?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
22 May 2008 @ 04:49 pm
First ever LiveJournal User-Representative Election  
PLEASE READ BEFORE YOU VOTE!!!

Eligibility
Those eligible to vote in this poll are:
-Users with accounts created before March 11, 2008
-Users who are not using Cyrillic language services (there is a poll for Cyrillic users at lj_election_ru)
-Users who have accounts with validated email addresses


Voting
Users should select their first choice, second choice, and third choice candidates from the drop-down list.

Determining the winner
The poll will be closed at 9:00 p.m. PDT Thursday, May 29, 2008
-If a user has more than 50% of the first-choice vote, that candidate will be declared the winner
-If no user has more than 50% of the first-choice vote, we will begin using an Instant Runoff process. The user with the lowest tally for first-choice vote will be eliminated, and the second choice candidate on those ballots will be substituted as first choice. This process will continue (drop lowest candidate, reassign to next vote, tally again) until any user has more than 50% of the vote.
-If all ballots are exhausted and no candidate has more than 50% of the vote, we will return to the first round and award the election to the candidate with the most 1st choice votes.

Member Term
The new Advisory Board member will be announced by the end of the day on Friday, May 30, 2008 and will begin their one-year term of service on June 1, 2008.

THANK YOU!

Poll #1192389 Election Poll
This poll is closed.

First choice (the user you would most like to have as your representative):

cambler
802(3.1%)
daniidebrabant
206(0.8%)
deathboy
998(3.9%)
fuzzface00
319(1.2%)
imc
177(0.7%)
jameth
5485(21.2%)
jette
234(0.9%)
jj_maccrimmon
180(0.7%)
jmaynard
140(0.5%)
legomymalfoy
9443(36.5%)
lizyd
340(1.3%)
lordandrei
326(1.3%)
lostcosmonaut
220(0.9%)
mrflagg
669(2.6%)
primitivepeople
140(0.5%)
qfemale
335(1.3%)
randomposting
233(0.9%)
rm
2826(10.9%)
sollitaire
206(0.8%)
squeaky19
1120(4.3%)
tango
166(0.6%)
twirlandswirl
156(0.6%)
vichan
1154(4.5%)

Second choice (if your first-choice candidate is eliminated, you would then choose this candidate):

cambler
1190(5.1%)
daniidebrabant
245(1.0%)
deathboy
713(3.0%)
fuzzface00
296(1.3%)
imc
186(0.8%)
jameth
3358(14.3%)
jette
229(1.0%)
jj_maccrimmon
158(0.7%)
jmaynard
289(1.2%)
legomymalfoy
2408(10.3%)
lizyd
279(1.2%)
lordandrei
465(2.0%)
lostcosmonaut
250(1.1%)
mrflagg
770(3.3%)
primitivepeople
222(0.9%)
qfemale
511(2.2%)
randomposting
360(1.5%)
rm
7485(31.9%)
sollitaire
461(2.0%)
squeaky19
997(4.3%)
tango
298(1.3%)
twirlandswirl
275(1.2%)
vichan
1987(8.5%)

Third choice (if your first and second-choice candidates are eliminated, you would then choose this candidate):

cambler
778(3.5%)
daniidebrabant
329(1.5%)
deathboy
885(4.0%)
fuzzface00
288(1.3%)
imc
176(0.8%)
jameth
2899(13.1%)
jette
208(0.9%)
jj_maccrimmon
187(0.8%)
jmaynard
423(1.9%)
legomymalfoy
1709(7.7%)
lizyd
241(1.1%)
lordandrei
476(2.2%)
lostcosmonaut
287(1.3%)
mrflagg
654(3.0%)
primitivepeople
285(1.3%)
qfemale
674(3.1%)
randomposting
510(2.3%)
rm
1914(8.7%)
sollitaire
621(2.8%)
squeaky19
1505(6.8%)
tango
506(2.3%)
twirlandswirl
498(2.3%)
vichan
6003(27.2%)
 
 
Current Mood: pensivepensive
 
 
 
Ju Ju Bee: drinksjulieannie on May 24th, 2008 08:29 pm (UTC)
So remind me again how rm plans to extend the first amendment rights on Livejournal then. Because I know what the first amendment is (and how it is the government who is the one that cannot restrict it) but in her LJ she implies she's pro-free speech While as a private corporation LJ has the right to decide what type of content it will and won't allow, my argument is for the broadest range of speech permissible under the laws of California (where LJ is incorporated). This level of free speech should be the right of all LJ users, regardless of location or topic. Political speech needs to be protected. Religious speech needs to be protected. Creative speech needs to be protected. If it's legal speech it should be permissible on LJ. but by restricting speech on her journal, she is implying she can't handle it any more than Livejournal can which makes me unlikely to believe any of her campaign promises.
Serenamagyarok_saman on May 24th, 2008 11:40 pm (UTC)
Here again, you are choosing to stretch a principle to suit your own agenda.

Nobody on LJ is expected to HAVE to put up with troll-like behavior on their own journal - not even those who are running for the Advisory Board position.

Sometimes, there is a fine line between what is considered "legal" speech and what is considered outright harassment, slander, and ridicule. rm has every right to prevent the latter, as does every user on the LiveJournal service.

You aren't, for instance, suggesting that you should be allowed to go to rm's residence, force open her front door, and stand in her living room shouting invectives and ridicule, are you? Because that's what you're suggesting she should allow in the virtual living room of her own journal.

It's the stretching of the right of free speech like this which really bends my nose out of shape and the only time I see it is from people who don't like it when someone has, and enforces, healthy boundaries.
This Is Not My Life's Workjourneyto on May 27th, 2008 12:55 am (UTC)
You've got two things wrong. She's not arguing the technicalities of free speech, but the principle within it and the tolerance one in an advisory capacity should have, particularly with those they dislike. Even I can see that. Several of the candidates opened up their journals to discuss the election and it becamse part of the larger discussion that was taking place on communities. This particular journal was allowing proactively negative comments about others stand, yet banning those who had differing points of view and expressed them the ways they did.

It's very easy to play the semantics game, calling some "trolls" when we just don't like what they have to say, how often they say it, or how they communicate it. Be careful with that, from the looks of your comments here you seem so well-educated and articulate. But you're not immune, and neither is the candidate who banned others from her journal.