Do we have a president yet?
 

I understand from this announcement that a vote for president is underway.

Surely, not all TB members are sitting on their hands waiting to vote. Usually, most people would vote quickly once the vote is opened. Per the TB guidelines here,

Any news, please?

I'm sorry, the ballot is still open.

To clarify, FewMiles, the passage that you cite refers to when there are three or more candidates running and the phrase 'immediately' is a reference to not requiring a runoff in the case where one candidate receives 2/3rds of the ballot.

It wasn't meant to close off balloting.

Although, frankly, that's not a terrible suggestion for a revision.

What's really a shame about this particular ballot being secret is that we (the Talkboard membership) will not know which Talkboard member(s) is dragging out the election by not immediately voting.

I'm sure Kokonutz (who I'd bet good money will stand for VP) will thank them, however, since any delay in electing a president presumably puts a delay in announcing for VP.

So, in the interest of public disclosure--I would ask each Talkboard member to indicate if they have yet cast a vote. I understand that "who" was voted for need not be disclosed. But it would be nice to know who is gumming up the works.

Hmm... it seems like you (and a few others) are really trying to rush things along. Wonder why that might be...

Because, like I did during the last Talkboard campaign, I see no point in having the entire Talkboard sitting around because one or more of it's members can't live within the FT rules.

The member you're referring to is not allowed to vote in this election (as stated by Randy in the now "disappeared" and locked thread). The two week voting policy was enacted by TB, and it seems only fair they should follow it (particularly given the appearance that the Presidental election has already been manipulated).

Besides, it's the whole point of the 2 weeks that someone may be travelling and unable to vote sooner. I'm sure that's what the delay is... ;)

While I appreciate your clarification, it shows that the phrase is open to interpretation. I would like to suggest the revision. In fact, any motion or vote which garners 2/3rds of the number of TB members voting one particular way, means that it is fait accompli and that the results can and should be communicated publicly.

So once the magic number is reached, those members who for whatever reason haven't voted yet should be denied the opportunity to go on the record?

Ding, that's the obvious problem.^
Can you define "sitting around?" I haven't seen any particular motion that has been held up because of this. We are still actively debating many ideas, and as far as I can see, there is no motion that is itching to be voted on but can't be due to our process.

And, FWIW, I don't feel the need to disclose whether or not I have cast a ballot.

I think we need an official FT fireplace, and each time a ballot by a TB member is cast but a president is NOT yet elected, there should be black smoke. When enough votes are cast so that a president is finally selected, of course, there should be white smoke. Does that work for everyone?

Not at all. A TB member can announce for VP before an election for the president is even begun, much less finished.

Moreover, I have no idea of whether Kokonutz is interested in serving as VP but if he is, he will need a majority of TB to support him. That means 5 votes. If, before he can vote, there are 4 other members who favor his election, the vote is tied at 4-4 and will have to wait for him to be the tie-breaker.

If another candidate already has 5 votes, then it does not matter how Kokonutz votes.

The FlyerTalk membership voted and chose who it wants representing them (and, IMHO, made very wise choices). Five truly excellent candidates were elected -- and we should now give them the opportunity to do their jobs, including selecting their leadership.

There is no appearance that anything has been manipulated. Since the Talkboard historically has shut down voting and announced results inside of two weeks once all members have voted, it tells me that someone is not voting.

That tells me that one (or more) members is dragging their feet. My supposition is that's to allow the suspended member to run for the VP slot.

Wrong. If you search, every Talkboard member has posted something in a public forum since the vote opened. Ergo, someone is dragging.

Yeah, but he can't vote or declare that he's interested if the election were held in what I'll call a timely fashion.

For all I know, 27 votes have been held up. There can be no trust that there are votes being held up without verification, and absent an open Talkboard forum, there is no verification. See the problem?

What we can deduce is that there is either a tie vote (I will wager $100 that this is not the case) or that one or more of the non-kokonutz Talkboard members has not voted yet (and thus causing unnecessary delay).


I'll take that as a "No" then. You also refused to take a stand one way or the other on a code of ethics for the Talkboard. There is an interesting pattern forming. Inside of a month, no less.

A timely fashion is, according to TalkBoard's rules, two weeks from the moment that a vote is posted. After that period is up, the results are announced even if all members have not voted.

He can declare, however, at any time -- it is my understanding that he has the e-mail addresses of most (and possibly all) of the members and can let them know that he is interested in running. There is no obligation that the declaration be made in any specific way.

So, there are two possibilities:

1. Four other members want him as VP. In that case, there is no possibility of anyone else getting a majority and he will cast the deciding ballot.

2. Five members want somebody else as VP. In that case, his vote is immaterial.

There has been no announcement that a vote for VP is underway. Today is Dec 14 -- if it were to be opened today, it would close on Dec 28. Randy announced that Kokonutz "will be eligible to rejoin the members of FlyerTalk and other TalkBoard members as of Dec. 25" -- giving him plenty of time to vote in a "timely fashion".

In that case you may want to head over to the Travel Safety/Security forum and call all those that are trying to defend their rights (especially against the TSA;)) as American citizens terrorists. I'm sorry, but the reason that I'm not disclosing my vote is because I really don't appreciate this nagging, rude attitude, and not that I have anything to hide.

Really? Well then I guess people shouldn't have voted for me in the election. Something I do plan on doing during my time on TalkBoard is looking at issues from all sides before drawing any conclusions. As the ideas continue to roll out I will have more clear stances, but in the meantime I'd like all info available to make a decision. Sorry if you may feel differently, but I wont change my principles of objectivity to play Bill O'Reilly or Chris Matthews.

And that's as far as I'm going to go in this debate. :)