The (almost) complete guide to the TalkBoard elections
 

For all those seeking a single place to learn the results of this years TalkBoard elections, this is it.

The winners in this years TalkBoard elections for the five positions open for the 2005/2006 year have been duly elected:
1. gleff w/ 1223 votes
2. ozstamps w/ 979 votes
3. missydarlin w/ 837 votes
4. Cholula w/ 824 votes

Well, OK, at least four of them have been elected. Because of the very last two ballots cast last night (GUWonder at two minutes to midnight and JOUY31 right at midnight) there is a three-way tie for the fifth and final spot on the TalkBoard. Upon discussion and vote, the current TalkBoard has decided on a run-off to begin on Tuesday, Nov. 2 to run for seven days to determine the fifth spot as well as the order for the next two runner-ups to fulfill any open positions that may occur. Originally bhatnasx withdrew the run-off to continue supporting FlyerTalk via his role as a moderator but has reentered the run-off at the very last second (and seconds it was...)

The candidates for the run off are:
bhatnasx w/ 656 votes
doc w/ 656 votes
ScottC w/ 656 votes

THE RUN-OFF RESULTS:
ScottC w/ 2,512 votes
doc w/ 2,256 votes
bhatnasx w/ 2,111 votes

Welcome back ScottC to another term on the TalkBoard. For doc and bhatnasx: thank you both for your contributions to the dialog in this years elections and for the "new faces" among our candidates. I think on behalf of our members we certainly would welcome you and all the others back next year when we have 4 additional seats to fill.

A Note: by action of the TalkBoard, doc is now the first member in line to fill a vacant seat should any current member of the Board be unable to fulfill his elected term, followed by bhatnasx. Again a hearty congrats to all.


For those of you who enjoy the dark secrets of an election, did you know:
- The top candidate this year received about 45% more votes than the top candidate in last years elections.

- Eight candidates voted only for themselves, no one else.

- Five candidates did not vote in this years elections.

- Among those candidates that did vote, one candidate did not vote for himself, yet he did vote for five others.

- This years elections resulted in the first tie among the open positions.

- A total of 2,762 ballots were cast.

- There were 34 candidates.

- One candidate withdrew before the voting began citing the excellent level of candidates and another withdrew during the voting.

- And one candidate was not active in campaigning because he was busy helping a friend recover from the effects of the recent hurricanes here in the U.S.

OK, now for those of you who need to see just how much your vote counted or if you are going to win a bet because of the number of votes a particular member received, here's the final tally:
gleff
1223

ozstamps
979

missydarlin
837

Cholula
824

bhatnasx
656

doc
656

ScottC
656

FewMiles
630

kokonutz
554

Shareholder
514

VPescado
468

peteropny
440

stimpy
364

Markie
328

socrates
298

parnel
198

Marathon Man
196

John C
145

nsx
140

Radioman
122

CameraGuy
112

civicmon
92

Alston
89

HNL
84

NOLAnwGOLD
76

~Matthew~
64

vivrant
38

Buzzard533
36

xmlsoa
25

rothsteg
25

fredman
23

mbstone
20

RamAir
20

gaz_zman
18

P.S. Thank you all for exercising your privilege to vote, see you all in just another day or so...

Hey Randy, just an idea here... @:-)

Why don't you just appoint both Scott and doc to the TalkBoard. They both got the same approval from the FT membership and another member for your Advisory Board surely couldn't hurt, right?

Since the runoff election has already been announced, and since bhatnasx stepped aside, for that reason, I think the matter is probably moot.

HEY! You're not Randy! ;)

Actually, I thought about the situation of batsnacks withdrawing his name from voting in the runoff and the fairness of that situation. My opinion on the matter is "oh well". He gave up his option of running and understood that he wouldn't not be elected to the TB. It's a rough decision, but it's his choice... and loss.

i don't have anything to do with the Board these days. I don't vote on issues, i rarely participate in discussions, i don't use any veto powers. For those of you who haven't kept up with the changes, the TalkBoard has operated on its own for some time now. And while some of the items that have been taken on and put into play are things i would not have done, i'm a member who voted for candidates and hope that those elected pursue the right path for FlyerTalk.

At this stage, i really do not have the power to do what you have suggested. Advisory Board? I haven't made any decision for FT in some time other than introduce FlyerTalk Premium and that was really an admin role. I'd say that a bit longer than six months ago the current board really started to get the hang of what i have been saying for some time and moved forward with their own agenda regardless of who and what i do. This has been the most important change in the history of FT in that the group gets that they set direction and are responsible for what works and doesn't. There is only a single topic in which I am active with the TalkBoard and that is I represent the interest of of volunteer moderator group. This single topic is not the domain of the Talkboard, past, present and future. It's much like the judicial and executive branches of our government being separate as well. That's really the only item that i am involved with.

For instance, today there were some items i would have done different with the results of the elections but it's just a matter of style. The Board voted something and i was more than glad to assist them make it happen.

Its come a long way from the Advisory Board days and I personally could not be more pleased. As for ScottC and doc, may the best candidate represent us all.

Please exercise your privilege to vote.

Thanks Randy for your explanation!

Who says FlyerTalkers are not an astute crowd?

Mathematically, using some or just one of your allowable votes is the best way to ensure a candidate you really want will get in. Casting a single vote in a multi-candidate election is also known as "bullet voting."

Wouldn't you hate to have your fourth or "I don't care" fifth vote be the one that pushes out your favorite first choice? I didn't use all five of my votes, either.
If it was good enough for the Founding Fathers, it's good enough for FlyerTalk, your honor! :cool:

Congratulations to all the winners AND all the candidates! It was a great campaign season with some excellent debate and tons of really, really interesting and educational arguments and perspectives.

While I personally went into the process with tounge firmly in cheek, the entire process reminded me why I do actually care about this little corner of the Internet. I do hope that the new TB well in addressing the issues on which you ran!

Good luck representing our needs and redressing our grievences!

Unfortunately, two members of the TalkBoard from outside the U.S. can't relate to that separation of powers and it's everything i can do to use it as a positive example. May i call you as a character witness (as opposed to being a character....HA!) if the situation calls for it? And i know you meant to say "If it was good enough for the Founding Father (Randy), it's good enough for FlyerTalk, your honor!"

Don't forget to vote in the run-off, there's a 20,000-mile/point bonus being offered to one lucky member.

So, "batsnacks" (sorry, Samir) is in the runoff after all?

Yes, he is once again.

....and I see that the runoff voting has actually already commenced. ^

So I went and voted.

Looking forward to my 20,000 points/miles. We all get that, right? ;) :D :p (Just kidding. Now that I've said that, I'll probably be disqualified from winning it! :D )

Actually, two members of the TalkBoard from outside the U.S. realize that it is the Legislature that makes the laws, including those pertaining to how the Executive and Judiciary must behave. The Executive enforces the laws established by the Legislature and the Judiciary insures that the Executive does so fairly.

That is true separation of powers.

In this case, it would mean that the TalkBoard would establish both the TOS (which everyone must obey) and the operating procedures for the moderators (who, as the police, are part of the Executive). Randy, as the Supreme Court, would have the right to decide if a particular law established by the TalkBoard was unconstitutional and, if it was not, to make certain that the moderators are enforcing that law fairly.

As it currently stands, moderators are establishing both the TOS and, even more importantly, their own operating procedures. They refuse to have any Legislative review of their practices and the Judiciary, which is extremely (and understandably) very busy with other duties, very rarely has the time to provide a timely appeals process.

The moderators, therefore, are:

1. Acting as the Legislature in establishing laws and procedures.
2. Acting as the Executive in enforcing these laws.
3. Acting as the Judiciary (in most cases) in providing the only appeals process.

Beautiful PolSci discussion about separation of powers and such...

However, the 2,762/81,808 participation rate doesn't look very massive to allow even thinking about "powers", let alone being concerned for their separate roles...I am pretty sure that, in their overwhelming majority, those 81,808 don't even know what the TB is, and that's -sadly- exactly where the previous TB failed. Unless, it doesn't matter. In that case, I won't bother to vote next year either...

Anyway, congrats to all the candidates.

Congrats to ALL the candidates!

And can we leave it at that - do we really have to bring another moderator discussion into something as simple as a congrat thread? Geesh already. Save it for another thread or forum or whatever - leave this one pure.

We know the candidates - we know the run-off candidates - enough...vote.

Cheers. Sharon

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? :confused:

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 :D

Do you know what I do for a living...? :confused: :D :p

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 :D

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.

Can I respectfully submit that Flyertalk is not a democrary ( which neither is the United States - but that is also an OMNI thread) , nor a Repubilc ( which the United States is); but rather a benevolent dictatorship which has served us all well all these yrs.

I will cast my vote for closing this thread :D

Ding ding ding. Give that lady (another) cigar! :)

Well said, Carol and Jan! ^

Did anyone on this thread claim that Flyertalk was a democracy? :confused:

In my opinion, benevolent dictatorship describes it well.

Have to agree with the above wise advice. ^

I for one find it hard to believe, verging on the incredible, that some posters are headed in :rolleyes: that direction. Whats the point in discussing democracy in this thread? It may even be off-topic. :p

I too wish all the current members of Talk Board luck. They'll need it. :p

Dan

Nobody discussed democracy in this thread.

By my math (very shaky at the best of times!) I count 3 of the 7 presently elected members of TB residing outside of North America, and being in both Hemispheres. Despite there being no formal mandate any more for that to occur.

That I personally think is excellent, and entirely appropriate for FT, being the global network that it is. ^

Ditto what SanDiego1K & jan_az said!!!!

:eek: Even disregarding the original intent and plain meaning of the FlyerTalk Terms of Service, I disagree with this overall characterization, and suggest that the inclusion of this post in this thread was not a display of the savoir faire for which the author is generally renowned.

I've had my occasional share of "arbitrary and capricious" actions by our moderator corps, but for the most part, I prefer to address them through our excellent Private Message (PM) system, if they even warrant a response at all. As Chief Justice Roberts said, we don't go to a ball game to watch the referee.

Given the munificent salaries bestowed on our hard-working moderators, and the extended hours of service they contribute for all our benefit, so we can focus our attention on points and miles, I hardly think it need be gainsaid that this is not the time nor place for an anti-moderator polemic.

I did not say that the moderators were arbitrary or capricious nor was I making an anti-moderator polemic.

I simply said that the moderators serve the functions of the judiciary, legislature, and executive departments -- and that was in response to Randy's mentioning separation of powers.

If you disagree that they serve in all those capacities, I will be happy to discuss it with you but please do not read into my post something which was not there.