One of the difficulties of such a large and disparate community like Flyertalk is that most users really only hang out in a small subset of the forums not least because there aren't enough hours in the day to follow more than a few on a regular basis. This being so, we only come across a small proportion of the Flytertalk members sufficiently much to form an opinion as to whether we would like them on the board.

The problem then is that I see a list of, say, 20 members standing for election to 9 posts. Of these 20 I might know 2: one of whom I would be very much in favour of being on the board, but one of whom I feel strongly should not. Deciding how to vote is a problem. Clearly I vote for the person I support, but how do I register my disapproval of the other person I know? There are 18 other names there, none of which I know, so I can't reasonably vote for any of them.

It sems to me that the best answer would be to have positive (I want this person to be on the board) and negative (I really do not want this person to be on the board) votes, and that they should be totalled on a simple arithmetic basis.

At first sight this seems easy to do. What does everyone think?

Christep, I have to admit that I have never heard of such a procedure anywhere in the world.

If three people are running for the US Senate from the same state (as is currently the case in Conn) you can vote for the one you want but have no way to vote against one of the others.

The same is true in Israel. When we have elections there are a host of parties but you can only vote for one --and can't cast a specific vote against the others.

Are you familiar with any election procedures such as the one you outlined (perhaps where you live in Hong Kong)?

No - I can't think of any similar procedures either. But I hope you do see my point - very few members are going to have come across more than one or two of the people standing for election and they may have a positive or negative view. It's clear how to express the positive view, but not clear how to express the negative one. At state or parliamentary election where people are exposed to advertisements, flyers, news reports or whatever is quite different to a flyertalk election where none of this happens - one is expected to vote on the basis of the psotings the person has made, and, if one can be bothered, the debate in the Talkboard forum.

(In Hong Kong we don't have universal sufferage at all - we have Functional Constituencies which is really something we don't want at all - trust me on this!)

I do see the advantage in what you are proposing but I also see a very big disadvantage.

The F/Ter who takes strong stands on issues is very apt to attract the most "No" votes. His competitor, who never upsets anybody with his views, will not get any votes cast against him.

So the first person might get 1000 "yes" votes and 300 "no" votes. Net: 700.

The second might get 750 people voting for him, nobody against him, and would win the election.

The majority would deprived of the candidate it wanted and TalkBoard would wind up with someone who has no strong feelings about any issues (or, if he does, is too timid to back them).

I will confess that I sympathize with your feelings. There have been candidates in past campaigns who I very much did not want to see elected and I wished I had some way to vote against them. In the long run, however, I think that it would result in more mediocre candidates being elected.

That was the reason I asked you if you knew of any place where elections were conducted in this manner -- it would be interesting to see what the results were.

christep, you make an interesting point...one that I have made about the Freddies for years [ducking]

Not sure how closely you have followed past elections. But your logic on these right away is seriously flawed I'd have to point out.

There were near double your example of 20 candidate standing for the last election. (Last election result is below as an example, outlining those who ran)

Furthermore - that quite large field is competing for only a few spots each election - not all 9 places have ever been filled by a vote. This year only 5 places will be filled for instance.

And remember - no FT'er needs to vote for more than one Candidate. If only one impresses you - vote for just that person.

2005 election results

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

(2 other Candidates withdrew from the election.)


I truly think looking at the long list of Candidates above, nearly all FT'ers would disagree with you.

Well I've been here for over 4 years, have 4400+ posts to my name and I can only recall ever seeing (even vaguely) 8 of those names. And there are only at most 5 that I feel I have any grounds at all for voting for. And of those five, I would want to vote positively for 2 and negatively for 3.

How should I have voted?

Well clearly that is your choice - and your choice alone.

Out of interest DID you vote in the last election?

As posted you do not need to vote for 5 candidates.

If there were 2 candidates you were comfortable voting for - as you say, one assumes they might be the obvious ones to select? You can quite legally vote for just those two.

Flyertalk, like every election I have ever been involved in, allows you to vote for the Candidates(s) you want to be elected, not to choose the ones you do not.

Perhaps your novel idea may catch on. However I suspect George B. Bush hopes it does not.

But surely almost every election involves an element of tactical voting? Third candidates in US Presidential elections don't get as many votes as they deserve because many people will vote for their second choice to avoid the really bad guy getting in.

So in my example above I have a choice:

a) Too many candidates about which I know nothing, and I don't have the time to find out enough about 30+ candidates to feel qualified to vote. Hope that the people who do know enough about the candidates have views similar to mine.

b) My dislike for the three that I don't want on the board is such that it overrides my preference for the two, and it is not clear who are the candidates most likely to beat the ones I dislike. In this case I should vote for everyone except the three I don't like.

c) As b) but there are clear favourites amongst the people I don't know. In this case I should vote for these favourites.

d) My preference for the two is sufficiently strong that it overrides my dislike for the three. In this case I just vote for the two I like.

e) A compromise between c) & d) - I vote for the favourites and the two I like.

In the end last year I have to admit that I took option a) and hoped. Unfortunately, that didn't give the result I had hoped for, but then the activities of the Talkboard haven't had any impact that I am aware of on my enjoyment of FT, so maybe it doesn't matter anyway.

Nice to hear. ^

Some might say like with politicians, good governance is when you do not immediately notice or feel impacted by the changes they approve.

Sad to hear you did not vote last year. That is your annual chance to be represented by those you do have confidence in.

Glen

Your second sentence sounds an awful lot like electioneering.

Ummm ... the news flash for you today is that I have not nominated (nor will I) for any election this year. @:-) @:-)

Just a TB member answering a member question - you know - the stuff folks hope we will do once elected.

Regardless, there will likely be incumbents running and there's a time and place for statements like that. I didn't think this was either.

If anyone really wants to know about the candidates, all you have to do is click on their name, and do a search of their postings.
I'm sure it will take some time to do this, but if you're really interested in making an informed voting decision, this is the way to go.

Thirty-four names on the list above. Some of them (many of then), well qualified; except for (we can all fill in different names I'm sure).

I do encourage all candidates to come to Chat. It's a great place to discuss miles and points; and how you would put your mark on Flyertalk.