53 Matching Annotations
  1. May 2021
  2. Apr 2021
  3. Mar 2021
  4. Feb 2021
  5. Jan 2021
    1. Dans le second degré la FCPE rassemble : 40,83 % des suffrages  les associations locales non affiliées : 19,80 %  les listes de parents non constituées en associations : 19,06 %  la PEEP : 10,61 %  les listes d’union : 6,91 %  l’UNAAPE : 2,79 %
  6. Dec 2020
    1. Cas particulierSi une liste a droit à un nombre de sièges supérieurau nombre de candidats qu'elle a présentés, les sièges demeurés vacants sont pourvus par des élections intervenant dans les mêmes conditions et dans un délain'excédant pas quinze jours

      Le délai de quinze est difficilement tenable car les vacances d'automne arrivent rapidement après le scrutin.

  7. Nov 2020
    1. Parents d’élèves majeurs, d’élèves en BTS ou en CPGE :Les parents d’élèves majeurs sont électeurs et éligibles3. Les parents d’élèves de BTS ou de classes préparatoires sont électeurs et éligibles au conseil d’administration du lycée4.

      (3) Une réponse écrite du ministère à la FCPE, en septembre 2007, rappelle ce principe :« L'article 18 du décret n° 85-924 du 30 août 1985 indique que chaque parent est électeur et éligible sous réserve pour les parents d’enfant mineur de ne s’être pas vu retirer l’autorité parentale. La précision apportée, concernant les parents des élèves mineurs, ne peut être interprétée comme excluant les parents d’élèves majeurs du droit de vote et de l’éligibilité.

    1. What this all means is that persuading people that there is no fraud is an integral part of committing fraud: controlling the social epistemological consensus becomes a weapon. That doesn’t necessarily mean that fraud claims are always true/decisive, it just means that claims against fraud should be treated with a healthy dose of skepticism.

      Persuading people that no fraud took place is an essential part of committing fraud.

      This doesn't mean fraud claims are always true. It only means we should claims against fraud with a health dose of skepticism.

    2. Election fraud is even more interesting, because if you (the fraudster) can win the election then the victim of fraud has an incentive to back down and let you get away with it in order to preserve the general public’s belief in democracy. Democracy has both a practical function (effective government via peaceful transfer of power) and a “spiritual” function (keeping the peace by persuading people that they are being represented). Overturning an election seriously undermines the spiritual function of democracy as it confirms to people that elections do get rigged and fraud does happen and it does sometimes determine election outcomes.

      Roko talks about democracy having a practical function (effective government via peaceful transfer of power) and a spiritual function (keeping the peace by persuading people that they are being represented).

      Overturning an election would undermine the spiritual function. This creates an incentive for the loser to swallow the loss, even if he has been cheated, so as to preserve the spiritual function of democracy.

    1. Now in fairness, one significant point that fraud claimers can make is that even if the phenomenon is modest in scale in the US, it can still be sufficient to overturn the results of elections given the peculiarities of its election system, in which outcomes are sometimes decided by a few hundred votes in a key state. But while valid for some elections – most notably, 2000 – it is most certainly not the case during this election, where even a reversal of the Georgia and Pennsylvania results will not be sufficient to give Trump victory.

      Even though fraud claimers say a small amount of votes can sway the election, this isn't the case for this election. Even swinging Georgia or Pennsylvania to Trump still results in a Biden win.

    2. One way of looking at it is that Trump was simply “lucky” in 2016, winning the crucial states of PA/WI/MI by <1%, and unlucky in 2020, losing those same states by higher though still modest margins.

      Anatoly offers this way of looking at the 2020 election:

      Trump was simply “lucky” in 2016, winning the crucial states of PA/WI/MI by <1%, and unlucky in 2020, losing those same states by higher though still modest margins.

    3. And you also need the conspiracy to be competent. This is outright impossible. Even a reasonably effective and high IQ semi-authoritarian regime such as Russia hasn’t learned how to hide electoral fraud from statistical analysts over 20 years and counting for the banal reason that you can’t expect much in the way of conscientiousness or even intelligence from people who accede to participating in electoral fraud. You people seriously expect that level of competence from… inner city Dems?

      Anatoly here makes the argument that to pull off large scale voter fraud, you need a large scale conspiracy and you need large scale competency. Particularly that last category is unlikely.

      Russia, which can be considered a high-IQ semi-authoritarian regime, still hasn't figured out how to hide electoral fraud from statistical analysts.

    4. Instead, I want to make a seemingly obvious game theoretical point. In a country with a balance of power between two or more parties, nobody but the most cavalier ideologues are going to stick their necks out for “The Resistance” when they know that there is a high probability that a Trumpist DoJ could subsequently prosecute them. (For that matter, several Chicago poll workers were convicted and went to jail in 1962). To enact large-scale fraud, you need to convince underlings to collude, but this only happens if they can be sure that they will not be put out to grass later. The GOP can’t credibly offer such guarantees, so there won’t be many people rushing to stick out their neck out for Trump. This also works in reverse, which is why back in August, I similarly dismissed Resistance fantasies that the Bad Orange Man will orchestra mass electoral fraud to keep himself in power:

      Here Anatoly Karlin makes a game theoretical argument that in a system with two or more adversarial, equally powerful parties, there's a self-preservationist incentive not to take a risk with something like voter fraud. The risk being, that the other party might find out and prosecute you.

      To be able to pull it off you need to be able to make guarantees that the colluders won't be prosecuted, and neither party can make such guarantees.

  8. Oct 2020
    1. ToléranceL’école ou le médecin finissent parfois par accepter l’intervention du beau-parent.Sauf délégation d’autorité parentale, le beau-parent n’a aucun droit sur les enfants de son partenaire. La vie commune, l’affection ou, tout simplement, les contraintes du quotidien ne font rien à l’affaire. Pas question de donner un coup de main en allant chercher un petit à l’école ou en l’emmenant chez le médecin. L’instituteur ou le praticien seraient d’ailleurs dans leur droit en fermant la porte au nez de l’intrus. Et ils auraient raison, du moins théoriquement, car leur responsabilité est en jeu (pourtant, une nounou ou une fille au pair, sortes d’aides familiales, est souvent acceptée).>> A lire aussi - Après une séparation, comment bénéficier des aides et allocations de l’EtatFaute d’existence juridique, le beau-parent ne peut donc compter que sur une reconnaissance de fait. Ainsi, le médecin ou la maîtresse d’école qui feint de vous ignorer finira sans doute par vous accepter si vous avez été vu à plusieurs reprises auprès du vrai parent ou, mieux encore, si vous êtes inscrit sur une liste vous autorisant à accompagner l’enfant (liste n’ayant d’ailleurs aucune valeur légale).
    1. Les bulletins non conformes au modèle type
    2. Les listes comportent au plus un nombre de candidats égal au double du nombre de sièges à pourvoir.
    3. d’un modèle uniforme ;
    4. 6.1.Clôture du scrutin À l'heure prévue, chaque bureau de vote doit proclamer la clôture du scrutin et procéder immédiatement au dépouillement.La totalité des votes par correspondance doit être remise au bureau de vote.
    5. Les horaires d'ouverture et de clôture du scrutin doivent être arrêtés après consultation des listes ayant présenté leur candidature.
    6. Cette commission, constituée en bureau des élections, est chargée d'assurer l'organisation et de veiller au bon déroulement des élections.
    7. Contenu des bulletins Les bulletins doivent mentionner à peine de nullité (c’est-à-dire sont nuls et n'entrent pas en compte dans le résultat du dépouillement) : •le nom de l’établissement scolaire ; •les noms et prénoms des candidats. Les bulletins ne peuvent ainsi comporter aucun autre nom de personne que ceux des candidats. Et selon le cas : •soit lesigle de l’union nationale ou de la fédération de parents d’élèves ; •soit lesigle de l’association de parents d’élèves qui présente la liste ; •soit le nom du premier candidat pour une liste présentée par des parents d’élèves qui ne sont pas constitués en association. Il appartient aux responsables de chaque liste de veiller à ce que les bulletins de vote soient en conformité avec la liste qu’ils ont déposée.

      Page 17

    1. Le bureau des élections, présidé par le directeur de l'école et constitué par la commission électorale (voir ci-après), assure l'organisation des élections et veille à leur bon déroulement.
    2. exclusivement, sous peine de nullité

      Page 3

    1. Ils mentionnent exclusivement, à peine de nullité, le nom de l’école, les noms et prénoms des candidats, ainsi que, selon le cas, soit le sigle de l’union nationale ou de la fédération, soit de l’association de parents d’élèves qui présente la liste ou bien le nom du premier candidat pour une liste présentée par des parents d’élèves qui ne sont pas constitués en association.
  9. Sep 2020
    1. Références1°'degré:art.1°',2et3del'arrêtédu13mai1985relatifauconseild'école,circulairen°2000-082du9juin2000relativeauxmodalitésd'électiondesreprésentantsdesparentsd'élèvesauconseild'école.2"°'degré:art.R.421-26,R.421-29etR.421-30ducodedel'éducation.
    2. Informationsurl'organisationdesélectionslorsdelaréunionderentréedanslesécoles,collègesetlycées.Danslesquinzejoursquisuiventlarentréescolaire:réuniondesresponsablesdeliste
    3. L'articleL.1'|'I-4ducodedel'éducationdisposequelesparentsd'élèvesparticipent,parleursreprésentants,auxconseilsd'écoleetauxconseilsd'administrationdesétablissementsscolairesetauxconseilsdeclasse
    1. Le dernier débat aura lieu sur l'article 5. Il stipule qu'en cas de liste unique pour les élections des parents délégués le vote est supprimé et la liste déclarée élue. Pour C Rilhac c'est un moyen de diminuer le travail des directeurs. Le PS, LFI et le PC soulignent que ce n'est pas pareil d'être élu même si le résultat est le même. Il s'agit de défendre le principe démocratique dans l'école  déjà mise à mal par un directeur sur emploi focntionnel.   Finalement C Rilhac appelle la technologie à son secours. " A titre expérimental, dans les départements volontaires, pour trois ans , en présence d'une liste unique, l'élection des représentants des parents d'élèves a lieu par la voie électronique."
    1. Pour l'année scolaire 2020-2021, les élections se tiendront : le vendredi 9 octobre 2020 ou le samedi 10 octobre 2020 ;
    1. Désormais, le chef d’établissement peut décider que le vote aura lieu exclusivement par correspondance,après consultation du conseil d’administration.
    1. La semaine de la démocratie scolaire favorise la prise de conscience de l’importance et des enjeux des élections des représentants des parents d'élèves, en les encourageant à se présenter. En effet, c'est au cours de la semaine de la démocratie scolaire que se déroulent les élections des représentants des parents d’élèves au conseil d’école et au conseil d’administration, ainsi que les élections aux conseils des délégués pour la vie lycéenne (CVL). Cette semaine contribue à donner visibilité et sens à la participation des acteurs au processus de décision dans un esprit démocratique. Elle se déroule la sixième semaine suivant la rentrée scolaire.
  10. Jan 2020
    1. The surveillance capitalists didn’t just sell more deodorant; they had built one of the most powerful tools ever invented for winning elections. Roughly the same suite of technologies helped elect Obama, a pragmatic liberal who promised racial progress and a benevolent globalism, and Trump, a strident nationalist who adeptly employs social media to stoke racial panic and has set out to demolish the American-led world order.

      The fact that Obama, and not just Trump used political micro-targetting is often overlooked.

      More importantly, we still lack data as to the actual effects of such microtargetting on electoral behavior.

    1. Und dann kamen die Nazis!

      Es ist zutiefst bedauerlich, dass diese Sichtweise in der Geschichte so untergegangen zu sein scheint!

  11. Dec 2019
    1. Madison’s design has proved durable. But what would happen to American democracy if, one day in the early 21st century, a technology appeared that—over the course of a decade—changed several fundamental parameters of social and political life? What if this technology greatly increased the amount of “mutual animosity” and the speed at which outrage spread? Might we witness the political equivalent of buildings collapsing, birds falling from the sky, and the Earth moving closer to the sun?

      Jonathan Haidt, you might have noticed, is a scholar that I admire very much. In this piece, his colleague Tobias Rose-Stockwell and he ask the following questions: Is social media a threat to our democracy? Let's read the following article together and think about their question together.

  12. Oct 2019
  13. Sep 2019
    1. I’ve long argued that United States politics resolves around the tension between advancing individual liberty and promoting the common good. The regional cultures we think of as “blue” today have traditions championing the building and maintenance of free communities, today’s “red” ones on maximizing individual freedom of action. Our presidential contests almost always present a clear choice between the two, and the regions act accordingly.
  14. Nov 2018
    1. I had begun to think of social movements’ abilities in terms of “capacities”—like the muscles one develops while exercising but could be used for other purposes like carrying groceries or walking long distances—and their repertoire of pro-test, like marches, rallies, and occupations as “signals” of those capacities.

      I find it interesting that she's using words from information theory like "capacities" and "signals" here. It reminds me of the thesis of Caesar Hidalgo's Why Information Grows and his ideas about links. While within the social milieu, links may be easier to break with new modes of communication, what most protesters won't grasp or have the time and patience for is the recreation of new links to create new institutions for rule. As seen in many war torn countries, this is the most difficult part. Similarly campaigning is easy, governing is much harder.

      As an example: The US government's breaking of the links of military and police forces in post-war Iraq made their recovery process far more difficult because all those links within the social hierarchy and political landscape proved harder to reconstruct.

  15. Sep 2018
    1. politicians looking for issues to drum up with have made a whipping boy out of the social networks

      Here, I think the author is just saying that Facebook and Twitter have taken a lot of heat from politicians about the 2016 election, Russian interference, etc. This year, the tech companies are showing that they are "good citizens" by having better security and helping young people register to vote.

  16. Oct 2017
    1. DEFCON, the world’s largest hacker conference, will release its findings on Tuesday, months after hosting a July demonstration in which hackers quickly broke into 25 different types of voting machines.

      ...

      Though the report offers no proof of an attack last year, experts involved with it say they’re sure it is possible—and probable—and that the chances of a bigger attack in the future are high.

      “From a technological point of view, this is something that is clearly doable,” said Sherri Ramsay, the former director of the federal Central Security Service Threat Operations Center, which handles cyber threats for the military and the National Security Agency. “For us to turn a blind eye to this, I think that would be very irresponsible on our part.”

  17. Sep 2017
    1. Throughout the night of the general election results, we marked candidates as having been elected or not elected. We did not add vote counts. Particular thanks are due to Mark Longair of mySociety for a marathon effort here. The data populated mySociety’s theyworkforyou.com/mps, which gradually filled with newly elected MPs throughout the night. This data also enabled Facebook’s ‘You have newly elected representatives’ notification to their users the following morning. Facebook users could then also choose to follow news from their new MP. This kind of feedback loop — you voted, here’s what happened, now here’s how you connect with them — is an exemplar of the use of open democracy data and we hope Facebook will continue this practice for other elections. We will encourage other popular platforms to borrow this approach.

      I wonder if you'd ever see something like this in Germany with the BPB

  18. Mar 2017
    1. NJ state legislature passed a bill that would require candidates for president and vice president to release their tax returns in order to appear on the state's ballots. The bill is yet to be signed by Gov. Chris Christie, a Trump supporter. NM, HI, OR, and CA are considering similar bills.

  19. Dec 2016
    1. A legal argument that winner-take-all allocation of Electors is a violation of the rights of the voters in the minority.

      1. In summary, a winner-take-all system of allocating Electors by the states denies the minority of voters within each state any representation whatsoever within the Electoral College and ultimately in the case of the 2000 and 2016 elections, denies the plurality of voters nationwide their choice for President under circumstances in which the constitutionally established small state advantage made part of the Electoral College wouldnot. This is neither a reasonable nor a rational result in a representative democracy. This result was dictated by the winner-take-all method of allocating Electors used by the states. It is this state law method of allocating Electors that is an unconstitutional violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and its bedrock principle of one man one vote.

      ...

      It’s perfectly clear that the Attorney General of New York or California could walk into the Supreme Court tomorrow, and ask the Court to hear the case. Delaware tried to do this exactly fifty years ago, but the Court ducked the question. But based on that complaint, were I a citizen of California, I’d ask my current AG (and future Senator) why hasn’t CA done the same thing? And were I a citizen of New York, I’d ask my AG the same. Why are these big states standing by quietly as their voters are essentially silenced by the unconstitutional inequality?

  20. Nov 2016
  21. www.electiondefense.org www.electiondefense.org
    1. National Election Defense Coalition - a nonprofit that fights for fair elections and voting rights.

  22. Jan 2016