As there were no further nominations for Chairman, Bill returns unopposed.
Congratulations on that vote of confidence. Or I could say he again won by default: de fault of no else wanting the job.
~erik~
As there were no further nominations for Chairman, Bill returns unopposed.
Congratulations on that vote of confidence. Or I could say he again won by default: de fault of no else wanting the job.
~erik~
Congratulations Bill. I think the fact that you were unchallenged is a huge vote of confidence :cheers:
Well done. :cheers:
Congratulations Bill
Excellent result. Keep up the good work Bill.
We like Greens
Congratulations Bill, the position of Chairman is in safe hands for another year :cheers:
My post is my personal opinion and as such you do not have my permission to quote me outside of these forums!
Dave
Brenin Tegeingl
Formerly known as Mancunian Pyrocacher on GC
Congratulations Bill, I honestly can't think of a better man for the job :cheers:
"I Cache, therefore I am"
Thank you Erik for your announcements, thank you folks for your congratulations, and thank you to the members of GAGB for putting up with me for another year! :cheers:
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light. (Dylan Thomas)
Bill, thanks for another year of Chairing GAGB and thanks in advance for next year too!
Caching since 2001
Founder member of GAGB (2003)
Committee (2003-2013)
Chair of GAGB (2010-2012)
Negotiator of 18 Landowner Agreements
GAGB Friend
GAGB's annual elections are due to take place in November.
The election for the post of Chairman will begin at midnight on Sunday 9th and end at midnight on Sunday 16th.
Did I miss something here, or are you lot a week a head of me
Ah tis OK I am with ya now, no one stood against Bill so he was automatically put back where he should be well done Bill
OK stupid question time ...
On the 16th November when we vote for the committe
How many do we vote for?
And do we just send an email with 3/4/5/ however many names on that we choose to Bill?
5 am time for bed
Last edited by Us 4 and Jess; 4th November 2008 at 04:55 AM.
From the constitution: E. 2. Every voting member shall have one vote.
Yes, you do send an email, but to Erik, our Returning Officer, not to me. I shan't know any more than anyone else about how the candidates are doing until the end of the election.
I'll be posting full instructions nearer the date.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light. (Dylan Thomas)
I think this is an interesting point where the constitiution could benefit from being made more specific. Since there is a small electorate there is a chance of 2 or more candidates obtaining an equal number of votes on a "first past the post" system. Thus, it would seem to me that a transferable voting system such as Single Transferable Vote (http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=51) would be appropriate to allow preferences to be taken into account. This is the method often preferred by mutual/charitable organisations that have elected boards/committees.
I'm not a member of GAGB so my view on the voting system it chooses is irrelevant, but please, please don't ever use a STV or any similar proportional system. They are incomprehensible and never return a useful result. Look at Italy .
For once Alan, I disagree with you completely . If you want a fair system, it has to be proportional. If you want an unfair system where votes don't count equally, choose "first past the post", or if you want a binary system, use an "electoral college" system where the eventual outcome bears little relation to the votes cast and people living in vast swathes of the country are disenfranchised and may as well not bother voting at all. The extreme example of the "electoral college" appeared in George Orwell's "1984". Not a coincidence. If you want to discuss social anthropology in the context of emergent democratic systems then I'd love to, in another thread
And if you want things to get done, it has to not be proportional . But seriously, I don't have a problem with proportional voting per se, just the convoluted and incomprehensible systems that sometimes get proposed. And even used.
But you're right: this isn't the place (unless and until GAGB decide to change their voting system and I'm a member).
I'm all too aware of that. I've said before that I'd like to see a number of changes to our constitution, and something addressing that situation is one of them. If the situation does occur this year, then I'll put it to the definitely elected committee and then to the membership, but I think the fair interim solution would be a second election for those candidates who'd tied.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light. (Dylan Thomas)
I guess that would be one way of doing it, however, those participating in a second election to resolve a tie, having voted for someone else in the first election would have two votes in total, whereas those who had voted for the tied candidates first time round would retain just the one vote and the ability to leave it as previously or change their allegiance. This disparity would be contrary to the constitution.
On the other hand, the reallocation of excess votes under STV is effectively a second election, whilst ensuring that everyone has exactly one vote, consistent with the constitution.
Since it does not specify the voting system to be used, only the number of votes allowed, the constitution, as it stands, actually allows sufficient latitude to ensure that there cannot be a tie, just as there cannot really be a joint FTF on a cache
Given the great enthusiasm over the nominations, some members have nominated more members than they can vote for, which seem to indicate a disconnect between expectations and reality. So I'd suggest the whole process needs to be specified more precisely in a revised constitution.
Irrespective of the outcome of the committee election, I would be pleased to offer assistance in improving this part of the constitution. I've had a keen interest in electoral fairness for over 25 years however the discussion of the reasons for this is outside the scope of this thread!
Let me describe with a very contrived example. The reality would certainly be less extreme. Let's say there are 9 candidates (A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I) and 5 committee positions (as is the case here). Let's suppose that the popularity and profile of the candidates is such that A is twice as popular as B, B is twice as popular as C, C is twice as popular as D etc, in terms of how the votes are cast. Aside from that, each candidate receives their own vote, that of their proposer and that of their seconder.
The outcome of the election based on the single votes is:
A receives 12 votes
B receives 6 votes
C, D, E, F, G, H and I receive 3 votes each.
Which 5 candidates are elected? With "first past the post" system that dilemma is a possible outcome. If you went on to have a second round of voting just for C, D, E, F, G, H and I the 21 people who voted for them in the first place would still have their one vote, whereas the 18 who voted for A and B would have a second vote and in effect determine the outcome, the other 21 voters being disenfranchised.
However, since there are 5 committee seats, a candidate only needs to get 20% of the vote to be elected. The rest of their votes are "spare".
In this election there were 39 votes, so 8 votes are all that are needed to exceed 20%. In the STV system, only A has 8 votes, so only A is elected in the first round. A has 4 "spare" votes. All 12 of A's voters' second choice candidates are awarded 4/12 of a vote, A retaining the 8 needed to be elected. B receives 6 * 4/12, C receives 3 * 4/12, D receives 2 * 4/12, E receives 1 * 4/12 (by virtue of the supposed popularity of the candidates).
So, after further consideration:
B receives 6 votes + 24/12 votes = 8 votes
C receives 3 votes + 12/12 votes = 4 votes
D receives 3 votes + 8/12 votes = 3 2/3 votes
E receives 3 votes + 4/12 votes = 3 1/3 votes
F, G, H and I receive 3 votes each.
So B has been elected but has no spare votes. Now you can already see which 5 candidates would be elected because of the contrived popularity ratios used for the example.
What actually happens in the STV system is that any spare votes B has get reallocated. As it's not enough to get any other candidate to the 8 votes required, the candidates with the fewest votes are then eliminated progressively, with their votes being reallocated according to the 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc preferences of their voters. In this example, F, G, H and I are all eliminated as they tie for bottom place and there are no longer more candidates than committee places, so the process ends there.
Thus, the end result is that the 5 candidates that are elected are those proportionally most popular amongst the electorate. Everyone's votes counted - both the "spare" votes from the most popular candidates and the "lost" votes from the elimination least popular candidates are reallocated according to voters' preferences, so no votes are "wasted".
From the voter's perspective, all that is required in voting is to rank the candidates in order of preference (1, 2, 3, 4 etc) not ranking those that you would not want to see elected under any circumstances. I'd suggest it's an easier choice to make than when you are faced with 9 outstanding candidates but can only cast your one vote for one of them!
I hope that's helpful.
It seems there's ambiguity over terminology. We've only been discussing proportional voting systems. They are of course the cornerstone behind proportional representation in an assembly governed by groupings of representatives, however we have no such groupings.
STV happens to be a proportional voting system where you vote for individuals not groups, which it why it is often used for committee elections. The assistance it provides in terms of resolving ties fairly that could otherwise arise is what commends it.
I hope this disambiguation of proportional voting systems from proportional representation is helpful!
With caching getting ever larger, now might be a good time (perhaps) to increase the number of peeps on the committee anyway.
I'm sure those that have been nominated, seconded, and accepted, can be found a place within the echelons somehow It'd be a shame to lose their potential contribution
The other option would be allow them all onto the committee - there's certainly enough potential for the GAGB to double its ranks. Potentially in a secondary capacity... perhaps regional.
I'm just thinking that if there are people that are keen to help, it'd be a pity not to use their talents and sideline them.
If the candidate list up-to-date and correct (which I'm sure it is), it would seem that The Hornet has stood by his decision to bow out.....................
We are bound by the terms of our constitution, and are limited to Chairman, five elected committee members, and two co-opted members. However, as I've said elsewhere, and perhaps in this thread too, once these elections are over I'd like to see a lot of changes made to our constitution. I think it served as a good starting point, but things have changed a lot since it was drawn up, and we've learned a lot, and a great deal in it is overdue for review.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light. (Dylan Thomas)
It's extremely helpful in proving my point that proportional systems are complicated . I don't understand any of that .
The general populace are disaffected with politics anyway. Using such a system merely serves to confuse as well. Or perhaps that's the idea?
But anyway, back to the GAGB election.
In any case, the boffins have proved that it doesn't matter which system you choose, someone can muck it up: http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/...cle5083087.ece
Caching since 2001
Founder member of GAGB (2003)
Committee (2003-2013)
Chair of GAGB (2010-2012)
Negotiator of 18 Landowner Agreements
GAGB Friend
Experience at another organisation shows that keeping the formal committee size "limited" works a lot better: the smaller team is typically more able to arrange meetings when all will be there, meetings work better etc.
Ok, so you feel you need "bums on seats" to get things done?.... in that case the committee members act as a manager, and "subcontract" the work out.... but the "manager" still has the responsibility.
My 6 penneth (old penneth, at that!)
Paul
I have a Geocaching problem...
Work gets in the way!
* Cache Walker -Caching by byway, not highway! CacheWalker.co.uk
Walking and Caching in Warwickshire, Worcestershire, Gloucestershire areas
The voting procedure for the Committee election can be found here
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light. (Dylan Thomas)
As the voting period for GAGB committee members has ended I've enumerated the votes and am honored to announce the five winners.
They are:
Dave of the Wombles
Jacobite
Mongoose39uk
Nobbynobbs
Sandvika
Congratulations!
~erik~
Thanks for doing this Erik
Congratulations to those who have been selected.
:cheers: :cheers:
Many thanks, Erik, for your announcement and for all the time you've put into this!
Congratulations to the new members of our committee, and to those who've been re-elected. My commiserations to those of you who weren't elected.
---
Bill, Chairman GAGB
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light. (Dylan Thomas)
I'd like to to echo Bills words and send thanks to Erik for acting as the returning officer again (at least this year he had some work to do ]
My Congratulations to the new members of the committee I'm looking forward to working closely with both of you, And to those who've been re-elected, on being able to continue working with you.
My commiserations to those of you who weren't elected, hopefully you will stand for election again next year.
Deci
My post is my personal opinion and as such you do not have my permission to quote me outside of these forums!
Dave
Brenin Tegeingl
Formerly known as Mancunian Pyrocacher on GC
Many thanks to Erik for his time and effort as our returning officer. Congratulations to the successful candidates, and commiserations to those candidates that were not successful (I know that your valued work has been greatly appreciated).
And finally, thanks to the members who voted for me, I will work hard to justify that confidence.
Stuart Poulton (StuartP) has been co-opted joint webmaster for us for some time, and since the resignation of Steve Cole (penguinhunters) earlier this year has also been acting as treasurer.
I'm pleased to be able to announce that the new committee have co-opted Stuart back onto the committee in both those positions.
---
Bill, Chairman GAGB
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light. (Dylan Thomas)
Many thanks to Erik for acting as returning officer and to everyone who voted in our election.
It is humbling to be elected to the committee, especially when it is acknowledged that there is important work to be done, such as amending the constitution. Thank you for your confidence, I will work hard with enthusiasm for you and make our forum my second home so that I'm in touch and accessible.
I'm pleased to announce that we've co-opted Ian (studlyone) back onto the committee, so we now have joint webmasters again.
---
Bill, Chairman GAGB
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light. (Dylan Thomas)
It's over a week since the elections ended, so I'm unpinning this thread. I'll leave it open though.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light. (Dylan Thomas)