The Voting Process

[epeeforlife]

All of which reminds me that I've wondered why she chose Gorgie101. My ever slippery mind keeps trying to translate it to Gorgeous101.

OK you two, get a room

Now back on target. How are the votes going to be counted????????

[Jason]

Now back on target. How are the votes going to be counted????????

What on earth makes you think anyone's going to count them?

[arc]

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.

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.

Fair 'nuff. Actually, what burned me off fora for a number of years were the discussions on talk.politics.guns that regularly degenerated into flamefests ... I like that version of the quote, too (simpler), but it presumes an audience, which isn't always there.

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!

Hear, hear. Mostly.

Why couldn't the vote of X X X be entered as a 1 1 1 ? There by not invalidating the vote and giving equal weight to all three candidates.

Because a voter can not give 3 votes for their first preference in a preferential voting system. The voter is allowed to only prefer one the most.

In pondering this, assuming that the preferential points for 1/2/3 all average to the points given for a 2, while it would give a voter's ballot an unfair weight to treat X X X as 1 1 1, do you think it would be fair to treat the ballot as all 2' instead? I mean, that way the will of the voter is being give *some* effect without giving it undue weight ...

Of course, there's also the concept that an individual who made this error could call the National Office and inquire if the ballot could be pulled and the individual's preferences noted (which of course would waive any degree of secrecy to the people involved), or the ballot be returned, since we're really early in the voting window right now ...

(in the interest of solidarity and to not be further inflamatory, I'll keep the (sic) spellings)

Oh, please, go ahead & point them out (or correct). Crimes against English are always fair game.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Crimes against English are always fair game.

Especially if related to tea. Or cricket.

[mfp]

In pondering this, assuming that the preferential points for 1/2/3 all average to the points given for a 2, while it would give a voter's ballot an unfair weight to treat X X X as 1 1 1, do you think it would be fair to treat the ballot as all 2' instead? I mean, that way the will of the voter is being give *some* effect without giving it undue weight ...

No, that wouldn't be fair at all.

Treating an X X X ballot as all 2s would put those who actually followed the instructions at a disadvantage since they had assign their votes in ranked order.

By somehow giving equal weight to voters' X X X choices, you'd be allowing those who could not follow the instructions (or knew the trick result) to advance the cause of their 3 bloc members equally. Voters who followed the rules don't have that opportunity.

[Also treating Xs as "2"s simply won't work in any of the preferential systems that start by examining voters' first preferences and continuing from there.]

So in summary, no it wouldn't be fair, even if some sort of sum of weights type preferential system gets used where it's tweaked to average.

Of course, there's also the concept that an individual who made this error could call the National Office and inquire if the ballot could be pulled and the individual's preferences noted (which of course would waive any degree of secrecy to the people involved), or the ballot be returned, since we're really early in the voting window right now ...

Giving Triple Xers the opportunity to go that route seems fair. Imputing, averaging or somehow otherwise counting their XXX votes is not fair.

[T]

I have been trying to get this info out of Gerrie Baumgart (Chair of the Election Committee) for about 4 days now but no luck. I don't know if she is ignoring me (we didn't exactly part our last meeting as best of friends) or if she just doesn't know the answer.

Has anyone else tried to contact her about this?

[epeemike81]

I have been trying to get this info out of Gerrie Baumgart (Chair of the Election Committee) for about 4 days now but no luck. I don't know if she is ignoring me (we didn't exactly part our last meeting as best of friends) or if she just doesn't know the answer.

Has anyone else tried to contact her about this?

probably option three, if you're trying to email her: she doesn't check it that often. give her a little time.

-m

[mtarascio]

The following a email from me and response from USFA:



From: Dana Brown <dana.brown@USFencing.org>
To: <fencing1@mac.com>
Date: Tue May 20, 2008 03:17:36 PM EDT
Subject: RE: Ballot information


Hello Michael,

I have forwarded your inquiry to the Election Committee for its official
response.

Best Regards,

Dana Brown
USFA Membership


To: Dana Brown
Subject: RE: Ballot information

Hi Dana,

There are different systems of preferential. The by-laws don't indicate
what system is being used. Please explain this to me as I need to let
fencers in my club know.

Also, are ballots invalidated if one puts an X for the three VP candidates?

Michael


On Tuesday, May 20, 2008, at 02:44PM, Dana Brown
<dana.brown@USFencing.org> wrote:

Hello,

The choices of 1, 2, 3 are meant to allow for the preferential voting
as set forth in the USFA bylaws. Those with most votes following this
system would be elected.

Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.

Thanks,

Dana Brown

To: Info@usfencing.org
Subject: Ballot information

I'm a little confused on how the ballot is set up concerning the VP
positions. What is the purpose of designating 1st, 2nd and 3rd choice
for VP candidates. Don't the top three vote getters get elected? What
happens if one just marks an X for the three candidates one votes for?

Michael

Michael Tarascio, Coach
www.fencing1.com
978-210-2711

Isaac Stern was asked by someone on the street in New York City how to
get to Carnegie Hall. He replied "Practice, practice, practice."

[arc]

I have been trying to get this info out of Gerrie Baumgart (Chair of the Election Committee) for about 4 days now but no luck. I don't know if she is ignoring me (we didn't exactly part our last meeting as best of friends) or if she just doesn't know the answer.

Out of curiosity, how have you tried to contact her (i.e., phone or email)?

[Swordmaster]

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.

I have found the more I open my mouth, the more willing other people are to shove my foot in it.
I think the comments I have read from the NC Candidates have been very professional and to the point. I really don't see the need to debate the finer points of candle making if you know that the end result is that you just want light.

[mfp]

I have been trying to get this info out of Gerrie Baumgart (Chair of the Election Committee) for about 4 days now but no luck. I don't know if she is ignoring me (we didn't exactly part our last meeting as best of friends) or if she just doesn't know the answer.

Has anyone else tried to contact her about this?

Several people have told me that they have emailed questions about the preferential voting system. To date, none of them has reported hearing anything back.

I know some of the emails went to National Office addresses. I don't know if any were emailed to Gerrie or other Election Committee members directly.

Since the Election Committee hasn't answered the question yet, how about some questions for the candidate and their reps to the Election Committee?

The bylaws state:

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.

So the questions are:

Who are Week's and Hurley's reps to the Election Committee?

Can they get us the info we seek?

When and where is the next meeting of the Election Committee? Is it actually open? Will the reps for the candidates be involved? Have they been involved to date? What happened?

And for the VP candidates themselves:

Since under a preferential election system voters have to rank their VP choices, how does each VP candidate think they should be ranked?

[T]

Out of curiosity, how have you tried to contact her (i.e., phone or email)?

I sent 2 emails to Gerrie and copied the other members of the Election Committee on both. To other questions I have asked Gerrie via email, I got a fairly quick response.

I have not phoned her yet but that is next on my list.

[gorgie101]

I sent 2 emails to Gerrie and copied the other members of the Election Committee on both. To other questions I have asked Gerrie via email, I got a fairly quick response.

I have not phoned her yet but that is next on my list.

Gerrie tends to take a while to respond to emails. Calling her might be best. I don't think she is ignoring you intentionally.

Hope that helps.

[Jason]

I have found the more I open my mouth, the more willing other people are to shove my foot in it.
I think the comments I have read from the NC Candidates have been very professional and to the point. I really don't see the need to debate the finer points of candle making if you know that the end result is that you just want light.

I was referring to the Nominating Committee, not the slate (although members of both slates need some lessons in PR).

[LLG]

This is probably not the thread in which to make my first post, but what the heck.

While there are many types of preferential voting, I do not think that the bylaws intend for preferential voting to be weighted voting. I think you must read the section on preferential voting together with the section on election by majority. Section 8 states that “The National officers of the USFA shall be elected by a majority of votes cast.” When more than two people run for an office, the candidate with the highest vote total may not have a majority of the votes. Consequently, the bylaws need a mechanism to solve this problem.

I would argue that the bylaws provide that mechanism in Section 7b which states, “Where three or more candidates have qualified for any office, the ballot shall be designed according to a system of preferential voting.” (Please note that section 7b states “any office.”) Thus under the bylaws, preferential voting acts as sort of a run-off election when no candidate has obtained a majority of votes.

This is just one possible interpretation of the bylaws and even if correct, there are still problems with the ballots that went out (Three people cannot all obtain the majority of votes cast for vice president.) If this interpretation is correct, however, there are ways to preserve the spirit of the bylaws with the current ballots. Moreover, this could be done while counting the ballots marked with an x rather than a number.

[mfp]

While there are many types of preferential voting, I do not think that the bylaws intend for preferential voting to be weighted voting. I think you must read the section on preferential voting together with the section on election by majority. Section 8 states that “The National officers of the USFA shall be elected by a majority of votes cast.” When more than two people run for an office, the candidate with the highest vote total may not have a majority of the votes. Consequently, the bylaws need a mechanism to solve this problem.

I would argue that the bylaws provide that mechanism in Section 7b which states, “Where three or more candidates have qualified for any office, the ballot shall be designed according to a system of preferential voting.” (Please note that section 7b states “any office.”) Thus under the bylaws, preferential voting acts as sort of a run-off election when no candidate has obtained a majority of votes.

This is just one possible interpretation of the bylaws and even if correct, there are still problems with the ballots that went out (Three people cannot all obtain the majority of votes cast for vice president.)

Yes, a weighted preferential system does not meet the "majority of votes cast" test.

However there are ways that three people can obtain a majority of the vote cast in a preferential system -- they do it one at a time. Candidates with the smallest number of first preference votes get eliminated and their votes get transfered instant runoff style until a candidate has more than half the vote. Then that candidate is considered elected and removed. All votes return to full value and the process repeated until the required number of candidates are elected. Each candidate had the majority of votes in their runoff and the bylaws are followed.

This is the method is described in Robert's Rules of Order for electing multiple candidates for the same type of office.

Moreover, this could be done while counting the ballots marked with an x rather than a number.

You can't count ballots marked with an X under the preferential system described in Robert's Rules of Order -- it's not possible. And in systems where it might be possible, it wouldn't be fair.

[mfp]

It looks like we have a winner:

Unless otherwise provided for in these Bylaws or in the Colorado Nonprofit Corporation Act, procedure at meetings and procedure relating to contested elections shall be governed by the provisions of Robert's Rules of Order.

Since Roberts describes a specific preferential voting method for electing multiple candidates to the same type of office (for when actual remail runoffs aren't feasible) it looks like the election committee doesn't get to design the system, they merely have to implement it.

And explain it to the candidates and voters :)

[LLG]

It looks like we have a winner:



Since Roberts describes a specific preferential voting method for electing multiple candidates to the same type of office (for when actual remail runoffs aren't feasible) it looks like the election committee doesn't get to design the system, they merely have to implement it.

And explain it to the candidates and voters

O.K. Roberts governs. Thank you for clearing up the system of preferential voting. Now a new question comes to mind, has the election committee properly implemented Roberts by limiting us to indicating our preferences for only three candidates?


Roberts states, "On the preferential ballot—for each office to be filled or multiple-choice question to be decided—the voter is asked to indicate the order in which he prefers all the candidates or propositions, placing the numeral 1 beside his first preference, the numeral 2 beside his second preference, and so on for every possible choice."

Roberts further states, "If more than one person is to be elected to the same type of office—for example, if three members of a board are to be chosen—the voters can indicate their order of preference among the names in a single fist of candidates, just as if only one was to be elected."

I may well just be missing something obvious. (It is early morning here and I have not had my coffee).

For anyone wishing to read the rule, here is a link :

http://www.fairvote.org/irv/robertsrules.htm

[Inquartata]

How are the votes going to be counted????????

A) "One, two....five!"

B) Like this: http://www.founders.org/blog/uploade...unt-799445.jpg

[needle]

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.

And some said that even the trees had been a bad move, and that no one should ever have left the oceans.
My first editor was a punch tape teletype, and I don't miss it one bit (or 7 for that matter)

Anyway, it's an interesting discussion, and I would appreciate the counting process as open as possible. There's a saying attributed to Stalin that goes something like "Who has the voters' mind is not as important as who controls the counting of the votes".