.......and some more IMPBA gray matter

[Don Ferrette]

Time to put on your thinking caps boys & girls, ESPECIALLY anyone outside of IMPBA district 2, 4 or 5. If this voting rule gets passed you will have this-

District 1 with 81 Members have 2 Votes.

District 2 with 189 Members have 6 Votes.

District 3 with 53 Members have 1 Vote.

District 4 with 120 Members have 4 Votes.

District 5 with 140 Members have 4 Votes.

District 6 with 23 Members have 1 Vote.

District 7 with 63 Members have 2 Votes.

District 12 with 64 Members have 2 Votes.

District 13 with 66 Members have 2 Votes.

District 14 with 46 Members have 1 Vote.

(this list from previous post by Tony Jacuzzi)

DO THE MATH!!! The ENTIRE organization can be controlled by a simple alignment of three districts- 2, 4 & 5. They will have 14 votes, add up the rest people. Guess what? YOU LOSE!!

I strongly urge any & ALL members who reside in the "other" districts to be sure to get out there, VOTE and VOTE THIS DOWN!!!!!

But is that it?? Nope. Seems someone was smart enough to put a SECOND proposal out there to split the votes potentially against this one. So let me ask a VERY important question of the IMPBA powers that be-

If the MAJORITY of the TOTAL votes wants to either leave it the same or change it to amendment B one vote per 100 what happens to the initial proposal A??

In other words as an example if 30% vote no change & 30% vote for amendment B that means 60% would NOT want option A. So what is the correct answer here................ <_<

 

[piper_chuck]

I'm still trying to understand why we even have this electoral college style of voting. Every member pays the same dues, why not just one vote, one member?

 

[Don Ferrette]

I'm still trying to understand why we even have this electoral college style of voting. Every member pays the same dues, why not just one vote, one member?

I would have no problem with that. But what I do have a problem with this amendment A proposal is lets say there is something to vote on & only 11 out of 189 members of district 2 vote for or against it, that district still just cast 6 votes that were SUPPOSED to be based on the total membership. THAT makes things WORSE than they are now. :angry:

 

[piper_chuck]

Oh and Don, YGM.

Nevermind, found your reply, Yahoo decided you're a spammer!

 

[Roxyflash]

Heres a gray area i see there having a vote for a gas cat sport hydro rigger,what i would like is a separate nitro cat class.

 

[Don Ferrette]

Heres a gray area i see there having a vote for a gas cat sport hydro rigger,what i would like is a separate nitro cat class.

Submit a proposal to your district director . In the meantime I'd like to stay completely on topic as this is a crucial issue.

 

[Don Ferrette]

Mr. Bill Zuber can we have an answer to the voting total question I put forth on the end of the first post please. :huh:

 

[bzubee]

Don, Think of an election if there are 3 candates it would be the same. Why would you add the votes of 2 different ammendments to a proposal? Majority of the amemndments wins. If you want something to turn out a certain way start campaigning and try to get the members to vote.

No children can not vote they are not spouses.

 

[Don Ferrette]

Don, Think of an election if there are 3 candates it would be the same. Why would you add the votes of 2 different ammendments to a proposal? Majority of the amemndments wins. If you want something to turn out a certain way start campaigning and try to get the members to vote.

Exactly what I expected to hear. A very crafty way of attempting to skew the results in favor of this BS proposal by splitting the opposition. <_<

I certainly hope there are enough IMPBA members who can see past this smoke & mirrors play, will vote wisely & shut this down. h34r:

 

[piper_chuck]

Don, Think of an election if there are 3 candates it would be the same. Why would you add the votes of 2 different ammendments to a proposal? Majority of the amemndments wins. If you want something to turn out a certain way start campaigning and try to get the members to vote.

Exactly what I expected to hear. A very crafty way of attempting to skew the results in favor of this BS proposal by splitting the opposition. <_<

I certainly hope there are enough IMPBA members who can see past this smoke & mirrors play, will vote wisely & shut this down. h34r:

According to Bill, it's going to take a majority to win. So, unless A or B gets 51%, it seems no change should happen.

 

[Don Ferrette]

According to Bill, it's going to take a majority to win. So, unless A or B gets 51%, it seems no change should happen.

Read it again, that is exactly what will NOT happen. It will be a majority of the THREE choices- leave it the same, amendment A or amendment B. So if those opposed do not vote EXACTY the same & the votes get split this BS can potentially win with as little as 36% of the total votes depending on how opposing votes wind up getting divided. :angry:

I am all about EVERYONE having a voice but this is NOT the way to do it. One member one vote is the only other option to what's in place if you want to change it. That would ensure that the true VOTING MAJORITY gets heard ( but is that the best option?). Given the traditionally poor voter turn out, if amendment A passes you are potentially putting the entire organization in the hands of a few people. :angry: :angry: :angry:

So ask yourself this- why wasn't the proposal simply put forth as one person one vote??

Because this is all about control! Do you really think the magic number of one added vote for each additional 30 people was some random number? Why not 50? Or 75? No, it was carefully thought out to create a shift of power.

 

[Ken Hildreth]

Maybe we should just have one of our district directors make a propasal to do away with the electorial style all together, and shoot for a total majority rules vote. Type it up, Don, You only need ten signatures. I am sure you can well surpass that. Instead of complaining, lets fix it like we want it. Bill, am I correct, is this possible? Just my two cents. oh, and as for now, I am thinking a no vote would help. and to keep lobbying for that. If the redistricting rule passes, this will reduce DIst 4 total count and increase district 6 total count. By probably better than 30 people. if i could figure out how to include my club members in Ill that only race here in Mo, that number would be higher. Ken

 

[piper_chuck]

According to Bill, it's going to take a majority to win. So, unless A or B gets 51%, it seems no change should happen.

Read it again, that is exactly what will NOT happen. It will be a majority of the THREE choices- leave it the same, amendment A or amendment B. So if those opposed do not vote EXACTY the same & the votes get split this BS can potentially win with as little as 36% of the total votes depending on how opposing votes wind up getting divided. :angry:

Not trying to argue with you, because I agree with your concerns. However, 36% is not a majority. A majority is more than half.

 

[Don Ferrette]

According to Bill, it's going to take a majority to win. So, unless A or B gets 51%, it seems no change should happen.

Read it again, that is exactly what will NOT happen. It will be a majority of the THREE choices- leave it the same, amendment A or amendment B. So if those opposed do not vote EXACTY the same & the votes get split this BS can potentially win with as little as 36% of the total votes depending on how opposing votes wind up getting divided. :angry:

Not trying to argue with you, because I agree with your concerns. However, 36% is not a majority. A majority is more than half.

Ok let's try this........

36% vote for amendment A

31% vote for no change

33% vote for amendment B

Get it now?

Maybe we should just have one of our district directors make a propasal to do away with the electorial style all together, and shoot for a total majority rules vote. Type it up, Don, You only need ten signatures. I am sure you can well surpass that. Instead of complaining, lets fix it like we want it. Bill, am I correct, is this possible? Just my two cents. oh, and as for now, I am thinking a no vote would help. and to keep lobbying for that. If the redistricting rule passes, this will reduce DIst 4 total count and increase district 6 total count. By probably better than 30 people. if i could figure out how to include my club members in Ill that only race here in Mo, that number would be higher. Ken

Hi Ken-

I have no problem doing that if that is what is best, HOWEVER there is a down side to not having the checks & balances that a board of directors gives. I personally feel that re-districting (adding districts not votes) larger member areas is a better option.

And BTW- am I correct in understanding that this proposal got out to the membership without the board ever voting on it? :blink:

 

[piper_chuck]

According to Bill, it's going to take a majority to win. So, unless A or B gets 51%, it seems no change should happen.

Read it again, that is exactly what will NOT happen. It will be a majority of the THREE choices- leave it the same, amendment A or amendment B. So if those opposed do not vote EXACTY the same & the votes get split this BS can potentially win with as little as 36% of the total votes depending on how opposing votes wind up getting divided. :angry:

Not trying to argue with you, because I agree with your concerns. However, 36% is not a majority. A majority is more than half.

Ok let's try this........

36% vote for amendment A

31% vote for no change

33% vote for amendment B

Get it now?

I got it the first time. My point is that 36% is NOT a majority, which means amendment A should not pass. By definition, a majority is not the most votes, it's more than half. Of course I also find myself wondering why any organization would allow constitution changes as important as this to be made with a majority vote anyway. They usually require more than a majority to ensure that such things have broad support.

 

[bzubee]

I get it but when there are 3 choices according to the "Rulebook come up with a suggestion on how to handle that other than not allow a "NO vote at all since that was the last ammendment proposed. Read the rulebook on proposals. As Kenny said "write a proposal as Dom did and get the signatures and request your Director submit it.

You can complain on the chat areas all you want but until a proposal is submitted that is is the only way to fix something.

Also vote no if you do not want a change.

 

[Joe_Knesek]

Don, the safest way to defeat this would be to vote to keep the current rule and then submit a cleaner proposal later don't you think?

 

[Don Ferrette]

Don, the safest way to defeat this would be to vote to keep the current rule and then submit a cleaner proposal later don't you think?

It doesn't matter, the KEY is that all those in opposition vote the SAME way so that either keeping it the same OR option B has sufficent percentage to defeat this.

I would love to submit three proposals, one for a one person one vote rule, one for a re-districting (splitting) when a given district gets beyond a certain member level & one for a proposal that ALL proposals for ANY rule change get reviewed and VOTED on by the board BEFORE it goes to membership. I think these 3 things things would provide a very good checks & balance of power & voting in the IMPBA. The biggest problem now is alot of us in my district can't seem to get in contact with our director lately.

 

[bzubee]

"A very crafty way of attempting to skew the results in favor of this BS proposal by splitting the opposition. "

Don I think your getting paranoid. I voted for ammendment B I think it more fair to both the smaller districts and still gives some pwoer to the larger districts.

A straight membership vote could actually give total control to any issues they wanted to contorl. That is why an electorial type vote is done. Remeber we actually have that now except the numeber is 200 members.

 

[piper_chuck]

A straight membership vote could actually give total control to any issues they wanted to contorl.

Are you saying members shouldn't have control of our organization?