Referenda station results: approx. absolute numbers

In a vote, it’s usual that the absolute numbers are made public. They even do that in The Other Land of the Dear Leader, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. But that’s RealWorld. In PacificaWorld, the NES, Renee Penaloza, chose not to. Why, a director or three may be able to find out.

Here are figures for the stations, albeit approximate, not least because the NES only gave whole number percentages, presumably rounded.

[When I have nothing better to do, I’ll post the below as tables. Before that, in another post, I’ll comment on what the figures reveal.]

~~~

Info is in this order:

(a) electorate (#);

(b) respect for those members not taking part in the process: abstainers (#,%) — voters (#,%); &

(c) the voters: ‘no’ voters (#,%) — ‘yes’ voters (#,%) — invalid ballots (#,%). Some of the Total voter info gives two percentages: of the electorate, & of the ballots cast.

1. LISTENER-MEMBER REFERENDUM

Total:

electorate: 42 491

abstainers — voters: 32 777 — 9 714 (77.1% — 22.9%)

‘no’ — ‘yes’ — invalid ballots: 6 340 — 3 273 — 101 (14.9% of electorate, & 65.3% of ballots cast — 7.7% & 33.7% — 0.2% & 1.0%) . . . ‘no’ win by 3 067

KPFA: 12 496 ….. 8 768 — 3 728 (70% — 30%) ….. 2 199 — 1 494 — 35 (59% — 40% — 1%)

KPFK: 13 729 ….. 11 570 — 2 159 (84% — 16%) ….. 1 165 — 974 — 20 (54% — 45% — 1%)

KPFT: 4 368 ….. 3 485 — 883 (80% — 20%) ….. 423 — 453 — 7 (48% — 51% — 1%)

WPFW: 6 085 ….. 4 809 — 1 276 (79% — 21%) ….. 969 — 283 — 24 (76% — 22% — 2%)

WBAI: 5 813 ….. 4 145 — 1 668 (71% — 29%) ….. 1 584 — 69 — 15 (95% — 4% — 1%)

Station listener-voting summary (‘no’ — ‘yes’ — invalid ballots):

KPFA: ….. 2 199 — 1 494 — 35 — ‘no’ win by 705

KPFK: ….. 1 165 — 974 — 20 — ‘no’ win by 191

KPFT: …….. 423 — 453 — 7 — ‘yes’ win by 30

WPFW: …… 969 — 283 — 24 — ‘no’ win by 686

WBAI: ….. 1 584 — 69 — 15 — ‘no’ win by 1 515

2. STAFF-MEMBER REFERENDUM

Total:

electorate: 993

abstainers — voters: 481 — 512 (48.4% — 51.6%)

‘no’ — ‘yes’ — invalid ballots: 331 — 177 — 4 (33.3% of electorate, & 64.6% of ballots cast — 17.8% & 34.6% — 0.4% & 0.7%) . . . ‘no’ win by 154

KPFA: 218 ….. 100 — 118 (46% — 54%) ….. 49 — 68 — 1 (42% — 57% — 1%)

KPFK: 268 ….. 161 — 107 (60% — 40%) ….. 45 — 61 — 1 (42% — 57% — 1%)

KPFT: 169 ….. 113 — 56 (67% — 33%) ….. 19 — 37 — 0 (35% — 66%)

WPFW: 120 ….. 43 — 77 (36% — 64%) ….. 72 — 4 — 1 (94% — 5% — 1%)

WBAI: 218 ….. 64 — 154 (29% — 71%) ….. 146 — 7 — 1 (95% — 4% — 1%)

Station staff-voting summary (‘no’ — ‘yes’ — invalid ballots):

KPFA: ….. 49 — 68 — 1 — ‘yes’ win by 19

KPFK: ….. 45 — 61 — 1 — ‘yes’ win by 16

KPFT: ….. 19 — 37 — 0 — ‘yes’ win by 18

WPFW: .. 72 — 4 — 1 — ‘no’ win by 68

WBAI: .. 146 — 7 — 1 — ‘no’ win by 139

Note: the staff electorates are small compared with the listeners’ – and given the paucity of info from NES Penaloza this causes a slight computational problem. Absolute numbers are derived from the voting percentages, & being provided by the NES they’re treated as authoritative (Final Report, p. 10); squaring the figures has meant that the occasional number tips over into a contiguous percentage point.

NES Penaloza fails to disclose station referenda numbers, & the raw data. Why?

NES Penaloza’s refusal to disclose absolute numbers (Referendum Final Report, Su29Mar2020, p. 10)

IMPORTANT CORRECTION (M30Mar) . . . The lack of info provided by the NES is even worse than I thought: the station voting percentages she gave (the “Voted (%)” column in the above tables) aren’t the station turnouts, as I mistakenly took them to be, but each station’s share of the total vote – that’s why, in the tables, one adds to 99 & the other to 100 (it’s 100 in the “Electors (%)” column of each table). Note, the heading “Voted (%)” is misleading: it should have been ‘Voting Share (%)’.

(I’m working out all the absolute numbers, which necessarily have a margin of error, not least because the percentages given are whole numbers; I’ll post them later today, M30Mar.)

~~~

M23Mar, NES Renee Penaloza posted on her website’s homepage the two referendum result certificates, issued by Simply Voting Inc. the same day. These stated the ‘yes’/’no’ numbers, as well as the percentages.

What was missing were station data. Obviously these would be in today’s NES’ report. As absolute numbers, & as percentages. But no. Just percentages, rounded to, presumably, the nearest whole number.

Hopefully, one or three Pacifica directors will persuade the NES to include them in the report. Those numbers should be prominently & proudly displayed. After all, this is the go-to document on a Pacifica high: “[v]oter turnout was higher than in any prior Pacifica election” (p. 1).

More importantly, not least for voters, the raw data, anonymised by each voter’s receipt code, haven’t been disclosed. They’ve been kept secret. Why? Why have voters been prevented from checking if their vote was properly recorded? Why? . . . More work for directors who care.

(awkward to read the NES’ posting of the report (viewing its pages at 67% may be adequate) – why no PDF? Note, to turn the pages of the doc on the webpage, hover just below the ‘0’ at the bottom, which is the page number. Also, the downloadable zip file, oddly, doesn’t include the NES’ report – as efficient as the US’ ‘Third World’ capitalist response to the work of the SARS-CoV-2 virus . . . somewhat worse than the usual ‘market failure’.)

~~~

[Remarks will follow as a separate post.]

Breakers get broken: Pacifica partisans get 66.0% listener-members, 65.2% staff-members

the certifications of the breaker exercise – which cost Pacifica members & listeners ~$100 001 . . . cool

https://elections.pacifica.org/ (copied at https://mega.nz/#F!hFkD3C4J!ZVuEamjMKKAtMuE6TPiwUg)

P.S. On the certificate, the word ‘abstain’ doesn’t have the ordinary meaning (77% of listener-members abstained in this referendum, & 48% of staff) but means invalid ballots (highly ambiguous paper-ballot, ballot full of vitriol, maybe the opportunity for a manifesto, plain blank, or any of the myriad of inventive ways a Pacif-I-can (nod to C Cuomo) can spoil a ballot).

~~~

[When this post was made, I added the below three points. Rather than add to this post, the remarks will appear as separate posts.

  • (1) A few remarks will soon appear below; note that paper-voting, mainly East Coast, was way down.
  • (2) The remarks will also cover the need for the PNB to address two strategic matters:
  • (a) the $3.265m principal of the FJC loan, payable 1Apr2021; &
  • (b) the coming collapse in revenue, as the economic depression underway slashes listeners’ discretionary spend; the only obvious, yet highly regrettable, mitigation is that bequests will increase thru to, at least, Dec2021.
  • (3) A separate post will be made when the NES publishes her report, with station data, later this week (inshallah).]

Screwed? Counting underway, 2 yards apart, results due this weekend: whither?

Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F6Mar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Th19Mar . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .voters . e-voting . . .e:p . . . . . p- . . . .total . . . .e- % . . . . . e- . . . . . p- . . . . total . t’out %

KPFA . . 12385 . . . 2032 . . . 83:17 . . . 416 . . . 2448 . . . 40.41 . . . 3794 . . . 777 . . . 4571 . . 36.9

KPFK . . 13607 . . . 1001 . . . 87:13 . . . 150 . . . 1151 . . . 19.90 . . . 1869 . . . 279 . . . 2148 . . 15.8

KPFT . . . 4327 . . . . 468 . . . .89:11 . . . . 58 . . . . 526 . . . . 9.31 . . . . .874 . . . 108 . . . . 982 . . 22.7

WPFW . .6029 . . . . 686 . . . .50:50 . . . 686 . . . 1372 . . . 13.64 . . . 1281 . . 1281 . . . 2562 . . 42.5

WBAI . . .5761 . . . . 842 . . . .54:46 . . . 717 . . . 1559 . . . 16.74 . . . 1572 . . 1339 . . . 2911 . . 50.5

. . . . . . . .42109 . . . 5029 . . . . . . . . . . . 2027 . . .7056 . . . . . . . . . . . .9390 . . 3784 . . 13174

turnout . . . . . . . . 11.9% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16.8% . . . . . . . . . . .22.3% . . . . . . . . .31.3%

expected listener-member turnout

Referenda voting ended Thursday, 19Mar, on the proposed new Pacifica constitution. A ‘no’ vote was rejecting the anti-democratic, authoritarian move by the breakers, longstanding campaigners to break up the Pacifica network.

Three topics:

  • expected listener-member turnout
  • predicted listener-member voting
  • the staff-member referendum

Expected listener-member turnout

The above table is an expectation of listener-member voting in the referendum, generated by the application of two assumptions upon published & reliable leaked data.

Highlights:

  • if the culture of high paper-voting on the East Coast persists, the NES’ data imply an unusually high total turnout from those stations, delivering big ‘no’ votes, 43% at WPFW & 51% at WBAI;
  • this compares with KPFA achieving 37%;
  • expected total turnout, 31%;
  • actual turnout by online-voters alone is twice that of each of last year’s two rounds of total LSB voting (so including their paper-voting); &
  • total turnout is expected to be x3 that of those 2019 LSB rounds.

Published data:

NES Renee Penaloza’s nominal 2018 LSB pseudo-elections final report, no date (published 18Mar2019) https://mega.nz/#!Yc83WCTT!fxdIWgniK1oLwMqPssGaWDt_qdkQfdaSoEBH0sOClUI

referenda online-voting update, 9.02pm [so presumably PDT], Th19Mar https://mega.nz/#F!dN1VXLiQ!ywTPcyUP8SWg4BviRNx1xw (#6 in the series)

Leaked data: NES’ emails to the Pacifica directors, Th5Mar & F6Mar https://pacificaradiowatch.home.blog/2020/03/17/screwed-qm-1-in-13-purged-from-the-listener-elector-roll-wbai-culled-by-30pc-whilst-kpft-grows-by-21pc-update-on-the-th5mar-pnb-figures/

Assumptions:

  • the proportion of each station’s paper-voting (‘e:p’ in the table, the ratio) is the same as given in the last publicly available LSB data, per the nominal 2018 final report (the Jan-Mar2019 voting for all stations bar WPFW; that station in the 2016 LSB election; please see pp. 17 & 19); in all likelihood it’s less, with increased internet usage, but applying a factor of 10% or 20% (a deflator) would be unnecessarily speculative; &
  • final online-voting (‘e-voting’ in the table) is split between the stations in the same ratio as at F6Mar; so this assumes the KPFA online surge at 6Mar not only didn’t exhaust itself but was maintained, so keeping its 40% share of online-voting.

Predicted listener-member voting

Station . . . . No . . . . .Yes . . Yes %

KPFA . . . . . 2000 . . .2571 . . . 56

KPFK . . . . . 1400 . . . .748 . . . 35

KPFT . . . . . . .582 . . . .400 . . .41

WPFW . . . .2400 . . . . 162 . . . .6

WBAI . . . . .2800 . . . . 111 . . . .4

Total . . . . . 9182 . . . 3992

Two assumptions are made above, & in the 11Mar post a guess was made of the breakers’ core support, 1 200 – 1 500 KPFA & KPFT listener-members. Given this, the above rough prediction is made: a ‘no’ vote of 70% wins, rejecting the breakers.

https://pacificaradiowatch.home.blog/2020/03/11/is-pacifica-about-to-get-screwed-qm-kpfa-overperforming-by-c-70pc-wbai-underperforming-by-c-29pc/

The staff-member referendum

Remember, the breakers need to win both referenda to effect their proposed change.

The electorate was 955. Paper-voting is likely to be immaterial; for example, it was only 4 out of 466 in the Jan-Mar2019 LSB voting. In the referendum, the NES says 51.4% voted, so 491. (Turnouts in last year’s LSB voting: 47.6% in Jan-Mar, 36.7% in Aug-Oct.) If all 491 are valid ballots, that means 246 wins this is 32 more than the KPFA electorate. The station turnouts at F6Mar: KPFA 36%, KPFK 17%, KPFT 27%, WPFW 35%, WBAI 44%. Being so high, it makes no sense trying to estimate expected station final turnouts.

Could the breakers have garnered 246 staff? Unlikely.

~~~

POSTSCRIPT on the virus (SARS-CoV-2) causing the disease (COVID-19)

Article by Mike Davis, from last Saturday, 14Mar; hopefully he’s interviewed by KPFK, if not KPFA.

https://jacobinmag.com/2020/03/mike-davis-coronavirus-outbreak-capitalism-left-international-solidarity/

Public health officials, worldwide, knew a global health emergency was coming. The World Health Organization (WHO) even explicitly warned of highly infectious disease yet to come into existence, which it designated as Disease X: “[t]he needs for research preparedness for a new disease were also deemed to fit into the ‘urgent’ category” (report on 8-9Dec2015 workshop, page 2). WHO also made a very short vid on this, Mar2018. And it was even discussed 10 months before the COVID-19 outbreak, at the winter playground of the Masters of the Universe, Davos – discussed when the media were focusing on Greta.

https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/blue-print/blueprint-for-r-d-preparedness-and-response-meeting-report.pdf (8-9Dec2015); https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBM8emEVe8Q (WHO explain the Disease X conception, Mar2018; 2mins) & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gBDkXzgMDM (Davos, Feb2019; 58mins)

Healthcare professionals also did their part preparing the public. In 2018, for example, Peter Piot, head of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, gave a Royal Institution lecture, Are we ready for the next pandemic?.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=en06PYwvpbI (29June2018, 1:02:00)

The public was also made aware through simulations such as this, also from 2018, one that took place in Australia, This is not a drill: a hypothetical pandemic‘.

https://www.wheelercentre.com/broadcasts/this-is-not-a-drill-a-hypothetical-pandemic (bios of participants) & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4zaazgR87k (6Sep2018; 59mins; only 26k views, but it’ll grow)

Finally, handwashing vids from WHO & the US’ CDC; the WHO one is done by Dr Tedros, the world’s fave Ethiopian, who when he’s not modelling, pursues his day job, Director-General of the WHO:

& https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d914EnpU4Fo (where’s Dr Fauci when you need him?)

More than 18 months of multiple waves of illness? Fed COVID-19 ‘plan’ for the people, dated 13Mar2020

. . . whither the world? . . . whither Pacifica? . . .

PanCAP, your friend? Who knew?

“A pandemic will last 18 months or longer and could include multiple waves of illness

(p. 4, added emphases)

“Supply chain and transportation impacts due to ongoing COVID-19 outbreak will likely result in significant shortages for government, private sector, and individual U.S. consumers” (p. 4, added emphases)

Universal susceptibility and exposure will significantly degrade the timelines and efficiency of response efforts” (p. 4, added emphases)

A COVID-19 pandemic environment will require modification to concurrent disaster response operations (e.g., increased levels of personal protective equipment (PPE), restricted interactions with survivors and stakeholders, resource prioritization)” (p. 5, added emphases)

Implementation of community mitigation measures may adversely impact sustained operations of U.S. healthcare facilities, critical infrastructure, and government” (p. 5, added emphases)

COVID-19 vaccine research, development, production, and distribution are under rapid development and will take extended time to develop” (p. 4, added emphases)

Aim: “COVID-19 response and recovery worker safety and health protection measures have been developed and compliance measures have been implemented” (p. 7). Already not achieved.

“Purpose[:] This plan outlines the United States Government (USG) coordinated federal response activities for COVID-19 in the United States” (p. 1)

“A nimble, effective COVID-19 response with flexible sustainable capabilities will save lives and mitigate social and economic disruption” (p. 7). Sure.

“The first U.S. case of COVID-19 was confirmed in Washington State on January 20

(p. 1, added emphases)

(“PanCAP Adapted”, in the doc’s title, means this COVID-19 response plan is an adaptation of the Pandemic Crisis Action Plan: “[t]he PanCAP, approved in January 2018, operationalizes the BIA [Biological Incident Annex] with a focus on potential viral pandemic pathogens. The COVID-19 Response Plan outlines adapted federal response actions for the response to this disease” (p. 6, all added emphases, for the titles).)

~~~

. . . meanwhile they frolic in the Floridian ocean . . .

. . . it may be Spring Break for humans, but for Viro the Virus it’s work, work, work . . .

Video published M16Mar by the local TV company.

It’s why Kang & Kodos, for eons, simply observe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kang_and_Kodos

~~~ ~~~ ~~~

Pacifica’s future was largely structured by the $3.265m loan from the Foundation for the Jewish Community, FJC. Now it’s the effects of the virus, SARS-CoV-2.

~~~

Breaking the story: Peter Baker & Eileen Sullivan, ‘U.S. Virus Plan Anticipates 18-Month Pandemic and Widespread Shortages’, NYT, Tu17Mar2020:

Click to access full.pdf

Permanent posting of the doc:

https://mega.nz/#!BFkEGISB!5MXaxUANc8XxYSzvBeV6AZ2FIzLmhmnx7j48_ouW4JA

Screwed? 1-in-13 purged from the listener elector roll, WBAI culled by 30%, whilst KPFT grows by 21% – update on the Th5Mar PNB figures

the four tables sent by NES Penaloza to the PNB, Th5Mar (the first in the sequence) & F6Mar2020; elector & online-voting totals for Pacifica & stations, split for listeners & staff in the last two tables

The listener elector rolls for the referendum are drastically different from those used just nine weeks ago in the 2019 LSB pseudo-elections. There’s been a shocking, sudden change. A strange change. A Pacifica purge has been perpetrated, particularly at WBAI. And the Lord has delivered unto KPFT a heavenly host of new believers. Besides the practical implications for these existential referenda, there’s a lot here that needs explaining.

Highlights, the changes in only nine weeks:

  • listener-membership has fallen 3 581 (−7.84%, 1-in-13), from 45 690 to 42 109
  • KPFA listeners −13.6%, so 1-in-7 (14 334 → 12 385, so −1 949)
  • KPFT listeners +21.2% (3 569 → 4 327, so +758)
  • WBAI listeners −30.1% (8 240 → 5 761, so −2 479)
  • WPFW listeners −4.2% (6 293 → 6 029, so −264)
  • staff membership has fallen −1.5% (970 → 955, so −15)

Five topics are addressed:

  • the listener referendum online-voting data – including necessary revisions to last Wednesday’s blogpost
  • adding in estimated paper-voting
  • the staff referendum
  • predicted referenda turnout
  • final, regrettable point: the coronavirus societal crisis, Pacificans (not least re the age structure & existing ill-health conditions), & the $3.265m loan from the Foundation for the Jewish Community (FJC); this crisis of capitalist society will necessarily cause both the largest & the swiftest contraction in the world economy in human history.

[I’ll finish writing this, & its replacement will be posted on the blog a day late, so apologies, on Referendum Day, Th19Mar.

[Just noticed that the NES, after seven l-o-n-g days of silence, has just given a turnout update (online voting only, take note). The W11Mar one gave listeners 13.8% (~5 811) & staff 34.7% (~331). The one denoted an ambiguous 1.42am (EDT?), W18Mar, gives listeners 19.0% (~8 001) & staff 42.2% (~403). So, added votes of 2 190 listeners (+37.7%) & 72 staff (+21.8%). The listener surge is a whole week of 313 a day, compared with 232 a day for the difference between 9 & 11Mar, the previous updates.

https://mega.nz/#F!dN1VXLiQ!ywTPcyUP8SWg4BviRNx1xw (#5 in the series)]

Is Pacifica about to get screwed?!? KPFA voting overperforming by ~70%, WBAI underperforming by ~29%

. . . not Michael Wolgemut, Tanz der Gerippe [Skeletons], woodcut, c. 1493 . . .

Latest election news: unless Pacificans act swiftly, Pacifica may die.

Why? KPFA listener-members are massively out in force, seemingly close to half of all those who have voted. Th5Mar marked halfway thru the referenda voting, &, compared with that stage in the LSB voting this time last year, KPFA is overachieving by a full 70%. This contrasts with WBAI underachieving by 29%. (All workings given below.)

Also, after less than a mere 17 days of voting, KPFA-listener online voters alone, so not including paper voters, had already surpassed by 4% the total KPFA-listener vote in the 62 days of the last LSB voting, Aug-Oct2019; KPFT’s figure is even better, +16%. And WBAI? Way down, by over an eighth, a full −13%; with WPFW −1%, & KPFK −27%.

The activists of the breaker faction are spreading their tentacles amongst the winners here, the Bay Area & Houston. Their operation is in overdrive.

Without a dramatic increase in voting by 10.59pm CDT a week Thursday, 19Mar, in just eight days’ time, the well-oiled, well-funded, well-motivated breakers will seize Pacifica. Well, maybe.

~~~

Black milk.

~~~

That KPFA listeners are voting in highly disproportionate numbers was given in info provided by the National Elections Supervisor (NES) to the PNB, Th5Mar. And as the peculiar home of a station chauvinism, a politics of separatism rather than Pacifica solidarity, they’re not doing this to help Pacifica. It’s reasonable – and prudent – to infer that this dangerous anomaly is the result of the breakers successfully mining the huge numbers of KPFA listener-members who usually don’t vote. Just in the last year, they constituted 86.7% in the nominal 2018 LSB pseudo-election, voting 18Jan-5Mar2019, & 85.6% in the 2019 one, voting 15Aug-15Oct2019. That’s 13 513 & 12 275, respectively, so >12 000 KPFA listeners. And as one can reasonably expect ~8 000 to vote in the listener referendum, it taking 4 000 to win, this is an obvious road to victory. (There are separate referenda for listeners & staff – please see note #1.)

Spin a yarn about Make KPFA Great Again, KPFA for KPFA’ians, stop the subsidising of other stations, get rid of the Pacifica dysfunctionality, the perpetual factionalising, the bad publicity, all this by bringing in professionalism, objectivity, getting the grants back, investing in the future . . . just like the good olde days, when KPFA was great. Motherhood & apple pie. Wave that magic wand, & the bad stuff will all go away. Unicorns. Rainbows. Pink ponies. If free snake oil is offered to the tired & weary, will they gulp it down? Giving credit where credit’s due, even deceiving is a skilled accomplishment.

~~~

Black milk.

~~~

So what’s the evidence of this rallying in the Bay Area? NES Renee Penaloza, resident of the Bay Area & many times the Local Elections Supervisor for KPFA since 2009 (note #2), gave an appallingly bad ‘report’ Thursday night, even by her standard, & I’m not even referring to her keeping the directors waiting nine minutes once she was on the call (31:59), the lame excuse she gave (40:52), also later not being able to find relevant tabs to open, the chaotic concatenation & continual cascade of Biden moments, &, last but not least, her laughter throughout, as if performing une danse macabre, ein Totentanz – obviously all of which passes for professionalism, & courtesy, in her neck of the woods. And all achieved in less than 4½ minutes (42:52 – 47:13). https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/pnb200305/pnb200305a.mp3

Nevertheless, she did say turnout (when?) is 11.7% for listeners & 30.1% for staff (46:46). (Monday, with a 2pm (EDT?) 9Mar timestamp, she updated this on her website to 12.7% listeners, 32.3% staff.) And, responding to a query from James Sagurton (WBAI listener-delegate), she eventually said the station-split for listeners who had voted online was KPFA 40%, KPFK 20%, KPFT 10%, WPFW 13%, & WBAI 17% (49:29 – 54:52). She gave no staff info, other than the turnout percentage. She gave no info on the online/paper voting split, on which more anon. She didn’t give the size of the electorates, those for the listeners & the staff. She didn’t coherently give station split for listeners, just a garbled spiel as if encountering her words for the first time, so bad she made Biden look good (note #3). And she didn’t give the record date for the referenda (used in establishing who’s a voter). In others words, she said very, very little. Which is how the NES, ever shy of the PNB, likes to operate – and it’s indicative of how lax the directors are that she’s allowed to persist. But as Cde Mujica no doubt thought, alone at the bottom of the well that was his prison, we are where we are.

https://mega.nz/#F!dN1VXLiQ!ywTPcyUP8SWg4BviRNx1xw (folder of NES’ updates of turnouts, starting M2Mar; regrettably, the NES has decided that members & listeners only need to see the latest such update)

~~~

So what can we do with the NES’ figures? A fair bit, surprisingly. We can derive other approximate numbers, compare the listener referendum with the last two sets of LSB pseudo-elections, & estimate what the breakers have to do to win. This will allow us to put in perspective what’s at stake in the next eight days, with voting closing, as stated, at 8.59pm PDT, Th19Mar.

But first, two important caveats:

  • the subject matter of voting is radically different, one, run-of-the-mill LSB elections, the other, existential for the network; &
  • radically different time scales; not just the voting period (31 days compared with 47 & 62 for the last two rounds of LSB pseudo-elections, so half of the last one), but the preparation for the event being so asymmetric, it coming out of the blue, sprung on the whole membership, it being the initiative of the breakers, of their planning (that is, scheming, conspiring, plotting), implemented as a sequence of creating – and sustaining – an atmosphere of impending doom, moving against WBAI within committees, then switching tack by launching the by-laws petition, before within weeks engineering the WBAI coup, back to the West Coast to litigate in California against Pacifica, & now systematically bombarding voters with their fairytales. Wolfowitz & Rumsfeld would be proud of this attempt at full-spectrum domination.

Concerning the listener quantitative data, two obvious comparisons can be made:

➀ how extraordinary is KPFA-listener referendum voting, relative to other stations, compared with typical LSB election voting, again expressed relatively? (This, being not just relative voting but relative voting over time (the relative voting at t2 compared with that at t1), is what’s important in trying to understand the significance of the voting happening now. This is the comparative we need for relative current voting, not the one offered up by the NES at the PNB, namely, station share of listener current membership. No. What’s at stake today is voting, not membership; action, not passivity. The comparison pushed by the NES is besides the point, a secondary phenomenon, a dangerous irrelevance: >85% of listener-members don’t vote!); &

➁ how unusually high is the number of listener referendum votes cast compared with the typical LSB election?

~~~

➀ We have to use the pretty graph found in the NES’ final report for the nominal 2018 LSB pseudo-elections (note #4). That’s because, even after four months, she’s failed to produce the 2019 one. (This fact obviously surprises Ms Penaloza herself, given what she said on her own website, 1Nov2019, ‘certifying’ the 2019 results: “[p]lease note the round by round results, raw votes and final [?] voter turnout #s will be posted together with the final report by November 15th, 2019” (added emphases). Rather than squirrelling it away as a footnote, it’s important to say that scare-quotes are needed in denoting her 1Nov2019 statement because she admits she’s unable to distinguish valid ballots from invalid ones: hence both her inability to give “final voter turnout #s”, & her need to entitle that column “Oct 16 Preliminary Numbers (Not Final)” (added emphases). By her choice of phrases she acknowledges that her statement isn’t a certification but a pseudo-certification. Oh. So have all the new LSB delegates legitimately taken their seats? Are some of them there illegitimately? https://elections.pacifica.org/wordpress/2019-election-results/)

Note that because the graph doesn’t give a split between paper & online voting, & that on Thursday the NES gave no info on the paper ballots cast (except to say she doesn’t even know how many there are), one has to use referendum online voting as a proxy for total votes. This is particularly unfortunate because listener-member paper voting is much higher in PacificaWorld than in RealWorld, of the order of 20%, with WBAI over twice that – note #5.

The graph shows cumulative voting, as a percentage of that pseudo-election’s electorate, for each of the nine pseudo-elections (there wasn’t a WPFW-Listener one because there were only five verified candidates for the nine seats); voting started 18Jan2019 but the NES only depicted that from 30Jan; the staff elections are on top, the dotted lines:

https://elections.pacifica.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Pacifica-Election-Final-Report-2018-by-RAP-1-1.pdf, p. 15 (p. 16 of the PDF); as things go missing in PacificaWorld, it’s also at https://mega.nz/#!Yc83WCTT!fxdIWgniK1oLwMqPssGaWDt_qdkQfdaSoEBH0sOClUI

So, which LSB voting date from a year ago should be used in comparing the referendum info given on Thursday? Assuming this info referred to the day of the PNB meeting, it was less than 24 hours after the halfway point of the voting period (W4Mar is day 16 of the 31, 18Feb-19Mar). So choose this. And the day halfway thru the voting a year ago is 10Feb2019 (day 24 of the 47, 18Jan-5Mar).

And at 10Feb2019, what was the station split for listeners? Inspecting the graph, station cumulative listener voting was KPFT 6.0%, WBAI 6.0%, KPFA 5.8%, KPFK 3.7%; that totals as 21.5 percentage points (pcp); & expressed as percentages, KPFT 27.9% (6 / 21.5), WBAI 27.9%, KPFA 27.0%, KPFK 17.2%.

Thursday’s figures (but ignoring WPFW because there’s no comparative) are, in pcp, KPFA 40, KPFK 20, KPFT 10, WBAI 17; that totals as 87; & as percentages, KPFA 46% (40 / 87), KPFK 23%, KPFT 11%, WBAI 20%.

Was this striking distribution expected? If referendum voting had behaved as the LSB voting 12 months before, one would have expected the numbers given two paragraphs above, namely, KPFA 27%, KPFK 17%, KPFT 28%, WBAI 28%. But that’s not what happened: KPFA overachieved by 70% (46 / 27 = 1.704), KPFK overachieved by 35% (23 / 17 = 1.353), KPFT underachieved by 61% (11 / 28 = 0.393), & WBAI underachieved by 29% (20 / 28 = 0.714). (And I don’t even like baseball.)

This distribution alone required this blogpost.

~~~

➁ The first comparative exercise concerned station share. Now we compare the absolute numbers achieved by the stations: how unusually high is the referendum turnout compared with the typical LSB one?

As noted, the latest publicly available listener-member data are at an unspecified date, given in the 1Nov2019 LSB results pseudo-certification, a total of 45 690. Assuming it’s now 45 700, with the NES telling Thursday’s PNB that online listener-member turnout was 11.7%, & the voting station split being KPFA 40%, KPFK 20%, KPFT 10%, WPFW 13%, WBAI 17%, the listener ballots cast come in as a total of ~5 347, the split being KPFA 2 139, KPFK 1 069, KPFT 535, WPFW 695, WBAI 909.

The 1Nov2019 corresponding figures: a total of 5 729, with KPFA 2 059, KPFK 1 457, KPFT 461, WPFW 703, WBAI 1 049.

So, comparing now with then: KPFA +3.9%, KPFK −26.6%, KPFT +16.1%, WPFW −1.1%, WBAI −13.3%, & the total is −6.7%. Bit different from the non-threatening comparison made by Renee, yes?

A surprise here is KPFT. How is it that it has underperformed 61% relative to other stations re the comparison with the Jan-Mar2019 LSB voting, yet is one of only two stations increasing its number of voters, by a very healthy 16%, compared with its own Aug-Oct2019 LSB voting? A different comparative, yes, but KPFT is overperforming in getting out the referendum vote (the KPFT breakers mining their own 87% of habitual abstainers, all 3 105 of them) whilst at the same time it’s dragged down in its comparison with the other stations because the extraordinary surge at KPFA, & the lesser one at KPFK, are snatching pcp from the other stations. That’s why.

~~~

Lastly, what do the breakers have to do to win? Where would their votes come from?

As mentioned, Monday the NES updated last Thursday’s listener turnout, up 1.0 pcp to 12.7% (another ~457 votes, >100 a day, so making ~5 804). And inspecting the graph, even when recognising the lower participation rate depicted, there may be in the last 10 days of voting a maximum of 4.5 – 5.5 pcp of listener voters still to come (2 200, say). That would make the turnout 17.2% – 18.2%. Applied to an electorate of 45 700, that’s 7 860 – 8 317 voters; making the winning vote 3 931 – 4 159, so ~4 000.

Can the breakers achieve this? Just considering their base, the last two rounds of LSB voting were KPFA ~2 000 & KPFT ~500. If the breakers can count on 1 200 – 1 500 faithful, is it beyond the bounds of plausibility that the breakers can mine 2 500 – 2 800 abstainers, which is 16% – 18% (1-in-6, say) of the ~15 500 abstainers at those two stations? 1-in-6 is a tall order, don’t you think, more than a bridge too far? But the 10-year-old Barron thought the same.

Crucially, to seize Pacifica, the breakers also have to win the staff referendum. And how many may that be?

The latest publicly available figure (per the 1Nov2019 pseudo-certification) gave 970 staff: KPFA 237, KPFK 285, KPFT 139, WPFW 110, WBAI 199. Staff turnout in the Jan-Mar2019 LSB votings was 47.6% (466 / 978 – note #6), the station range 43% (WPFW) – 53% (KPFA); & in Aug-Oct2019 voting, a turnout of 36.7% (356 / 970), station range of 30% (KPFT) – 44% (KPFA). The latest referendum turnout info is 32.3% (NES, Monday); so, looking at the pretty graph again, if it reached 50%, & there are 970 staff, then 243 staff votes win – a mere six votes more than those available at KPFA during the last LSB voting.

Given this, with Pacifica jobs always on the line, wasn’t it super-convenient that last nite’s PNB Finance Cttee was full of doom? It was the correlate of the Dem party bosses orchestrating the spectre of ‘Firebrand’ Bernie frightening Amerika, crouching down, about to spark the prairie fire. Besides Chief Financial Officer Anita Sims being there, Chair Chris Cory (KPFA, of course, a listener-delegate) usurped the work of the PNB Audit Cttee by wheeling in the auditor, Jorge Diaz.

Jorge Diaz. It had been thought the auditors had fled PacificaWorld, it now being seven long months, at the M19Aug2019 Audit Cttee, since they were last mentioned in public. This was indeed the last time the Cttee met, inexplicably so because Jorge had told them that the FY2018 audit’s, effectively, almost wrapped up: “he [George Walter, NETA senior controller] informed me he should be getting the vast majority of what is still outstanding to us by the end of this week [… and] by at least the end of this month we’ll certainly probably be in a really good position in terms of – and really know where we stand in terms of how getting the deliverables to y’all & getting done” (7:32; full transcription at note #7). So it seems, surprise, surprise, ED Venal Vernile, then ED Lawrence Reyes, then ED Lydia Brazon, didn’t prioritise paying them, even if it took a special pan-Pacifica 24hr fundraiser. Last nite, Jorge says now they’re only owed ~$6 550, so that’s not a prob – which is why he was happy to attend an evening meeting after a hard day in the office (8:25).

https://pacificaradiowatch.home.blog/auditor-s-reports-from-fy2005/ (its note 4); https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/audit/190819/audit190819a.mp3; & https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/finance/200310/finance200310a.mp3 (there’s a ‘b’ file too)

Finally, it’s worth remembering that the difficult task of the breakers winning the staff referendum would have been made easier if the WBAI coup had succeeded: it would have not just wiped out one of the five staff constituencies but the one most opposed to breaking up the Pacifica network.

And, yes, voting closes 11.59pm EDT a week Thursday, 19Mar.

This is just the beginning of the current phase. If the breakers don’t win this time, they’ll be back. And they’ll continue pursuing their war of attrition on all sorts of other fronts, as they have already shown. Like a hydra, slice off a head, another grows. They’re not going away any time soon. Welcome to the new normal.

Black milk.

~~~

https://www.lyrikline.org/de/gedichte/todesfuge-66 (recited by author)

~~~

Notes – some longish, but worth a read unless you really have to watch another Weekend at Biden’s vid

#1 Why are there separate member referenda for listeners & staff, rather than a single one? This hasn’t been explained publicly by Pacifica, & no elected representative has raised the absence of this basic courtesy. Nevertheless, the reason why there are two was explained by this blog six months ago, 17Sep2019. A by-law steps in because the proposed new constitution adversely affects, in different respects, both classes of Pacifica members: “such adoption, amendment or repeal also requires approval by the members of a class if such action would materially and adversely affect the rights of that class as to voting or transfer in a manner different than such action affects another class” (Article 17, Section 1(B)(iii), added emphases). The different respects: “[o]ne contest is for listener-members, as what’s proposed adversely affects them more than staff-members, facing the loss of the right to elect three directors per station rather than the staff’s one. The other separate contest is for staff, as they’re adversely affected by the loss of the right itself to become a director (proposed by-laws, Article V, Section 1; page 5).”

https://pacificaradiowatch.home.blog/2019/09/17/petition-is-for-dissolving-pacifica-not-for-new-by-laws-franck-faction-mobilise-hypocritically/ & https://pacifica.org/indexed_bylaws/art17sec1.html

#2 Remember, NES Penaloza aligns with the breakers: witness her recommendations in the last final report she issued (undated, but published 18Mar2019 on the NES website), the one for the LSB pseudo-elections this time last year. She advocates (a) dissolution of the Local Station Boards, (b) less frequent elections, (c) a correlate, extending the director term by either x3 or x4, & (d) abolition of paper balloting. Sample quote: “Transform the Governance structure – Have 5 simultaneous elections every 3 or 4 years, electing representatives directly to the Pacifica National Board – Replace Local Station Boards with active Community Advisory Boards” (p. 20, emphases removed from title; p. 21 of the PDF).

https://mega.nz/#!Yc83WCTT!fxdIWgniK1oLwMqPssGaWDt_qdkQfdaSoEBH0sOClUI

#3 NES Penaloza’s unfortunate incoherence, splitting her mind whilst trying to produce speech on some split or another, suggested a disturbing Pacifica fact. She had given one split, without saying what it was, one adding up to 98 percentage points (pcp), with KPFK higher than KPFA (32 cf. 29), before promptly scrubbing it. Then she tried another, this time with KPFK at 30 & KPFA at 29, a split adding up to 97. If there’s some truth here, perhaps about relative station listener membership, it’s that compared with the last publicly available membership data (her 1Nov2019 LSB results pseudo-certification), WBAI’s share has dropped 4 pcp, being picked up by KPFA +1, KPFK +1, & KPFT +2, this whilst Pacifica is suffering a continuing downward trend in total listener membership. The other slither of truth may be that KPFA is actually 32%, plausible because it was 31.4% in the 1Nov2019 data – the NES simply repeating KPFA’s 29 from the scrubbed split. Anyway, applying the prudence principle beloved by the accountancy profession, one should recognise that Renee is disorientated, perhaps having caught bidenavirus, BIDVID-20, from ideologically enthusiastic Pacificans.)

Renee’s problems persist, because at the Th5Mar PNB she promised the directors, the members, & the listeners, that she’d post on her website the referendum voting report. Of course, now six days later, it isn’t there. Just like the promised final report for the 2019 LSB pseudo-elections & the certification of the final voting numbers. Waiting . . . waiting . . . waiting . . . https://pacificaradiowatch.home.blog/2019/07/19/the-godot-page-waiting-for-good-news/

#4 The two sets of LSB electoral activity in 2019 have to be designated as pseudo-elections, given the complete absence of publicly available evidence that the elector rolls are materially accurate. In Oct2018 the then NES, the outsider Graeme Drew, judged Pacifica’s record-keeping to be so poor he couldn’t validate even one candidate. He found the membership rolls used to generate the elector rolls to be so corrupted they were unusable. He decided “to terminate the 2018 election process” & told the PNB he would make a public announcement the next day. So, of course, he got fired that evening, at an emergency PNB meeting. Since then, only Pacifica insiders have been the NES, & they have failed to publish any contrary evidence, only bare assertions. This creates a reasonable & strong doubt about the legitimacy of the process. So the only rational conclusion, based on the balance of probabilities, is that the two 2019 electoral processes were pseudo-elections.

https://pacificaradiowatch.home.blog/2019/07/19/2019-lsb-elections-are-another-pseudo-election-no-public-evidence-that-elector-rolls-materially-accurate/

#5 The latest publicly available data on the popularity for paper voting come from the LSB pseudo-elections this time last year (NES final report, p. 17; p. 18 of the PDF). For staff, it was smaller than negligible, 4 ballots across the five stations (466 voted). For listeners, 20% exactly (1 044 / 5 219; remember, no WPFW election). The stations: KPFA 17% (358 / 2 072), KPFK 13% (201 / 1 585), KPFT 11% (70 / 661), & WBAI 46% (415 / 901). Yes, 46% of WBAI listener voters used paper ballots, almost x3 the rate at KPFA.

https://mega.nz/#!Yc83WCTT!fxdIWgniK1oLwMqPssGaWDt_qdkQfdaSoEBH0sOClUI

And for WBAI listener-members it has even risen. Compared with the 2016 LSB election, almost 2½ years before, paper voting went up from ~381 (derived figure) to 415, increasing the paper voting share by a (rounded) 1 pcp – same report, pp. 17 & 19. So if this much truncated referendum process makes it harder to vote with paper rather than online, it’s perhaps unintended but still voter suppression . . . Exacerbating this is that tomorrow, Th12Mar, is the last day to request a paper ballot from the NES – and the convenient cut-off time is mid-afternoon on the East Coast, 3pm. Nice. After that, online voting only. So, for the last week of voting, Pacifica’s rush, quite a few listener-members will be faced with having to break the habit of a lifetime & vote online – or not vote at all.

https://mega.nz/#!tRVwVCbT!9X4x8Oj_a3aREztTyc2FvcasfHY2mflp1XaZWy0QCDo (screenshot of a soon to disappear NES’ homepage)

Please note that the NES’ final report gives station online & paper voting as a percentage of the particular electorate, be it listener-members or staff, so not as a percentage of those who voted – sound familiar? This missed the opportunity of giving publicity to the fact that within PacificaWorld, effectively half of station voting can be by paper – see pp. 17 & 19.

Lastly, the NES did her best last Thursday to explain to the directors, & the listeners of the proceedings, why she has no info on the paper ballots cast (51:50). Why the custodians of these ballots can’t give the running total (each day) to the NES is unfathomable – and, yes, no director thought to ask her. https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/pnb200305/pnb200305a.mp3

#6 The NES’ final report has quite a few errors, some, as here, contradicting the primary aggregating record, the voting raw data. For staff voting, her report understates by 85% the number of invalid ballots that she terms “abstain”, which are actually ballots listed in the raw data as having no preferences: she gives a total of 20 instead of the correct 37. Details in my 3Oct2019 blog post, https://pacificaradiowatch.home.blog/2019/10/03/lsb-voting-13-days-to-go-can-the-3-point-8-to-5-point-5-pc-listener-member-turnouts-at-20sep-reach-the-required-10-pc/.

#7 Jorge Diaz (auditor, Rogers & Co, M19Aug2019): “We’re making good headway with the [FY2018] audit. Um, there are still a few things that we’re waiting on […] I spoke with [George Walter, NETA senior controller] today – we have a status call every Monday – and, urgh, he informed me he should be getting the vast majority of what is still outstanding to us by the end of this week [F23Aug2019]. At that time it will probably take us, you know, um, three to five business days [so by F30Aug] to urgh, urgh, analyse & look at what’s going on, &, um, provide any follow-up questions or items of that nature, so, you know […] I think, um, you know, argh, by at least the end of this month we’ll certainly, probably, be in a really good position in terms of – and really know where we stand in terms of how getting the deliverables to y’all & getting done” (7:59 – 8:58, https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/audit/190819/audit190819a.mp3). So, Jorge presenting the draft auditor’s report to the PNB Audit Cttee & the PNB, within a month, yes, mid Sep? That’s Sep2019, not Sep2020.

The danger! The danger!

will the ‘no’ advocates now switch off?

RealWorld has Super Tuesday. PacificaWorld has Super Wednesday. (BidenWorld, apparently, has Super Thursday.) That’s halfway thru the voting period on the proposed new Pacifica constitution devised by the breakers.

And quora seem to have already been met. The National Elections Supervisor, the PNB-shy Renee Penaloza, posted an undated webpage on the official election site giving data for yesterday, M2Mar at 2.23pm (presumably ET):

% Voted – Listener = 9.84 %

Quorum = 10%

% Voted – Staff = 24.4 %

Quorum = 25%

https://elections.pacifica.org/wordpress/pacifica-bylaws-referendum-2020-voter-turnout-progress/

Concisely, 9.84% listeners, 24.4% staff.

The danger, of course, is that ‘no’ advocates switch off whilst the breaker ‘yes’ advocates beaver away with their wrecking.

SO, NO LET UP.

Keep pushing ‘no’ voters to vote.

(Yes – the only one we need – there is a nod to Korzeniowski.)

UPDATE (W4Mar): quora met per announcement from NES, 2.34pm (ET?), W4Mar. https://elections.pacifica.org/wordpress/pacifica-bylaws-referendum-2020-voter-turnout-progress/ (not a dedicated webpage for the episodic news), but the M2Mar & W4Mar screenshots are in this folder (even viewable without downloading), https://mega.nz/#F!ZN0wWYYR!nAQaIeZX6FGLcw64uhzBuA

Fed judge Paul Engelmayer, Pacifica, & Pamela Geller – Fed court, NYC, 3pm, M21Oct2019

. . . the federal judge for the M21Oct WBAI v. Pacifica hearing, someone with form: in 2012 he ruled as lawful this advert on buses of NY’s MTA . . .

The judge at today’s hearing is Paul Adam Engelmayer. On 20July2012 he ruled against the NY Metropolitan Transport Authority (MTA), after they had refused to carry on their buses an ad, shown above, that they saw violated their no-demeaning policy.

No prob for Paul, because the MTA’s no-demeaning policy was discriminatory, allowing the demeaning of those people not specifically denoted by the policy, &, anyway, this was a matter of core political speech, protected under the First Amendment.

So there you are. The group bringing the case got permission to carry out their plan, putting the ad on over 300 buses for four weeks. Free speech in action. A Pacifica value, yes?

And the group? The American Freedom Defense Initiative, obvious patriots. Not just that, but also defenders of the flag of liberty – libertarians, just like IEW Vernile, as evidenced by the radio interview I linked to on Su6Oct: https://pacificaradiowatch.home.blog/2019/10/06/john-vernile-prince-harry-and-charlotte-church-qm-and-quincy-mccoy-qm/.

AFDI is probably better known as SIOA, Stop Islamization of America. Again, a cutting-edge topic – as witnessed by urgent preemptory legislation carried in various state chambers west of the Appalachians. Keeping the citizenry safe.

SIOA came to prominence in 2010 when it protested a Muslim group planning to build a cultural & inter-faith centre a few blocks from the Twin Towers site. It gave plenty of free publicity to the two creators of SIOA, Pamela Geller & Robert Spencer.

But AFDI/SIOA do bring people together, perhaps unique in earning the condemnation of both the Southern Poverty Law Center & the Anti-Defamation League. No easy feat. But for judge Paul, the law’s the law.

We’ll see how Paul interprets the law today, be it in favour of the defenders of WBAI, or in favour of dictatorial wrecking by the Interim Executive Wrecker.

Sources:

https://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/03/style/weddings-e-f-mandelstam-paul-engelmayer.html (nuptials; “[h]is mother retired as a remedial reading specialist with the New York City Public Schools. His father is a lawyer in New York”; his parents-in-law, one a lawyer, the other “retired as the managing director of Ascap, the music licensing organization in New York”)