Never rec'd Ballot, never had chance to vote

[jkushner1]

After the July accounting hiccup on ballots, I waited 30 days and called Sedro Woolley stating I still had not rec'd a ballot. They said that their hands were tied because of accounting procedure and bylaws, which I believe, and to wait for the resending of the second wave of Ballots, NEVER REC'D - I am a prepaid 5 year member so thats not the problem. Kind of a bummer as I wanted to vote for Gary Stevens for Pres and Nik Habicht for my Area (8).

Jkushner1

[tightloop]

After the July accounting hiccup on ballots, I waited 30 days and called Sedro Woolley stating I still had not rec'd a ballot. They said that their hands were tied because of accounting procedure and bylaws, which I believe, and to wait for the resending of the second wave of Ballots, NEVER REC'D - I am a prepaid 5 year member so thats not the problem. Kind of a bummer as I wanted to vote for Gary Stevens for Pres and Nik Habicht for my Area (8).

Jkushner1

Yours was in the hanging chad group..still in a box in Florida...to be counted next time

[Jack Suber]

Well, I have been on the road a bit and just got to where I could see the election results.

I know that a few of our members here in SC never received 1st or second ballots. So, I hope that the board addresses voting immediately following this election. The process has to be improved. There must be a process in place to allow for replacement ballots if someone does not receive theirs.

I would also love to see (I know it probably isn't possible) a list of the people in my section for whom ballots were not received? I want to know if it is inactive people. I am not asking for information on who they voted for, just names of people for whom a ballot was not received. If it is inactive people, those are the people for whom I need to start an outreach program.

The numbers of "ballots that were not returned" is what REALLY concerns me.

Edited October 12, 2007 by Jack Suber

[Rob Boudrie]

I am not asking for information on who they voted for, just names of people for whom a ballot was not received.

USPSA HQ has no access to who voted, or even if a particular individual voted, and requesting that information from the CPA firm would (a) involve a lot of manual effort and ( violate the election procedures that dictate that USPSA receives the results, but not details of votes, or even who voted.

[Jaxshooter]

There should be some way to vote online using your member number. Before anybody says some people don't have computers, I am sure they shoot with someone that does. With the low percentage of voters it might help. I would also like a count on how many members did not get a ballot.

[Jack Suber]

I am not asking for information on who they voted for, just names of people for whom a ballot was not received.

USPSA HQ has no access to who voted, or even if a particular individual voted, and requesting that information from the CPA firm would (a) involve a lot of manual effort and ( violate the election procedures that dictate that USPSA receives the results, but not details of votes, or even who voted.

This information is critical for maintaining membership. The CPA firm should have this data, how else could they verify the ballots they received were from active members?

I am looking at the numbers and it looks like around 36% voted across the board (national and area). Let's assume that percentage is the same at the section level. If 65% of my membership did not vote or is not actively participating in our sport, I want to know. What does this say about the job I am doing? I have really dropped the ball if 65% of my membership did not participate in the election. I need to get to these people. Same for the ADs. In A6, only 985 ballots were received out of 2567 sent. We need to fix this.

[rubberneck]

In this day and age why do we have to rely on paper and snail mail to vote? What is the objection to allowing members to vote online? Those without o-line access could request a paper ballot sort of like an absentee ballot.

[JFlowers]

My understanding is the voting procedure is specified by the by-laws. So, in order to vote via computer, etc would require a change to the by-laws. I do think that the number of "Did not receive a ballot" responses needs to be tallied and the CPA asked why they failed to properly execute the contract to that %.

[paul788]

The CPA firm could set up a website and allow voting online. I agree with Jack Suber that the ADs and SCs should know who did not vote as these are people we as a sport need to motivate. I understand that our current procedure requires paper and an outside firm for anonimity. These requirements can and, I believe, need to be changed.

Paul F. Beck

A49023

[JThompson]

never got mine either

[rubberneck]

My understanding is the voting procedure is specified by the by-laws. So, in order to vote via computer, etc would require a change to the by-laws. I do think that the number of "Did not receive a ballot" responses needs to be tallied and the CPA asked why they failed to properly execute the contract to that %.

I think the 20th century approach to the 21st century is something that should be addressed even if it requires a change in the by-laws. I got the first ballot but tossed it when the problems came up and waited for the second ballot. It never came. I don't feel particularly disenfranchised but this whole process was handled very poorly by the CPA firm and I am guessing there are a lot of people who are bothered by it.

[Jack Suber]

My understanding is the voting procedure is specified by the by-laws. So, in order to vote via computer, etc would require a change to the by-laws. I do think that the number of "Did not receive a ballot" responses needs to be tallied and the CPA asked why they failed to properly execute the contract to that %.

I think the 20th century approach to the 21st century is something that should be addressed even if it requires a change in the by-laws. I got the first ballot but tossed it when the problems came up and waited for the second ballot. It never came. I don't feel particularly disenfranchised but this whole process was handled very poorly by the CPA firm and I am guessing there are a lot of people who are bothered by it.

That is my point. If we only received 5,749 ballots out of 14,966, something is wrong. We really need to look at the voting process and amend the bylaws.

What is really worrying me is if we do have a membership of 14,966 and only 36% of those are active members, we have a problem. 14,966 means absolutely nothing if these people are not participating. I would prefer 9000 active/participating members over 14,966, of which only 36% are participating. The ADs and SCs have to get the data on these people so we can bring them back into the game. We are in trouble if we don't.

Edited October 13, 2007 by Jack Suber

[SmittyFL]

....... I need to get to these people. Same for the ADs. In A6, only 985 ballots were received out of 2567 sent. We need to fix this.

Why?

I'm a section coordinator also and I understand where you're coming from, however it's none of your, mine, or anyone elses business who any of our members voted for, if they voted, why they voted, or why they didn't vote. They are adults and if they cared enough about it they would have voted. Or maybe they just assumed the candidate they wanted would win anyway so they didn't bother.

I think the biggest issue as was mentioned in the othe thread is this is a hobby and a lot of people have things in their lives take them away from shooting for a year, or two, or five; they may maintain their membership just becuase it's cheap with intent to return to the sport. But probably don't care or pay any attention to it while they are gone.

[shred]

Honestly for the first five years I shot USPSA, I could have cared less who my AD and RD were, and if I got ballots, I probably would have just tossed them. Given as how a big % of USPSA members is in that 1-5 year range, I don't think it's too surprising many didn't return ballots.

On people not-getting them, I'd say if twice the number of people as the margin of victory was will swear they never got a ballot, then I'd ask for a re-vote. Twice to avoid people that just forgot or are claiming not to have gotten one for whatever reason triggering a bunch of needless re-votes.

[Jack Suber]

....... I need to get to these people. Same for the ADs. In A6, only 985 ballots were received out of 2567 sent. We need to fix this.

Why?

I'm a section coordinator also and I understand where you're coming from, however it's none of your, mine, or anyone elses business who any of our members voted for, if they voted, why they voted, or why they didn't vote. They are adults and if they cared enough about it they would have voted. Or maybe they just assumed the candidate they wanted would win anyway so they didn't bother.

I think the biggest issue as was mentioned in the othe thread is this is a hobby and a lot of people have things in their lives take them away from shooting for a year, or two, or five; they may maintain their membership just becuase it's cheap with intent to return to the sport. But probably don't care or pay any attention to it while they are gone.

Well, its in our bylaws that I am to recruit and maintain membership in our section - I am to promote the sport. I am not asking for data on who voted for whom. I want to know who did not return a ballot. I want to know if they are active and contact them if they are not. If they did not receive a ballot, I want to know that as well (that is important for future elections). We are losing members faster than we are gaining them. My section is losing volunteers, staff, and clubs. If the sport is going to survive, we need to maintain our membership. More importantly, the 14,000 member number is hollow. It means nothing if these people are not participating.

I do a lot of political work for local, statewide, and national elections. These numbers are scary and would be considered a failure anywhere else. That is why I am worried.

[boo radley]

The CPA firm could set up a website and allow voting online. I agree with Jack Suber that the ADs and SCs should know who did not vote as these are people we as a sport need to motivate. I understand that our current procedure requires paper and an outside firm for anonimity. These requirements can and, I believe, need to be changed.

Paul F. Beck

A49023

<grin> I think the challenges posed by creating an internet voting solution (to say nothing of expense) make the current pen-and-paper method downright idyllic.

If I distance myself from brianenos.com/forums, the 35-40% voting rate doesn't seem unexpected. And, regardless: if only the most motivated respond....why is that bad? At least direction is in the hands of those who most care.

[Jack Suber]

The CPA firm could set up a website and allow voting online. I agree with Jack Suber that the ADs and SCs should know who did not vote as these are people we as a sport need to motivate. I understand that our current procedure requires paper and an outside firm for anonimity. These requirements can and, I believe, need to be changed.

Paul F. Beck

A49023

<grin> I think the challenges posed by creating an internet voting solution (to say nothing of expense) make the current pen-and-paper method downright idyllic.

If I distance myself from brianenos.com/forums, the 35-40% voting rate doesn't seem unexpected. And, regardless: if only the most motivated respond....why is that bad? At least direction is in the hands of those who most care.

I agree. If the poor numbers in the election is a case of lack of motivation (people who are shooting but chose not to vote), then I prefer the motivated ones voting. But what if these are people who are not even shooting? If that is the case, then our sport is not growing. THAT is the problem. For that reason I think we really need to look at who participated (not how they voted) and try to figure out why others did not participate in the elections. We need to make sure they are participating in shooting.

Think of it as a business partner. If I am a major sponsor, is USPSA worth my investment if only 5,749 members are actively participating nationally? Wonder what the participation level is in SASS and IDPA? You could say, well, this match had 300 shooters and this one had 300 shooters. As a sponsor I would ask, are they the "same" 300 shooters? If so, then I can reduce what I contribute since I am covering the same universe.

[Ted Murphy]

I did not get a ballot either, something that I think is ironic to a point.

Some people think the whole situation is the organization unfortunately chose a CPA firm that was very poor at their job, others think that something more sinister is/was afoot.

I don't know what the answer is, but it's over with and I for one do not want a revote. I do hope they get someone else to handle the next election, else my suspicions would be more towards the latter of the two theories stated above.

Ted

[uscbigdawg]

One of many problems with USPSA. I'll add in personal gripes of our targets vs. IPSC and also I still hate the scoring system.

To be productive though, I got my ballot while here in A-Stan. Surprised actually, but got it. 36% of the membership voting is about what I would expect. Look at the low numbers that show up for national elections of our political leaders.

Rich

[LPatterson]

Jack, maybe you should look at the number of people in your section who shoot and compare them to the number of people who volunteer to set up matches. The people who shoot & scoot are probably the same ones who didn't bother to vote. If they don't take the effort to help at the local level, why would you expect them to care about the national level. Besides the American way is to bitch after the fact instead of fixing the proplem up front.

[Jack Suber]

Jack, maybe you should look at the number of people in your section who shoot and compare them to the number of people who volunteer to set up matches. The people who shoot & scoot are probably the same ones who didn't bother to vote. If they don't take the effort to help at the local level, why would you expect them to care about the national level. Besides the American way is to bitch after the fact instead of fixing the proplem up front.

Believe it or not, I do keep track of that. That factors in my decisions to award Nat Slots (what little I get). Before the wait list, I had more participation here because people in our section knew that SC's nat slots would be awarded based upon "helping out". The wait list kind of killed that influence for me. I would say the the majority of the Nationals "regulars" (the ones that go every year, the ones who 'expect' slots) from South Carolina have never worked our Sectional Championship. That is beside the point, however.

I really want to know if we have members here that are not even shooting. If the numbers are high, I want to start reaching out to them. We still need more people shooting and participating.

I think USPSA needs to use the election data to increase participation. I have been involved in Presidential elections, Gubernatorial Elections, Senate, Congressional, and local legislative races. I have managed a few myself. We ALWAYS analyze the vote data in order to identify where we are not effectively reaching out. This is critical. USPSA MUST do this in order to build our sport. In politics, we call it "outreach". I guess in this case it is called marketing. If we are not effectively marketing to our membership, how are we going to appeal to outsiders? I think we are backing ourselves into a corner.

Edited October 14, 2007 by Jack Suber

[sfinney]

Never got my "second" ballot. Hope my first one counted.

No one I have talked to in my area that voted (and I mean NO one) voted for the winners, as posted.

Would be nice if there was a way to check and see what vote was recorded (if any) for yourself, at least.

[JThompson]

Jack, maybe you should look at the number of people in your section who shoot and compare them to the number of people who volunteer to set up matches. The people who shoot & scoot are probably the same ones who didn't bother to vote. If they don't take the effort to help at the local level, why would you expect them to care about the national level. Besides the American way is to bitch after the fact instead of fixing the proplem up front.

Believe it or not, I do keep track of that. That factors in my decisions to award Nat Slots (what little I get). Before the wait list, I had more participation here because people in our section knew that SC's nat slots would be awarded based upon "helping out". The wait list kind of killed that influence for me. I would say the the majority of the Nationals "regulars" (the ones that go every year, the ones who 'expect' slots) from South Carolina have never worked our Sectional Championship. That is beside the point, however.

I really want to know if we have members here that are not even shooting. If the numbers are high, I want to start reaching out to them. We still need more people shooting and participating.

I think USPSA needs to use the election data to increase participation. I have been involved in Presidential elections, Gubernatorial Elections, Senate, Congressional, and local legislative races. I have managed a few myself. We ALWAYS analyze the vote data in order to identify where we are not effectively reaching out. This is critical. USPSA MUST do this in order to build our sport. In politics, we call it "outreach". I guess in this case it is called marketing. If we are not effectively marketing to our membership, how are we going to appeal to outsiders? I think we are backing ourselves into a corner.

You have some good points Jack....

[ima45dv8]

I wonder what was the cost to send out the ballots? If we subtract the cost of the CPA firm used to tabulate the results, we have a fairly good idea of the base material costs to perform a 'customer satisfaction/participation' survey. Of course, there would be an incremental cost beyond printing and postage to compile the results, but the return would likely far outweigh the investment.

Responses from those who return the survey would be of obvious value, but it would also provide some indication of those members who our SC's and AD's might want to reach out to.

And, it wouldn't run afoul of our bylaws that require anonymity in voting (a good thing).

[Chuck D]

There is NO excuse for a member in good standing to NOT have received a ballot. In addition, NO possible "justification" can be given for the absolute failure that this election process had become.

When the membership can not rely upon basic service provision......

This "election" just screams for an independent review and implementation of changes to the process.......

Edited October 14, 2007 by Chuck D