The recent thread about meetings and Roberts Rules had a number of terb scholars, with meetings experience, explaining how they recorded which delegates voted, and how they voted.
But seemingly the terb scholars all took it for granted that we want to know how people voted. But we shouldn't. We should not want to know how people voted, and we should not know.
We all accept the concept of secret voting when we vote in parliamentary elections. We would be horrified if anyone suggested we, having stated our name and address, must then publicly state who we vote for.
Voting in secret is an absolute cornerstone of democracy. Except that it isn't - when it comes to passing resolutions in meetings.
If our meetings were really democratic, our votes would be done in such manner that no-one can tell how any delegate voted. Not the other delegates, not the readers of the minutes: no-one.
Any accountability for Group decisions is a collective accountability laid on the Group as a whole -- not on the individual delegates as to whether they voted yes or no. Any delegates who were not present for the vote must know they cannot escape accountability for the vote, just because they weren't present. And we, the electorate, should not want to hold delegates personally responsible for what is a Group responsibility.
How come we - people generally - don't insist on secret voting wherever possible? It nearly always IS possible -- in parliament, in parliamentary committees, in local councils, in boards of directors of corporations, in the local gardening club - all kinds of meetings could handle secret voting if the elected members, and the electorate, wanted it.
YOU are an ardent supporter of democracy - I know that. Given that secret voting - in parliament, and in all meetings - is physically possible - why don't YOU insist on it?
But seemingly the terb scholars all took it for granted that we want to know how people voted. But we shouldn't. We should not want to know how people voted, and we should not know.
We all accept the concept of secret voting when we vote in parliamentary elections. We would be horrified if anyone suggested we, having stated our name and address, must then publicly state who we vote for.
Voting in secret is an absolute cornerstone of democracy. Except that it isn't - when it comes to passing resolutions in meetings.
If our meetings were really democratic, our votes would be done in such manner that no-one can tell how any delegate voted. Not the other delegates, not the readers of the minutes: no-one.
Any accountability for Group decisions is a collective accountability laid on the Group as a whole -- not on the individual delegates as to whether they voted yes or no. Any delegates who were not present for the vote must know they cannot escape accountability for the vote, just because they weren't present. And we, the electorate, should not want to hold delegates personally responsible for what is a Group responsibility.
How come we - people generally - don't insist on secret voting wherever possible? It nearly always IS possible -- in parliament, in parliamentary committees, in local councils, in boards of directors of corporations, in the local gardening club - all kinds of meetings could handle secret voting if the elected members, and the electorate, wanted it.
YOU are an ardent supporter of democracy - I know that. Given that secret voting - in parliament, and in all meetings - is physically possible - why don't YOU insist on it?
