I gracefully concede.

Congrats to the winners (whom I am toasting with a cocktail of rum and Cholula).

I would like to thank the other 19 people who voted for me.

I would especially like to thank gaz_zman for saving me (and RamAir) from the ignominy of last place.

This must be encouraging for Admin to see, and I imagine this year's superb idea of a special forum for those Candidates who chose to answer the 20 member questions, helped encourage and influence the larger than usual vote. ^

Do hope that idea is repeated for all future elections. My platform was simple and crystal clear, and I hope to work with the final TalkBoard to implement part of it.

Good luck to all the 3 members in the run off, and thanks to the other 33 candidates for helping ensure such a strong voting participation from members via their effort and input and ideas.

I am typing this from Azerbaijan on the Caspian Sea in the Caucauses, on a Russian cryllic keyboard, after 16,000 miles and 40+ hours of flying with no hotel stop ...... so time to go downtown and find some caviar for lunch.

And will catch up with many other FT'ers in a few days at Dovster's Tel Aviv FT Dooo.

Glen

Actually, the voter may not have been larger and could even have been smaller. It is true that Gleff got a well-deserved vote of confidence, but if you look at next numbers on the list, you will see that they did not come from additional voters but rather from additional votes per voter.

Gleff received 1223 votes but the top five candidates (including Gleff) received an average of 904 votes.

In last year's election, the top five candidates all received votes of around 850 (I don't have the actual figures as they no longer appear in F/T records). Suffice it to say that no candidate last year reached 900 and none of the top five was below 800.

So for the top five candidates, there was a total increase of about 250 votes. Yet each person was allowed this year to cast five ballots instead of the four he cast the previous year.

Okay, we know that at a minimum 1223 different people voted this year (because that is the total that Gleff received). Guess what? Even if that did not represent a single extra voter over the previous year, it still supplies 1223 more votes -- five times more than is needed to get the 250 additional votes received by the five top candidates.

It would be interesting to learn just how many people voted this year compared to last year.

I don't think it's fair that bhatnasx withdrew and is now running again.

Is there any explanation for this?

Certainly it's fair since he won a spot in a three-way tie to begin with. He came back in before the official start time of the run-off, so there's no real harm there. Explanation? I think he wanted to withdraw to show his respect to the other candidates - ScottC who is an incumbent and the reputation and platform that doc (our most proficient poster) put forth. Hey, bhatnasx is one of those newbie politians here on FT so he might have had cold feet going against those two. But seriously, I think that many other FlyerTalkers contacted him through the day and wanted to let him know that his participation was warranted and would make an even better run-off, which it does because no matter who wins the fifth spot, just getting to this point is a very large vote of confidence by the members of FlyerTalk.

I personally had an exchange with bhatnasx and his reasoning to even run for office was to continue giving back to a community he has great respect for. He started by becoming a volunteer moderator since he felt that was one of the most important benefits of FlyerTalk and recently became a mentor to new mods in a program we've had in place for some months now among the moderator group.

But I do believe is is fair for him to continue to pursue the faith that other members have in his possible role as a representative to the member-elected TalkBoard, just as ScottC seeks to continue serving on the Board and doc seeks to leverage his considerable knowledge of the posts, people and issues on FlyerTalk.

At the end of the day, this is not "Survivor" and we don't need alliances. We need strong individuals to lead this great nation...... (pretty heady stuff huh?)

10-4 Over and Out.

I would not normally respond to this publicly, but since it is pretty clear who you are referring to - I am very familiar with the concept of separation of powers, from comparative constitutional law studies in the US and Germany.

And Dovster explained it quite well that separation of powers in the traditional sense - as it is practiced both in the US and in Europe - actually differs from the example of Flyertalk, if one were to look at it as a state. I wouldn't look at it as a state, but you brought up the example.

But I fully accept that Flyertalk is not a state, and that therefore the owner of Flyertalk decides on whichever model of separation of powers he deems appropriate.

FWIW I'd take issue with certain elements of Dovster's description of separation of powers, though that's more a discussion for OMNI. Independently, "separation of powers" isn't a clear principle in the US constitution, and some prefer the "balance of power" metaphor.

(The two were squarely at issue in the Supreme Court case Morrison v. Olson challenging an independent counsel statute, in upholding the independent counsel the Court clearly came down on the 'balance of power' side of the issue...)

Gleff, you are right. It is more of an Omni discussion and I would be happy to continue it with you there. I was merely replying to Randy's assertion about the two foreign members not understanding the American concept of separation of powers.

For the record, I live in Israel and have Israeli citizenship, but I was born in the US, have American citizenship, studied there, and worked as a journalist in America covering government.

How is the holding of Morrison v. Olson relevant to the "separation of powers" or "balance of powers" at Flyertalk?

Seems to me that we are entering a slippery slope when we start citing legal cases...

It was relevant to the Dovster's discussing of Separation of Powers in response to Randy's statement...

The case is very much relevant to Separation of Powers versus Balance of Powers in the United States. Here on Flyertalk we have a Supreme Court of Randy, and while Monty Python may say that "Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony..." in our case Executive Power is what Randy says it is

Do you know what I do for a living...?

Really? Good luck with that.

Gleff, I never contended that a private business has the same set up as a government. However, if Randy is going to say that the separation of authority on F/T is "much like the judicial and executive branches of our government being separate as well" than it is, indeed, fair to point out that the moderator corps has not only judicial and executive authority but legislative as well.

You people are making this WAY too complicated! I like gleff's example

I think we agree on that.

When I said "But I fully accept that Flyertalk is not a state, and that therefore the owner of Flyertalk decides on whichever model of separation of powers he deems appropriate", I meant the same - executive power, legislative power, judiciary power - on Flyertalk it is what Randy says it is.

I agree with this as well. I don't think there is any contradiction between what gleff, Dovster and I posted.


I think I read it once somewhere or you told me? But I have forgotten - if I remember correctly, you are an economist and work somewhere in political lobbying in some thinktank?

Can I respectfully suggest that we not pick Randy to death over whether the analogy he has used is perfect for him separating the moderator group from Talkboard? The reality is that he owns the board and it is his decision. End of story.

I for one am heartily glad that the election is over, and hope that we can return to the business of talking miles and points. 4 of the 5 spots are filled. I wish the new Talkboard all the best in whatever decisions you ponder.