The Voting Process

[Peach]

Incidental commentary & reaction:
A friend in DC forwarded an e-mail that was sent to the membership there from ivlobane, forwarding a long e-mail message from jjefferies about the slates and urging consideration of the Tracy Hurley slate.
The friend says: Lordha' mercy -- this just came over the DCFC mailing list....
Given the source that posted it to the DCFC list, I'm pretty sure it's a bunch of . . .

[jjefferies]

Originally Posted by Peach

Incidental commentary & reaction:
A friend in DC forwarded an e-mail that was sent to the membership there from ivlobane, forwarding a long e-mail message from jjefferies about the slates and urging consideration of the Tracy Hurley slate.
The friend says: Lordha' mercy -- this just came over the DCFC mailing list....
Given the source that posted it to the DCFC list, I'm pretty sure it's a bunch of . . .

Geeze, and I don't even know the DCFC list.

[Peach]

Originally Posted by jjefferies

Geeze, and I don't even know the DCFC list.

Well, now they know you

[arc]

Originally Posted by jjefferies

HEY! If you don't feel like answering then don't. No one says that just because you are/were the chairman of the nominating committee that you have to.

Oh, but I enjoy pointing out when people are, at best, lazy and are filling up the forum with questions to which a momentary perusal of the appropriate governing documents would provide the answers, with the particular hope that others might take the lesson that self-education is preferable to being spoonfed answers by others. And I'm fairly certain that my status as chair of the NC wasn't mentioned, so out of curiosity, why do you feel the need to bring it up?

Originally Posted by jjefferies

As regards the Bylaws, the section you cited:

1. I believe you are citing the wrong Art. ArtXIII, Sec 5 deals with quorums in the USFA congress. I believe you are actually meaning Art XXV Elections.

Believe all you want, but you are mistaken. The copy of the Bylaws that is currently posted on the new website is incorrectly numbered as can be discerned by a simple review of the table of contents (which is correctly numbered, and which lists "Elections" under Article XIII, as I cited), and as many individuals have noted here on the fora. The correctly-numbered version (i.e., the one where the table of contents matches the section headings) is available on the old website, as I noted here. I'll grant it's an understandable mistake, but a mistake nonetheless.

Originally Posted by jjefferies

2. Further the correct article does not agree with your statement. It says
"e) The Election Committee shall be responsible to fairly administer the
election of National officers and balloting on other issues brought before the membership."

Again, in the vein of pointing out laziness, let's look at the entire text, shall we?

Originally Posted by USFA Bylaws, Art. XIII, Sec. 5(e)

The Election Committee shall be responsible to fairly administer the election of National officers and balloting on other issues brought before the membership. Only voting members of the USFA may serve on the Election Committee. The Committee shall validate the submissions of all candidates for nomination by petition; shall enforce such electoral rules not inconsistent with these Bylaws as the Board of Directors may adopt; shall provide for the mailing, validation and tallying of ballots; shall certify the results of the election; and shall arbitrate, after notice and an opportunity to be heard, the grievances of any interested party concerning electoral procedures. Each candidate for the office of President may designate a representative to attend meetings of the Committee, and reasonable notice shall be given to said representative to provide for fair opportunity to attend all meetings of the Committee, but not at the expense of the USFA. The proceedings of the Committee shall be open, except for deliberations in arbitration and consultations with counsel concerning legal matters within the protection of the attorney-client privilege.

Originally Posted by jjefferies

The question originally asked is who tabulates the votes. The election committee has the responsibility to administer but I find nothing in the By-Laws (sacred as they may be) which specifies who will do the actual counting.

So it is entirely possible that the election committee will count up the votes (please no cracks about if they can count that high ) or they could have an outside party tabulate the results. One might wonder if they have thought that far ahead.

While your second surmise is correct, inasmuch as the Election Committee presumably may by decision delegate the tallying of votes, my original statement that the Election Committee is responsible for that tabulation is strictly correct as noted in the bold text from the Bylaws.

Originally Posted by jjefferies

And say Arc, I understand that you may be new to this medium. But a suggestion, when you feel like venting it's always best to take a deep breath and think about it a while. And remember there are some of us here who are licensed to FLAME. But who have learned that it doesn't really help civil discourse. My most recent personal favorite bit of wit is that "The only stupid question is one you didn't ask"

This is the initial response that comes to mind in response to the latter statement ...

New to this medium? I think not, particularly as I've been using fora since back in the days when vi was one of the most common, and most powerful, editors. New to this forum? According to the stats, I've been a member longer than you ... so without further comment about the sanctimonious and patronizing nature of your remarks, I'll kindly thank you, sir, to keep your advice on forum etiquette to yourself, although I must give a word of gratitude for reminding me of the best bit of wisdom I've heard with respect to these types of discussions, to wit: never debate with a fool, because he'll drag you down to his level, and then beat you with experience.

[FencingKitten]

Does anyone else have Will Smith's "Welcome to Miami" running through their head as they picture the membership completing these ballots?

(Yes, I realize that the Florida debacle may have been legitimate confusion. I'm still going to find amusement somewhere, since I've cut back on my flippancy.)

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Originally Posted by arc

New to this medium? I think not, particularly as I've been using fora since back in the days when vi was one of the most common, and most powerful, editors. New to this forum? According to the stats, I've been a member longer than you ... so without further comment about the sanctimonious and patronizing nature of your remarks, I'll kindly thank you, sir, to keep your advice on forum etiquette to yourself, although I must give a word of gratitude for reminding me of the best bit of wisdom I've heard with respect to these types of discussions, to wit: never debate with a fool, because he'll drag you down to his level, and then beat you with experience.

There you have it, ladies and gentlemen. The "kind, compassionate, willing to set his ego aside to work selflessly with others" head of the NomCom. Refreshes your faith in the claims of bold new leadership free of the Old Guard, don't it now?

::sez El Capitan, who was using fora back in the days when the posts were scratched with charcoal sticks on river rock and heaved across the ravine into the neighbor's cave.::

[Jason]

Originally Posted by Capt. Slo-mo

There you have it, ladies and gentlemen. The "kind, compassionate, willing to set his ego aside to work selflessly with others" head of the NomCom. Refreshes your faith in the claims of bold new leadership free of the Old Guard, don't it now?

::sez El Capitan, who was using fora back in the days when the posts were scratched with charcoal sticks on river rock and heaved across the ravine into the neighbor's cave.::

I agree. I find it laughably shocking how poorly certain NC members have been presenting themselves on here. It reflects badly on them, the process, and--unfortunately--the NC slate.

[Peach]

Originally Posted by Jason

I agree. I find it laughably shocking how poorly certain NC members have been presenting themselves on here. It reflects badly on them, the process, and--unfortunately--the NC slate.

Most of us have stayed out of the discussion pretty much. Since the nominating committee was elected from the sections, it's representative of the USFA, which is to say it was full of thoughtful, over-educated people respected in their sections who hold strong opinions, aren't afraid to express them, like to hit people, and despite their experience, industry and integrity thought it was an honor to serve. I though, have been involved in administration too long not to know that no good deed goes unpunished

[slartibartfast]

This election has the potential to provide as much long-term amusement as the consequences of the last U.S. Presidential election, when we elected an incompetent for simple-minded reasons.

[Beeblebrox]

Originally Posted by HDG

Depends how many other dumbasses like me are out there...

You must be from Florida! lol

[brtech]

The ballot for vice president has instructions to choose first, second and third choices by marking 1, 2 and 3. All other votes are recorded by X in the square.

What will happen when (shades of butterfly ballots) voters place Xs on exactly 3 Vice President candidates names?

Will the entire ballot be invalidated? Just the vice president part of the ballot, or will there be some apportionment to the indicated candidates? The intention of the voter is clear, even if directions were not followed.

[gorgie101]

Originally Posted by Jason

I agree. I find it laughably shocking how poorly certain NC members have been presenting themselves on here. It reflects badly on them, the process, and--unfortunately--the NC slate.

The same could be said about the pro USFFC posters, to which Jjefferies belongs. His post was inflamatory and in very poor taste. My view is you get what you give.

Now children play nice

[mfp]

Originally Posted by brtech

The ballot for vice president has instructions to choose first, second and third choices by marking 1, 2 and 3. All other votes are recorded by X in the square.

What will happen when (shades of butterfly ballots) voters place Xs on exactly 3 Vice President candidates names?

Will the entire ballot be invalidated? Just the vice president part of the ballot, or will there be some apportionment to the indicated candidates? The intention of the voter is clear, even if directions were not followed.

No, the intention of the voter is not clear since the instructions explicitly asked the voter to indicate their intended first, second and third choice but an X in 3 spots clearly does not do so.

Preferential / ranked voting systems use the relative rankings the voter provides. 3 Xs aren't really usable. In some systems candidates can fail to get elected even though they received the greatest number of first place votes or other complications.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by mfp

{snip}Preferential / ranked voting systems use the relative rankings the voter provides. 3 Xs aren't really usable. In some systems candidates can fail to get elected even though they received the greatest number of first place votes or other complications.

Wouldn't it have behooved the Election Committee to, I don't know, actually explain what (if any) system of preferential voting they were going to use, before people voted?

Since the bylaws require them to design the ballot to "minimize ambiguity." Accepting that "three or more candidates have qualified for the office of Vice President" (though I don't think that is necessarily true as the bylaws could be read to suggest there are 3 offices of Vice President) so that "the ballot shall be designed according to a system of preferential voting;" isn't it about time to tell us what system they are using?

The 1,2,3 designation sure seems like they're using some sort of ranking system--though to me, just top 3 vote getters would seem to be the most rational system, and easist to tabulate. So, 6 candidates, assume 3600 members vote and fill out the ballot correctly. Suppose we get something like:

1 -- 1000 1st, 200 2nd, 200 3rd
2 -- 900 1st, 500 2nd, 500 3rd
3 -- 100 1st, 0 2nd, 2900, 3rd
4 -- 100 1st, 2900 2nd, 0 3d
5 --700 1st, 0 2nd, 0 3rd
6-- 800 1st, 0 2nd, 0 3d

Who are the three elected?

Is it just me, or is this information that should be given (1) before people vote; or at least (2) before the votes are counted?

--Philistine

[keith]

Originally Posted by Philistine

Is it just me, or is this information that should be given (1) before people vote; or at least (2) before the votes are counted?

Of course it is just you. The rest of us have read the bylaws and are perfectly content.

[Jason]

Originally Posted by gorgie101

The same could be said about the pro USFFC posters, to which Jjefferies belongs.

No, actually, it's quite different.
People like jjefferies and epeemike had no part in the initial selection process. Regardless of what they say, it does not affect the perception of the NC. However, when members of the NC post things that make them look childish, it brings their judgment into question. They should recognize that it's bad for both the organization as a whole and for their chosen candidates if they appear to be anything other than objective and professional.

[mfp]

Originally Posted by Philistine

Wouldn't it have behooved the Election Committee to, I don't know, actually explain what (if any) system of preferential voting they were going to use, before people voted?

[...]

Is it just me, or is this information that should be given (1) before people vote; or at least (2) before the votes are counted?

Now that's just crazy talk :)

Also note that the ballot lists candidates in alphabetical order in two columns, one column for the NC candidates, one column for the petition candidates. [A more properly designed ballot would have "cast lots" for ordering]

Some voters supporting a slate are likely to simply pick a column and just write 1, 2, 3 down it not realizing order may turn out to be very important factor determining who actually gets elected.

[gorgie101]

Originally Posted by Jason

No, actually, it's quite different.
People like jjefferies and epeemike had no part in the initial selection process. Regardless of what they say, it does not affect the perception of the NC. However, when members of the NC post things that make them look childish, it brings their judgment into question. They should recognize that it's bad for both the organization as a whole and for their chosen candidates if they appear to be anything other than objective and professional.

Well in that case Tracy has, IMHO, called into question her judgment by the posts that she has made on this forum. She has failed to be objective and professional on many occasions.

As another member of the NC pointed out in the thread on technology implementation; any posts made by a member of the NC at this point are only those of a voting member of the association. In my opinion they are no different than your posts or mine and should be treated as such.