Diane Cabell wrote:
> > 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.
Whether such form of verification actually tells you anything needs to be discussed in
a separate thread (I do not see how it would). If verification is really so
important, shouldn't we use something which actually accomplishes that purpose?
If the fact that mail is sent to a real physical address is good enough verification
for district elections, won't it serve the same function for at-large elections? And,
if simply mailing a ballot to a physical address provides adequate verification, isn't
signing up once enough to establish membership? Why mail ballots back and forth after
the initial verification? Wouldn't that expense only be necessary in a single member
district system in which one's (transitory) physical location (residence) is the
qualification to vote? So, how is the alleged savings from mailed verification an
argument for electing "representatives" from five arbitrary divisions of the earth?
But, those are just details. More importantly--when did we decide to design our
representation on such criteria? Isn't this getting the cart before the horse?
