Election Ballots

[Guest]

I'm addressing mostly to Howard, because he's the guru of AACA, even over Father Ron. I know there's a logical explanation, but I'm brain dead at the present moment. My question is,"Why are election ballots voided if they do not have 7 people selected?" I could understand years ago when few members returned ballots and it was conceivable that 7 directors names may not have been chosen, but is that still the case? I would think that each nominee receives at least one vote. In a national election like we will have next month you don't have to vote for each office. Although, there you are voting for specific offices, as we are voting for a group of people. However, when we vote for groups like school boards, you can select a smaller number than needed without that ballot being thrown out. <BR>Is it still conceivable that seven names would not be selected? Or is there some other point I am completely missing? <BR>I know you will have the answer! <P>I've had members ask me and that's all I came up with.

[ronbarn]

Thanx Al for giving me an out - I will let Howard answer, but there is a problem. He is in Tucson for the Glidden. Wait until he has time to return and then ad to this thread to bring it back to the top, or restart is when he returns.

[Guest]

Thanks, Ron. I thought he might be there still. I wasn't sure if was still going on. Are you and Sally going to the social Friday night in Cape Canaveral? We we're wondering if we should sign up.

[Guest]

My question regarding the ballots are why the candidates aren't in the same place on all ballots? They are in different places on the two we received and the ballots that others have received they are in still another place. Can anyone answer this one?<BR>RE: CC Meet next month: Does anyone know of a airport hotel with rates less than an arm & leg? What I've seen so far are no<BR>less than out on the beach or island.

[ronbarn]

Patt, your question relates to Al's. Given a requirement to select seven on the ballot (and I will wait for Howard to answer that one) it was felt that some members would pick out the one or two they know, or like due to the biosketch, and then just start at the top, or bottom and sequentially select the ones they don't know. In theory, rotating the sequence levels the playing field for all candidates. It also makes you read the ballots more carefully.

[ronbarn]

Just a post to run this thread back up to the top so that Howard will see it when he gets back home after the Glidden. Will assume that hvs or someone else will post on the Glidden for those of us who did not attend.

[Guest]

I'm home, but too tired to get into this tonight. Someone on the Glidden told me to look at this thread when I got home, so here I am. I'll say this now, I will not defend the present "vote for 7" system. I think it is no longer relevent or reasonable. ~ Howard

[Guest]

OK I'm ready to go. It took me a couple of days to get my thoughts on this subject organized. I will try not to get too wordy , but there IS a lot of info and history to cover here, So please bear with me.<P>CONCEPT: The AACA ballot requires that you vote for 7 candidates, no more, no less. A ballot with fewer than 7 names marked will be voided. Frankly this seems to me to be a lousy concept. How many of us even know the names of 7 of the candidates, much less have ever met them or know their record or accomplishments, or if you will, non-accomplishment. I know, there is a biographical sketch accompanying the ballot, but it is written by the candidate about him or her self. Will they include the fact that they might have failed to perform an assigned task? No! So what happens is that most of us end up having to vote for one or more people we don't know or possibly don't even like in order for our ballot to be counted. As I said, a lousy concept.<P>HISTORY: The "Vote for 7" plan goes way back in AACA history. It was there when I came into the club almost 40 years ago. Nobody in office today has any responsibility for creating the concept. However an incumbent does benefit from the "Vote for 7" ballot. How? Most of us would like to vote for say 3-6 people, but we have to fill the ballot up to 7. Who do we pick for filler. Since an incumbent can list all he has done at the Board of Directors level his resume is much more impressive than the guy who has worked his tail off at the local level. The odds are that an incumbent will get the majority of the "fill in" votes.<P>One of the "old timers" [and by this I mean 40-50 years ago] worries was that because the club was so small back then that if an organized group got together and voted en mass for say only 1 to 5 candidates and not for incumbent Mr. X, then there wouldn't<BR>be enough "stray votes" to return Mr. X to office. HORRORS! Sounds outlandish, but with a small voting base, that could happen. THAT IS JUST NO LONGER RELEVENT!<P>As Al Terek pointed out, on election day tomorrow, we can vote for as few candidates as we want for a position where say 4 out of 7 are to be elected to the school board. I just will not vote for someone I really know nothing about, EXCEPT ON AN AACA BALLOT! We are the only [i believe] national car club using this method and I think it does a disservice to our members. Another point Al raised is could there be only 6 people who get votes and 4 who get NONE? With 60K+ members, I don't see how that could happen.<P>What many of us would like to see is an AACA ballot containing 10 or 11 names with the stipulation that you could vote for UP TO 7. Any ballot with more than 7 names checked would be void. Just like in the real world elections!<P>As for me, I would like to vote for only 6 of the candidates this year. As it is I will vote for someone I don't feel should be an AACA Director because of our "Vote for 7" concept. How about you?<P>DO WE STILL NEED THIS 7 VOTE BALLOT: I think not. How do you all feel about it. If you would like to see it changed to a "Vote for up to 7 , but no more than 7," ballot, write or e-mail your favorite National Director and lobby for the change. <BR>Their names, addresses and e-mail addresses are listed on the AACA club page under address roster. ~~ Howard<P><p>[This message has been edited by hvs (edited 11-06-2000).]

[Guest]

Howard, thanks for the reply. I knew you would know the answer and I agree with lobbying national directors. Many times things are done one way for so long they become passe. It made sense when the club was smaller, but I think we've grown beyond that period. I know I have "added a name" to complete the 7 name requirement, but held my nose doing so. Unless someone has a valid reason, which I'd love to hear, it should be considered by the board to amend this policy.<BR> What do the rest of you think? Maybe it doesn't bother you like it does me, But sometimes I don't like to be forced to vote for somebody that I think is not suitable for the job. But, to steal a line from Howard, " That's only my opinion."

[Guest]

Al ~ I am glad to see your response on this forum. For the rest of you who read this and have an opinion to offer either way, please do not hesitate to jump in. Don't let posting a respone on here keep you from e-mailing or writing your favorite National Director or don't let the reverse be the case. If this thing is going to change, we need opinions expressed both here and directly to the Board. Remember not all Directors are on line and possibly some of those who are may not follow this forum.<P>Let's get in there and win this one for improved elections. ~~ Howard

[Ccar]

I like to vote for the "up to 7 concept"!! This would provide a reason for many members to vote for the candidates they want and know something about. I know several members in my Region who have indicated over the years that they submit a ballot because they wouldn't vote for people they knew nothing about. <P>Many times I have tried to convince these persons and ended up "advising" them about some of the unknowns that I knew something about. I would expect this happens often. So, by changing the "rules" to allow 7 or less from the total slate would really indicate the true winners. <P>I am passing my comments to appropriate board members.

[Guest]

Amen Chuck. Many of us have said over the years that the AACA ballot is nothing more than a crap shoot. Why? Because we all have had to vote for people we didn't really want elected. These forced extra votes have completely distorted the true wishes of the voting membership. You are so right when you state that an "Up to 7" ballot would determine the TRUE winners and reflect the wishes of the voters.<P>I would be willing to bet money on another result of a change to "Up to 7" ballot. THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS VOTING WOULD GO UP!!. There are a lot of people who just refuse to vote a ballot where they are forced to vote for an exact number of candidates. I hear that EVERY year!<P>Keep the comments coming. ~ Howard<P>

[Guest rcirilli]

The vote for seven has been around as long as I have for sure. I've always understood the reasons but never really agreed with it. An underlying effect is that with the seven vote rule no one is a run away candidate and no gets a minute number of votes. Sounds like the old feel good syndrome.

[Guest]

Bob ~ In AACA elections the vote count is NEVER [legitamately] revealed, so no-one knows how many or how few votes anyone receives. There can be no known runaways when only the independent ballot counting agency and the AACA Executive Director know the numbers. They certainly wouldn't violate a trust and reveal the actual count. It is possible that all 10 candidates could be separated by say 15 votes, and the first 7 would win with #8 being just say 12 votes behind #1. Not likely, but possible, and what difference does it make. My main complaint is being forced to vote for somebody I really think will not be a good Director. I did that this year to get the 7th name so that my ballot would not be voided Howard

[Guest]

OK Folks ~~ While we are all sitting around waiting for the outcome of the BIG ONE, and afraid one way or the other that our guy will lose, how about a little thought and input on the AACA ballot. Howard

[Tom Deering]

So there I was sitting smug & secure in the knowledge that I had spoken to, or at least seen six of the Board candidates this year. Then I turned the ballot over and saw a list of Library & Research Center candidates with whom I have NO familiarity. Can we just abstain from voting for 3 of the 5 candidates listed because we can't make an informed decision? NO!<BR> WHY NOT? Quote the statement on the ballot: "Vote for three (3) individuals. All ballots must have three names selected or they will be considered "Not Valid" and will not be counted." While we're trying to<BR>make logical changes; Let's not forget to correct this seemingly unrealistic requirement. <BR> I'm curious. Does anyone know if we get valid ballots from 10% of the Membership? Tom

[Guest]

Tom ~~ Yes. The count is usually slightly more then 10%. In years past I seem to recall between 6 & 8,000 ballots cast when the membership count was around 53 to 55,000.<P>As far as changing the requirement of "vote for 3" on the Library ballot, that would have to be done by the Library Board of Directors as the LRC has its own constitution and by-laws. However a change in the National AACA ballot requirements might prompt the LRC Board to follow suit. ~~ Howard

[Terry Bond]

Great thread - as a Director (am I first to respond???) im excited about the chance to get some education (AACA History), and Howard certainly has some corporate knowledge to share. Thank you HVS for the background and thought. Ive been sending those things in since the early 70s and despite my personal efforts to get to know everyone can still recall times when Ive looked over that ballot and scratched my head wondering who to vote for. Even now I get calls from very active members asking about candidates just because they don't know everyone but must check the required number. On one hand Im flattered that my judgement and opinion are respected, but on the other hand I shudder to think that I could have some influence on our outcome other than via my own individual vote. It makes sense that the result of changing things as proposed would increase the number of voting members. This all certainly merits further discussion -on an official level. I know Ron will help get it on the table and I would like to learn more and explore further also.<BR>Terry

[Tom Deering]

hvs,<BR> Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the term; "Ballot". Doesn't a ballot consist of two pages? One page is for Directors and the second page is for L&RC. If that is true; then why should failure to complete page 2, invalidate an otherwise correctly completed page 1? Your response leads me to conclude that page 1 is one complete ballot and page 2 is another complete ballot. If that is the case, I stand corrected on my erroneous interpretation. Tom

[ronbarn]

Hokay, I will log on. I will not state my opinion at this time, but I am looking forward to your opinions, just as are the other Directors who view this DF.<P>Tom, the L&RC ballots are handled separately. You still must make 7 marks on the AACA ballot, but if you do not make marks on the L&RC ballot that will not invalidate the AACA portion. However, I encourage you to read the biosketches and vote your best on both ballots.<P>Now to all of you AACA members who visit this DF - THIS IS IMPORTANT - we National Directors want your opinion. Changing the voting procedure will require a change to the AACA Constitution. It can be done, but we need to know what you, as an AACA member want. Tell us!!

[Rick Hoover]

I'll place my vote for the change to 'Vote for up to 7 members' as mentioned by the others. As long as I have been a member, I never knew more than four members on a ballot running at one time. I'll admit, it wasn't something I lost sleep over in the past, but I never cared for the fact of voting for people I never knew or met. Now, with this question brought up here on our AACA Website Discussion Forum, I now know why this was set in place. The best part is, now we can play a part in making a major change with these rules in our club constitution as a result of this great DF of ours! Hats off to the AACA website!!<BR>Rick

[Guest SalG (Sal Grenci)]

hvs, You make a lot of great points, maybe I should resign as the unofficial ronbarn fan club pres and start the hvs fan club. Ha, Ha. I think the system of 7 should be changed. In the past, before I was active with national and I got to know people, 3 to 4 years ago, I voted for women and young people. I felt that National needed a younger thinking and female influnce on the board. Now, I know people, and can vote on an informed basis. I have found national officers to be gentleman and well intentioned, but that in it self does not back someone a good leader or manager of $$. Remember they are volunteers, and it does take time and $$ to be on the board. We need more people in the process, and they should be younger and a few from the West. i.e. Peter G. Also, we have lots of people who are good members, but they are not into touring. Some like showing the cars and others just like the give and take of the flea market and the hunt for parts, they enjoy the hobby their way. I have never been on a national tour, should that stop be from be a director, NO! I like to do my newsletter, a hard job, just ask your editor. Some people like to run shows, others like to take pictures and some people do the sunshine committee, all subsets of the overall old car hobby. We have local members who rarely or never come in old cars, (yes, me too) and they are the most active and well loved of all. They should have a chance to be a National director.<BR>How about voting by Internet? How about dues and new memberships by Internet? Lets get with the times. The floating 25 year rule is <BR>there to keep the club alive, lets follow through in other areas. SalG<BR><p>[This message has been edited by SalG (edited 11-08-2000).]

[Guest snkchevcol]

It seems like everybody is putting there two cents worth in so I guess I will to. I have to agree with the idea of changing the ballots to read up to 7. Like everbody else, it seems you always know 4 or 5 names but the last couple can be tough to figure. All the bios sound good, but without actually knowing the person you really don't know what they have done. By voting for someone you don't know you could end up putting someone in that doesn't have what it takes, and leave someone out that could do a lot better for the club.<P>rock

[Guest]

Sal ~~ The problem with voting or doing anything else on the internet which would require involvement by our National Headquarters is that it has yet to arrive in the last decade of the 20th century, much less the 21st [whether you say it began last Jan 1 or will begin this coming Jan 1.] I don't know why we can't get Hq. on line but there just doesn't appear to be much movement in that direction. ~~ Howard

[Tom Deering]

ronbarn,<BR> Thank You for the clarification regarding the separation of the L&RC from the slate of Candidates. My ignorance of the Organization Structure really led me down the garden path. I too, would like to see the voting requirement changed to: "Vote for no more than seven". <BR> And thanks to HVS for the feedback on the number of ballots returned. That is a pretty respectable percentage of returned ballots for an organization such as this. I've seen national car clubs that are hard pressed to get a 7% response!<BR> Tom<BR>

[novaman]

I agree. Vote for up to seven.

[Guest]

HVS or Ronbarn ~<BR>Is is possible to set up a petition here on the forum for all of us who would like to see the change to "Up to 7" take place? It could be printed out as Howard did with another subject close to his heart and given to the Board. If necessary, for the sake of knowing it is AACA members signing the petition, we could list our AACA #. Just a thought in that lots of folks would do that rather than sit down with pen/paper and write a letter to a Director.<BR>Patt

[Guest]

Patt ~ As soon as I can get the wording to suit me, I will start a new thread under the heading, PETITION FOR BALLOT CHANGE. hvs

[Guest rcirilli]

I wish we could get the Senate to start reading the site. They could save a fortune in sub committee cost.<BR>

[jac]

hvs, I am with you on the "up to 7" voting concept. I am fortunate to know all the people who are running for office execpt for one. The main reason is that I attend some of our national meets. I look at our club of 42 members and there is only one person other than Gail and myself who have been to a <BR>a national meet within the last 2 years. Most of our club members have met only one director in person and that is because he came to our Christmas party last year. Pretty dificult to get to know the people running for office under these circumstances.<BR> I have tried to introduce them to our present officers by putting one article from the Rummage Box or Wheels in each of our monthly newsletter. With this limited information along with the biographical sketch makes voting a bit of a hit and miss proposition. My guess is most of them do not vote.<BR> The first item on the new business agenda<BR>at this month metting will be a discussion on the ballot and those running for office.<BR> I think it would help some of us who attend the national meets to loosen up on the "no campaiging restriction" Perhaps a Q&A session with the candidates at each national meet-execpt Hershey--too big. That would not help the members that do not attend but those that do can carry the information back to their meetings.<BR> I plan to discuss the "up to 7" concept with some of the directors at the Cape next week. I want them to be able to respond in person and get their reaction. Maybe it will help me decide who I should vote for this year or some year in the future.<BR> Sorry, too much rambling<BR>later-jac

[Guest]

Any of you who want a paper copy of the petition on the other thread, e-mail me at Hvscotyard@aol.com and I will mail you one. Then you can make as many copies as you need. Let's make this thing fly! ` Howard

[novaman]

Howard, I tried. Presented the history and reasoning behind the way the current system is and that we from the DF have started the petition to our directors to change the wording from "vote for 7" to "vote for up to 7". Basically one person told the chapter this wasn't the way to change this, therefore no signers.<P>

[Guest]

David ~ I don't know of a more democratic was of doing it. This is petitioning our leaders to CONSIDER a change. Perhaps this one individual can suggest a better way to present something to our leadership. Perhaps a seance. Maybe a little rioting in the streets of Philadelphia. Or perhaps demanding a recount and court action by those who don't like the result. Oh well. ~ Howard<P>Maybe this individual feels threatened by the DFers because there is a computer involved.<p>[This message has been edited by hvs (edited 11-11-2000).]

[Guest]

ronbarn: Could this change in voting procedures be a possible recommendation from the strategic planning committee?

[Guest]

Regarding getting Headquarters hooked up electronically, let me suggest that Headquarters works for the Board of Directors, not the other way around. If the Board tells them to do it, and provides financing, it'll get done. That said, how much money is it going to cost us to get headquarters wired? Can't be much. Let's do it.<P>Put me down as totally in favor of changing the balloting process to "up to 7". Already signed the petition.<P>Ray Fairfield