The Voting Process

[gorgie101]

Originally Posted by Capt. Slo-mo

If the ballots will be invalidated by marking X X and X instead of 1 2 3...then that warning should have been clearly printed on the ballot with a reason why.

Things to remember for the next election...

Agreed. Any method of marking that would lead to invalidation of the votes should be clearly spelled out in the instructions.

[keith]

Originally Posted by gorgie101

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.

Which raises an interesting question. Is it better that Tracy has entered the debate on this site or that the NC candidate has not?

Ah, the conundrums placed on the weary electorate.

[Jason]

Originally Posted by gorgie101

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.

Members of both slates have made some notable missteps. However, that is, in fact, a separate issue to the behavior of NC members.

Originally Posted by gorgie101

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.

This is a fascinatingly naive assertion. The fact that an NC member said that demonstrates a lack of understanding as to his role and responsibility in this process.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by keith

Which raises an interesting question. Is it better that Tracy has entered the debate on this site or that the NC candidate has not?

Ah, the conundrums placed on the weary electorate.

define "entered the debate"? Mark Stasinos, Greg Dilworth, and Brad Baker have ALL posted responses to questions on this site. Most of those responses were (according to the poster) collective responses of the nominated slate formulated in group session, and thus representative of Kalle, Ro, and Jerry as well.

Some were explicitly written by Ro.

They haven't had the volume of posts that T has, but they have certainly answered the questions posed to them.

-m

[keith]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

define "entered the debate"? Mark Stasinos, Greg Dilworth, and Brad Baker have ALL posted responses to questions on this site. Most of those responses were (according to the poster) collective responses of the nominated slate formulated in group session, and thus representative of Kalle, Ro, and Jerry as well.

You may feel they have entered the debate, I don't. Great minds differ, such is the nature of life. They have certainly produced a great many lists of what will happen in the glorious new day following their election.

oh and for a group of people with massive experience of the USFA, its problems and the knowledge of the processes required to fix it the idea that;

Originally Posted by USFA nominees first 100 days

We will begin with the development of a strategic plan with goals, timelines and assigned responsibilities.

strikes me as incongruous . After all with all this experience and knowledge you'd have thought they might have thought one of those up already.

Don't blame 'em for avoiding the play pen though.

[dberke]

Originally Posted by Jason

This is a fascinatingly naive assertion. The fact that an NC member said that demonstrates a lack of understanding as to his role and responsibility in this process.

Care to enlighten me, then?

I don't recall anything saying that I forfeit my right to voice my personal opinions by being a member of the NC. I agreed to not discuss details of the deliberations of the NC, and I have upheld that agreement. But there is nothing inappropriate for me to be involved in the debate, especially considering that I have some unique knowledge that others may find useful.

If former NC members are ineligible to comment, then why do we get to vote? After all, we were sent ballots just like everyone else.

Dan

[gorgie101]

Originally Posted by keith

Which raises an interesting question. Is it better that Tracy has entered the debate on this site or that the NC candidate has not?

Ah, the conundrums placed on the weary electorate.

Technically she has but only in the posts that the NC candidates approved to be posted. Why she has not individually posted is indeed a conundrum.

Originally Posted by Jason

Members of both slates have made some notable missteps. However, that is, in fact, a separate issue to the behavior of NC slate members.

I think you might have made a mistake in this post. I believe the highlighted section should have said “the behavior of NC members” not slate members. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Your original post argued some correlation between the NC members posts on the board and how that reflects their judgment in picking the candidates they picked, or that it reflects poorly on the NC in general. I do not see your logic behind that correlation. It would be the same as saying we should not vote for Hillary Clinton because of things her husband said. If you want to vote responsibly then the only comments that should matter are those of the candidates themselves. Everything else I would take with a grain of salt.

The first part of your quote is true; both sides have made missteps.

Originally Posted by Jason

This is a fascinatingly naive assertion. The fact that an NC member said that demonstrates a lack of understanding as to his role and responsibility in this process.

Again I disagree. The NC did their job and put forth a slate they felt would lead to change in the association. Once they submitted their report their job was done. After that report was submitted they became regular fencers, section officers, referees, etc., again. Like all of us they are entitled to their opinion and should not have to boycott posting on this forum just because they were on the NC.

Just my 2cents.

[Jason]

Originally Posted by dberke

Care to enlighten me, then?

I don't recall anything saying that I forfeit my right to voice my personal opinions by being a member of the NC. I agreed to not discuss details of the deliberations of the NC, and I have upheld that agreement. But there is nothing inappropriate for me to be involved in the debate, especially considering that I have some unique knowledge that others may find useful.

If former NC members are ineligible to comment, then why do we get to vote? After all, we were sent ballots just like everyone else.

Dan

Actually, Dan, I didn't have you specifically in mind when I was talking about the behavior of "certain members" of the NC. I suppose it's possible that I missed something (I guess I could go reread your earlier posts), but my impression has been that you've stayed fairly professional in your posts. The same has not been true of everyone on the NC.

Adding to the debate is fantastic. If everyone was simply "involved in the debate" I would be all giggles. However, the more emotional people become, the less of a "debate" is being developed. Many people have posted silly emotional things here that have nothing to do with improving the USFA and finding the right leaders. That sort of behavior is different when it's from some goofball in New England (no offense, boys), than when it's from someone who's an official representative of the USFA charged with objectively choosing the organization's leaders. Even though the NC's job is done, they aren't yet "regular members". I imagine--particularly because you have remained fairly professional and "technical" in your comments--that you would agree with that sentiment.

Originally Posted by gorgie101

I think you might have made a mistake in this post. I believe the highlighted section should have said “the behavior of NC members” not slate members. Please correct me if I am wrong.

You're right. I've made the correction to my post.

Originally Posted by gorgie101

Like all of us they are entitled to their opinion and should not have to boycott posting on this forum just because they were on the NC.

There's a significant difference between boycotting and acting professionally.

[epeeforlife]

Originally Posted by Philistine

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

Does anybody else find it strange that this question has not been answered yet? I would like to know the answer before the counting starts!

[dberke]

Originally Posted by Jason

Actually, Dan, I didn't have you specifically in mind when I was talking about the behavior of "certain members" of the NC. I suppose it's possible that I missed something (I guess I could go reread your earlier posts), but my impression has been that you've stayed fairly professional in your posts. The same has not been true of everyone on the NC.

Thank you for clarifying, and I apologize for misinterpreting your comment. I believe I reacted because the quote you were originally responding to seemed to be referring to me and thus I assumed you were also reffering to me.

Originally Posted by Jason

Adding to the debate is fantastic. If everyone was simply "involved in the debate" I would be all giggles. However, the more emotional people become, the less of a "debate" is being developed. Many people have posted silly emotional things here that have nothing to do with improving the USFA and finding the right leaders. That sort of behavior is different when it's from some goofball in New England (no offense, boys), than when it's from someone who's an official representative of the USFA charged with objectively choosing the organization's leaders. Even though the NC's job is done, they aren't yet "regular members". I imagine--particularly because you have remained fairly professional and "technical" in your comments--that you would agree with that sentiment.

I agree, and I too would hope that the discourse can be as civil as possible. We've seen people supporting both slates react across the entire range, from calm, professional posts to emotional outbursts.

I do think, though, that overall, the level of debate has remained relatively civil - certainly when compared with political debates that you see in the media over US politics. This is encouraging, which probably says something good about the fencing community as a whole.

As for former members of the NC, while I agree we do fit into a special category because of our past role in the process, I personally don't think I've read anything that I consider out of line. Of course, that's a purely subjective view, so others may see things differently.

Dan

[mfp]

Originally Posted by Philistine

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?

It's impossible to know who wins until you know the preferential voting system to be used of course.

However it might be useful to point out that with several commonly used preferential voting systems you still couldn't determine the winners with the information provided above alone. Those systems require counting how many voters picked each of the possible preference orders, not how many 1st, 2nd and 3rd place votes each candidate received.

I.e. for those systems you (or your computer) need to tabulate:

# of votes cast in 1, 2, 3 order for candidates A, B, C
# of votes cast in 1, 2, 3 order for candidates D, E, F
# of votes cast in 1, 2, 3 order for candidates C, B, A
# of votes cast in 1, 2, 3 order for candidates F, E, D
# of votes cast in 1, 2, 3 order for candidates B, C, D
# of votes cast in 1, 2, 3 order for candidates D, C, B

and so on, before you can proceed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borda_count

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

[gorgie101]

Originally Posted by Jason

Actually, Dan, I didn't have you specifically in mind when I was talking about the behavior of "certain members" of the NC. I suppose it's possible that I missed something (I guess I could go reread your earlier posts), but my impression has been that you've stayed fairly professional in your posts. The same has not been true of everyone on the NC.

I should apologize to you and Dan on this one. I was referring to Dan’s comment about the NC in the Tech thread. I should have linked to it and didn’t. Sorry for the confusion.

Originally Posted by Jason

The same has not been true of everyone on the NC.

I have noticed that when anyone on the board gets unprofessional in a response it is generally because the post before it was inflammatory to the individual. When members of the NC have posted on the board it is usually because someone called into question the integrity of the NC or a person on it. There have also been many posts by NC members that answer questions people have asked that are not related to either slate of candidates but to the election in general. ARC’s original post was in response to a question about the election process. It was sarcastic in nature, due in part to frustration at people not reading the bylaws. (a frustration that is shared by many on this board). Mr. Jefferies response was an attack on ARC’s competence and was inflammatory in nature. ARC’s response may have been sarcastic but it was not, IMHO, unprofessional, especially given the tone of Mr. Jefferies post.

Could it have been handled differently? Sure. Hind sight is always 20/20.

Originally Posted by Jason

Adding to the debate is fantastic. If everyone was simply "involved in the debate" I would be all giggles.

Me too.

Originally Posted by Jason

However, the more emotional people become, the less of a "debate" is being developed. Many people have posted silly emotional things here that have nothing to do with improving the USFA and finding the right leaders.

True.

Originally Posted by Jason

That sort of behavior is different when it's from some goofball in New England (no offense, boys), than when it's from someone who's an official representative of the USFA charged with objectively choosing the organization's leaders. Even though the NC's job is done, they aren't yet "regular members".

Here we will have to agree to disagree. I don’t feel that members of the NC should have to be everyone else’s punching bags. They should be able to respond to posts however they choose. I wish everyone would try to be courteous and polite when they respond but that doesn't always happen.

[jjefferies]

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 ...

Ah, Never trust the stats entirely. Before Fencing.net there was rec.fencing and before that ARPANET (which is a precursor to the internet). Both of which I must sadly admit to having spent way too much time with in various guises. And BTW, vi is still my preferred editor as I have the sources and it allows cool things like dropping into :ex but before that it was teco which I still mourn for.

Originally Posted by arc

.. 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.

You're quite welcome But if you don't mind a minor correction of your recollected wit I believe the correct quotation is "Never debate a fool for the audience won't know who he is." But hey, Inq would just go on about introducing a pot and a kettle.

[jjefferies]

Originally Posted by gorgie101

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.

Hi gorgie101, I think? you may have gotten myself and Capt Slo_Mo confused. Or at least confused me. But hey I respect your desire to defend your man.

Originally Posted by gorgie101

Now children play nice

In this I agree. After the election one hopes we can all come together to stick it to one another again in ... brotherhood?Pleasure?sport? BUT never in jest!

Sometimes when reading this I recall Tink's comment in "The Guild" when first invited to CheesyBeard's "No thanks, I much prefer you as cartoon characters in an imaginary world...." But this is reality or at least one facet.

[telkanuru]

Now children play nice

[gorgie101]

Originally Posted by jjefferies

Hi gorgie101, I think? you may have gotten myself and Capt Slo_Mo confused. Or at least confused me. But hey I respect your desire to defend your man.

Ooops! My bad. the Capt was who I was refering to. That's what happens when you are up late grading papers.

Oh and I picked the because I thought he was cute.