New USFA Officers - Nominating Committee Report?

[oso97]

As one of the members of the Nominating Committee, let me take a moment to say that this was by no means an easy decision. And from what I understand by talking to people who served on previous Nominating Committees, we conducted our business in a very different manner than previous sets. This was not a group dominated by one or two overwhelming personalities, nor was it one that had been put together with any specific person in mind for a leadership position. This was a group with its eye on both the grassroots and the elite levels of our sport, with a vast array of experience at many many different levels. Throughout our process, we were highly cognizant of the myriad issues facing our Association.

Some of the details of our deliberations we can share with you. Other details are privileged and confidential (like who voted how, what people said about certain candidates, and the nature and sources of specific advice and recommendations we received concerning candidates) in order to maintain the integrity of the Nominating Committee process.

A few specific points though about these people we nominated:

First, this is neither a collection of “insiders” nor is it composed of people who are without experience. Each of these people has contributed positively and significantly to the recent successes of community of fencing in our country, and are extremely well informed about the current state of the USFA, at both the macro level and the “on the ground” level. At the same time, this is not the group of people who are responsible for the significant challenges facing our Association. From our conversations with many people, it became quite obvious that there are two broad “camps” within the membership: Those who want to start over completely with a brand new organization, and those who don’t want to change anything. Neither of these is a tenable proposition, and this group of people will, in the opinion of the Nominating Committee, be able to make the compromises to make both groups happy.

Second, this is a TEAM of individuals. The ability to function in a team environment was one of the primary selection criteria we used. The issues facing our Association are too broad for any one particular individual to handle. It will take a group of dedicated and committed people to face these. Additionally, these people are not just committed to working in a team environment; they are committed to working in a team environment with each other.

Third, we feel that these people are in it “for the right reasons.” They do not have personal axes to grind, individual agendas to push, or are looking for some personal benefit. They do represent a diverse array of constituencies, but, we believe, have a demonstrated ability to look beyond narrow interests towards what is best for the organization in general.

And finally, with respect to the issue that Damon raised about international experience. This is not a group of neophytes, nor is it a group of people without the capability to operate internationally. Without going into the privileged details of our deliberations, let me just say that the Nominating Committee had at its disposal some unique resources with a wide variety of views regarding the “international situation,” the role of the USFA in it, and the roles specific individuals have played in the past and could play in the future. As KD5MDK pointed out, the situation is, at face value, could not be better for the USFA in regards to our FIE Committee representations. But, face value and reality are often two separate and disparate things. I don’t think this potential group of officers, and in particular, this potential president would be unable to operate successfully on the international stage. In fact, they have some very interesting ideas and plans about how the USFA and specific members of the USFA can operate within the USFA.

In conclusion, as ARC noted, the full report has been submitted. It is available, to any member who requests it, from the Secretary of the USFA. If you want to know more about these candidates we have nominated, request it and read it.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by USFA By-Laws

Where three or more candidates have qualified for any office, the ballot shall be designed according to a system of preferential voting.

Originally Posted by oiuyt

The elections committee determines the form of the ballot.

There is a potential problem right there.

Preferential voting is not a single type of voting, it refers to a class of voting systems in which the voters, on their ballots, rank the candidates according to their preference. Furthermore, those voting systems are designed to take into account voter preferences below the voter´s 1st preference. There are several preferential voting systems, the most known being Condorcet voting, Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) and Borda Count. For more background, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_voting

If one looks at the various Wikipedia articles on different voting systems, one will see that it is not irrelevant which voting system is used. The articles show this with a series of examples (concerning a hypothetical election on a relocation of the Tennessee capitol). In those examples, the same voter preferences are posited, but different voting systems give different outcomes.

Not only that. If the group which decides which preferential voting system should be used also has preferences of their own, and has a reasonably good knowledge of what the opinions within the electorate at large are, the deciding group can choose a preferential voting system which increases the chance of their own preferred candidate to win. However, I must point out that that only works if the preferences within the electorate are well split (i.e. one can´t work around a landslide). OTOH, if the deciding group has misjudged the sentiments among the electorate, judicious choice of voting system can lead to the outcome of the candidate preferred by the deciding group ending up lower than otherwise.

Skip 2 paragraphs if you don´t feel like reading about voting systems in detail.

Why does the choice of preferential voting system matter? Ideally, one would like to have a system in which no voter is inclined to vote which is not in accordance with his honest wishes. However, many voters do so, since they know full well that an honest vote would not accomplish anything under the present voting system, but that a somewhat dishonest vote would help their 2nd best wish. Why not design a voting system (which is centered on finding a sole winner) in which a voter never is tempted to vote dishonestly, since it would never be to that voters advantage? Well, since it can be proved (Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem) that such a voting system can not be constructed if there are at least 3 candidates, at least 3 voters, none of the voters is a dictator, and the voting system does not involve luck. There is also a similar impossibility proof for voting systems which are intended to produce an ordered list of all candidates, Arrow´s impossibility theorem.

Is there no workaround? Turns out that there is, if one lowers the criterion from being "impossible to subvert the voting system" to "really darn hard to subvert the voting system". Voting systems which use first a pre-round (in order to reduce the number of surviving candidates to 8, 16, 32, etc) and then use a DE system to find a sole winner can be constructed so that simultaneously:
1. It is relatively easy to calculate the winner, given the preference lists from all voters.
2. A voter which tries to subvert the system by not voting according his true preferences in order to increase the chance of his 2nd best scenario happening, will find it exceedingly hard to do so. That is true even if he knows in detail how all other voters will vote beforehand, and he has access to a strong computer. If the voter sentiment is not for a landslide (in which case he can not make a difference anyway), and there are sufficient number of candidates, it is so computationally difficult to calculate the best preference list (for his wishes) so that any commercially available computer is completely inadequate.
3. A voter, or a set of voters, which tries to subvert the system by voting dishonestly based on reasonable, but non-perfect, information of what other voters will vote will often find that their trickery results in their 2nd best wish being hurt, often critically so. There are examples of this in real elections.
As you see from these 3 points, the only viable voting strategy for a given voter is to vote according to his honest wish, and hope for the best. Voting systems of this type, hybrid voting algorithms, are described in the scholarly literature. Do a search for Vincent Conitzer and Tuomas Sandholm, if you are interested.

So there math-phobes, no need to close your eyes! Even you ( ) can understand the following text!

OK then, back to simpler matters: The specification in the rules of "preferential voting" is not sufficiently well specified. If there are at least 3 contenders one can be sure that there is some friction between various parts of the fencing community, and preferential treatment - in the form of a specific choice of voting system - will generate bad blood. Even if the deciding committee is perfectly objective when choosing voting system, the mere appearance of subjectivity is enough to make people grumpier than before. Witness the Florida bad blood! Do we need those feelings in fencing?

So, the best course is to decide which type of preferential voting should be used, well in advance of a vote. (Brad, consider this a suggestion for your to-do list!) Let us look of the short list of the more known preferential voting systems again:
1. Condorcet voting. Voters list all the candidates in preferential order. All possible pair of candidates are compared in head-to-head races. The candidate, if any, which wins all of his pairings wins the election.
Pro: Produces broadly acceptable winners, makes negative campaigning a very bad strategy. Very difficult for a voter to figure out a viable dishonest vote.
Con: Relatively computationally intensive (N-square proportional), often do not produce a sole winner in one step, requiring a tiebreaker calculation.
2. IRV voting. Voters list all the candidates in preferential order. Candidates are ranking according to how many 1st-hand choices they have. If one candidate has an absolute majority, he is declared winner. If not, the candidate with the lowest number of 1st-hand choices is removed from running, and the votes for him are redistributed on the other candidates according to his voter´s 2nd-hand choices. If this leads to any one candidate getting an absolute majority, he wins. Otherwise, the process is repeated until the winner is found.
Pro: Not much more computationally intensive than ordinary plurality voting (N proportional). Usually produces a broadly acceptable candidate. Negative campaigning is almost always a bad strategy. Usually difficult for a voter to figure out a viable dishonest vote. Always produces a sole winner.
Con: Under some quite specific and unusual circumstances, for a voter to rate candidate A higher than candidate B might hurt candidate A compared to B.
3. Borda Count.Voters list all the candidates in preferential order. Each candidate gets a large number of points for every voter which has him as 1st-hand choice, a somewhat lower number of points for 2nd-hand choices, and so on. The Candidate with the highest total points sum wins the election.
Pro: Simple calculations (N proportional). Usually, but by no means always, produces a broadly acceptable candidate. Negative campaigning is relatively often, but not always, a bad strategy. Produces a sole winner except in truly unusual cases.
Con: Really easy for a voter to figure out a viable dishonest vote - put your 1st-hand choice up top, and the main adversary at the bottom of the list, even below other candidates which you detest. A candidate which is rated #1 by an absolute majority of voters might easily lose the election. In contrast to almost all other voting systems, it is in many instances beneficial for a group to run many similar candidates, leading to crowded elections full of clones.

So, to sum it up: IRV is considerably simpler than Condorcet, and only slightly less resistant to dishonest voting. Compared to Borda count, IRV is only slightly more computationally intensive, but much more resistant to dishonest voting. I consider IRV as the best alternative among all preferential voting systems.


Oops! Too long post. Part #2 coming soon.

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by oiuyt

That said, I don't recall having seen a specific prohibition against holding multiple offices simultaneously. That's probably something that should get tossed over to the By-Laws Review Committee for inclusion if it's not in there. I know there are other limits (can't be an officer of a division/section, can't be an officer of another sport's NGB), must be a voting member.

Bold emphasis mine. Why this other NGB criterion? In Sweden, some people have been voted in on several NGB boards (don´t know if simultaneously, though). They were not there for their specific knowledge of the sport, they were there for their position in society outside the sport, and they were there for whatever their non-sport contact net could bring to the sport. Several members of the Royal family have done this. A former chairman of the Swedish Fencing Federation was a fencing parent, and CEO of a large paper firm. Useful in securing sponsorships. The current SvFF chairman is also chairman of the Sports Federation of Stockholm, our capital. I can not remember any case in which this had lead to conflicts of interest.

Imagine if Bill Gates´s children were active in two sports, one of them fencing. Furthermore, imagine if he would have been voted to the post of chairman of the sponsorship committee to the national board of that other NGB. Now, if he - as a fencing dad - would want to run for the same post in USFA, would that be bad? I would think that it would be just fine!

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Regarding the VPs, the positions are in theory all the same. In practice in USFencing we tend to divide up the responsibilities and they each have an area of oversight.
-B

So, if they are going to have distinct responsibilities, why are those not listed beside the nominated names?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[KD5MDK]

Members of other NGB boards cannot be an officer (President, VP, Secretary, Treasurer) of the USFA. They could be Board or Committee members.

So, if they are going to have distinct responsibilities, why are those not listed beside the nominated names?

I think the nominating committee would consider it inappropriate to act outside the bylaws. There is no mention of distinct responsibilies in the bylaws.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Bold emphasis mine. Why this other NGB criterion?

With no actual knowledge of the rationale, but merely as a guess, I could easily see this either being a USOC rule or a legacy of a former USOC rule.

-B

[DieterS]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

1. Condorcet voting. Voters list all the candidates in preferential order. All possible pair of candidates are compared in head-to-head races. The candidate, if any, which wins all of his pairings wins the election.

Haha . . . sorta like starting out with election pools before a DE election.

Dieter

[KD5MDK]

If the nominating committee were to include repechage they will be murdered in their sleep.

[edew]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

[...]
Imagine if Bill Gates´s children were active in two sports, one of them fencing. Furthermore, imagine if he would have been voted to the post of chairman of the sponsorship committee to the national board of that other NGB. Now, if he - as a fencing dad - would want to run for the same post in USFA, would that be bad? I would think that it would be just fine!
[...]

I could imagine that the tournaments would start 50 minutes after posted time, then had to be rebooted several additional times. Once in a while, the scoring machines would show the BSOD.

Seriously, I think the restriction against being on another NGB is just plain silly. In fact, I think we should have MORE people from outside the fencing community partake executive-level role in the sport. If there's one weak point about this sport and its administration, it is the lack of outside input. We've been way too incestuous in our officers and committee chairs. I've always advocated for bringing people from the outside, those who might have a peripheral connection to fencing (fencing mom/dad, for example).

[edew]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

If the nominating committee were to include repechage they will be murdered in their sleep.

But how to we give points to the top 40% of the nominees otherwise?

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

If the nominating committee were to include repechage they will be murdered in their sleep.

I think it's the elections committee that handles that.

The nominating committee should be done unless one (or more) of the nominated candidates withdraws or is otherwise found ineligible.

edit: or, I think, if the President is recalled during the next quad.

-B

[KD5MDK]

Doh. Of course, it hasn't been appointed. Repechage lovers should consider themselves warned to decline appointment.

[veeco]

Originally Posted by edew

I've always advocated for bringing people from the outside, those who might have a peripheral connection to fencing (fencing mom/dad, for example).

I my experience (limited at the club level), all fencing moms or dads who took a responsability in helping the club and became officers of that club were doing it not in the hopes to benefit the club itself, but with an more personal motive in mind.

I'd rather have fencers (or non-fencers, but non-parents) take care of the business side of things. Volunteer parents are usually great and really helpful, but once they are granted the power to make decisions that can affect other fencers, it's a bad idea.

In fact, I have systematically voted against the fencing dad / mom in all fencing elections I could vote in.

[Peach]

Originally Posted by veeco

n fact, I have systematically voted against the fencing dad / mom in all fencing elections I could vote in.

I don't think you'll have that option in this election, unless you're planning on not voting for President.

And I started out as a fencing mom, so even though I'm a competitive fencer, a coach, and a member of a USFA committee, and have been a referee and division officer, would you automatically vote against me should I run for office? Which I don't plan to do, BTW. So disregard the question.

[veeco]

Why would I vote against you? You're a fencer, and your kids, as I understand it, are in college or past it.

I don't have a problem with parents who fence with their kids. They have a vested interest in helping fencing.

What I have a problem with, is parents who try to help their kids first, and fencing second. It has been my experience that it is sometimes hard for parents to put the interest of the fencers first and foremost, before that of their kids. But I understand that this is probably going to be a very unpopular opinion around here.

[mgriff]

Originally Posted by veeco

In fact, I have systematically voted against the fencing dad / mom in all fencing elections I could vote in.

Just like Peach, I started out as a parent, too, getting into bout committee work as a way of having something useful to do at tournaments besides letting my stomach churn watching my kids fence. I've also been a division chair and a section officer in addition to running tournaments at all levels (except college and international). I've always thought being a section rep might be interesting work, except that I'd have to give up working national tournaments (because of the possibility of appeals to the board) and I'm not willing to do that.

Of course there are nutcase parents out there (I get to have nice little chats with many of them whenever I'm BC chair), but I don't think it's wise to generalize about us—there are many more useful fencing parents than wackos.

Mary

[Peach]

Originally Posted by veeco

I understand that this is probably going to be a very unpopular opinion around here.

It's going to be unpopular more because it's a overgeneralization error than because it hits home--there are certainly toxic parents in any enterprise involving children, but though the toxic ones stick out because of their awfulness, they are not the majority. I gave you a case -- mine -- describing a fencing parent, and you immediately said you don't have a problem with that type of fencing parent, so I suspect we could keep finding you other exceptions--as Mary diplomatically pointed out, just because they're out there doesn't mean we're all like that.

At any rate, I can think of some people who are NOT fencing parents who are pretty darn toxic . . .

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by edew

I could imagine that the tournaments would start 50 minutes after posted time, then had to be rebooted several additional times. Once in a while, the scoring machines would show the BSOD.

And that would be different from present-day competitions just how?

An idea: How about drafting Linus Torwalds for chairman of the committee which is tasked with seeing to it that competitions are run smoothly?

Originally Posted by edew

Seriously, I think the restriction against being on another NGB is just plain silly. In fact, I think we should have MORE people from outside the fencing community partake executive-level role in the sport. If there's one weak point about this sport and its administration, it is the lack of outside input. We've been way too incestuous in our officers and committee chairs. I've always advocated for bringing people from the outside, those who might