Weisberg wrote:
> Diane Cabell wrote:
> > So we more or less left the definition of capture at the corporate level and the
>least expensive way to track that is through physical location. Not the best way
> > by a long shot.
>
> This is false economy. How will we save money by holding single winner elections
>in five hugh and arbitrary areas of the globe? It will be INCREASE our cost of
> verification of RESIDENCE (which would not otherwise be necessary) and cause
>confusion (people are moving around, have multiple "residences," and will be at
> different places for varying reasons and amounts of time).
We will save money over more expensive methods of verification, such as asking for
copies of identification documents, reviewing and storing them. A snail mail will be
used to verify residence and simultaneously authenticate the existence of the member.
It's a 2-for-1 at a reasonably low cost. Not as cheap as online registration and
not perfect for authenticating the member, but better than making no verification
which would leave the organization open to manipulation by spoofed electronic
registrations.
Members will be required to re-register on an annual basis (although a simple "confirm
last year's data" script is likely to be used for renewals). Since at-large would
be sending out snail ballots, members are expected to bear responsibility for
notifying the organization of address changes particularly if they want to get their
ballot. Please take the time to read the MAC Singapore and Final Recommendations,
because the issues relating to authentication are discussed there.
> Passports and drivers licenses will not verify "residence," btw. Furthermore, this
>approach opens us up
> to constant argument over district lines. It offers almost no benefit at very high
>cost.
>
> If this is not "the best way by a long shot," lets at least CONSIDER what might be
>better.
The MAC does not consider unverified membership registration to be better.
Diane Cabell
http://www.mama-tech.com
Fausett, Gaeta & Lund, LLP
Boston, MA
