via electronic registration that they support the Party's platform.

b) No dues or other payment shall be required for membership in the Party.
-----

I don't see anything about being a US citizen in there. Do you?

06/10/2010 - 03:10
45

VTV:

If that is true, membership is going to get rather big soon.

06/10/2010 - 19:32
46

southernpatriot:

Conzar,
There have been many instances where someone joins the party during an election votes for the candidate that petitioned them to join, then made no other contribution to the party.
Legitimate members of the party work to see the party grow and forward the cause of freedom.

06/08/2010 - 15:16
47

Conzar:

How do you measure the work of a legitimate member? What are the criteria? When does a legitimate member become an illegitimate member? Who determines the legitimacy of a member?

How is denying people from joining the party "forwarding the cause of freedom"? Isn't this the opposite of forwarding freedom by restricting freedom; specifically, restricting the freedom of people from joining this party?

06/08/2010 - 16:35
48

southernpatriot:

Please tell me how vote fraud help the cause!

06/08/2010 - 16:53
49

Conzar:

We have not established what voter fraud is; therefore, I am unable to inform you of how it can or cannot help "the cause".

I do not consider USA Person's signing up on this web site for the intention of participating via voting as voter fraud.

Could you please define voter fraud so that we can attempt to reach a consensus on this subject?

06/08/2010 - 18:50
50

southernpatriot:

"Could you please define voter fraud?"

I've already done so - you simply don't like the definition I've given.

"I do not consider USA Person's signing up on this web site for the intention of participating via voting as voter fraud. "
I, along with all previous chairmen of the BTP, consider it fraud for people to join DURING a poll/convention.

06/08/2010 - 19:41