mariaclara wrote: well afterall, I am proven correct.
I made a post which said, let's just do what we want/think is right without polls and the like.
I didn't think up the team concept. I didn't set the specific minimums for voters, and I didn't come up with the excellent suggestions that teams include an alternate and that there be a runoff if necessary to ensure that teams are supported by a majority of the membership. All these things were proposed by members, and have been widely supported by other members. We're not just "doing what I think ought to be done," and making flip comments to that effect isn't exactly courteous. It's not like I get paid to do this job.
The old election format is simpler for me, and if I didn't care to respond to what people here ask for I could just do it like we've always done before and let pseudo accounts take over the board. I'm pretty sure that's not what most genuine members here want to see happen.
Harvey Williamson wrote:Ok just impose the will of the few. For the last few elections there has always been a voting criteria. A simple poll asking do you want teams or are you happy for the few to decide for you is not a big deal.
the vast majority of those voting in a poll like that will most likely be members not qualified to vote in the elections
Steve
Set up the poll with the same voting criteria as the election so then it will be the same people voting.
Followed immediately by complaints that the poll results are not valid because the voting criteria for it was arbitrarily set.
mariaclara wrote: well afterall, I am proven correct.
I made a post which said, let's just do what we want/think is right without polls and the like.
I didn't think up the team concept. I didn't set the specific minimums for voters, and I didn't come up with the excellent suggestions that teams include an alternate and that there be a runoff if necessary to ensure that teams are supported by a majority of the membership. All these things were proposed by members, and have been widely supported by other members. We're not just "doing what I think ought to be done," and making flip comments to that effect isn't exactly courteous. It's not like I get paid to do this job.
The old election format is simpler for me, and if I didn't care to respond to what people here ask for I could just do it like we've always done before and let pseudo accounts take over the board. I'm pretty sure that's not what most genuine members here want to see happen.
Harvey Williamson wrote:Ok just impose the will of the few. For the last few elections there has always been a voting criteria. A simple poll asking do you want teams or are you happy for the few to decide for you is not a big deal.
the vast majority of those voting in a poll like that will most likely be members not qualified to vote in the elections
Steve
Set up the poll with the same voting criteria as the election so then it will be the same people voting.
Followed immediately by complaints that the poll results are not valid because the voting criteria for it was arbitrarily set.
-Sam-
Then the same will be said for the election by some.
Harvey Williamson wrote:Ok just impose the will of the few. For the last few elections there has always been a voting criteria. A simple poll asking do you want teams or are you happy for the few to decide for you is not a big deal.
the vast majority of those voting in a poll like that will most likely be members not qualified to vote in the elections
Steve
Set up the poll with the same voting criteria as the election so then it will be the same people voting.
Followed immediately by complaints that the poll results are not valid because the voting criteria for it was arbitrarily set.
-Sam-
Then the same will be said for the election by some.
Except that the criteria was arrived at by means of open member discussion, to which any and all have had the chance to contribute for a month now. Is it your view that a raw poll would be more valid than hearing the arguments spelled out pro and con? Have you thought about the difficulty in constructing a poll that would offer all available options in an equal and balanced way, and that would yield valid results? I did.
Harvey Williamson wrote:Ok just impose the will of the few. For the last few elections there has always been a voting criteria. A simple poll asking do you want teams or are you happy for the few to decide for you is not a big deal.
the vast majority of those voting in a poll like that will most likely be members not qualified to vote in the elections
Steve
Set up the poll with the same voting criteria as the election so then it will be the same people voting.
Followed immediately by complaints that the poll results are not valid because the voting criteria for it was arbitrarily set.
-Sam-
Then the same will be said for the election by some.
they will say the election is not valid because teams of qualified members were candidates.. instead of indivudual qualified members
indivuduals who freeley offered themslves as candiates and were duly elected by qualified voters
i guess so..if not for this reason ..then for some other
the last election had its nay sayers and many elections before that
in fact most election results are met with some members casting a shadow over the results
nothing new here under the sun
its worth a try this one time i think
Steve
Of course it is valid if the people that vote in the poll are the same that are allowed to vote in the election
This might have been a suggestion worth implementing if it had been made a couple of weeks ago. It's a bit late now, especially with a holiday weekend coming up for a significant chunk of the membership. I think we will all be in an excellent position to judge the merits after we actually give the concept a try, instead of guessing at potential problems in advance. I doubt any particular outcome could be worse than some of the disasters we have had here as a result of past elections.
well afterall, I am proven correct.
