Respect your opinion, however ballot short a name. RE-Print!! Geez, Iowa spent millions for that..just a thought.
CASAA | Board Nominees & Elections
- Thread starter Webby
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Over a thousand people have already voted and there are numerous links to the vote board all over the forum.
I hate to be a pain Webby but I meant to bring the late entrant up to 54 not add 54...sorry for the confusion.
<-------------------
Well, there has to be some control measures that won't be transparent. Let's say the server log shows a bunch of votes originating from somewhere other than the ECF. I'm not saying that people would be campaigning outside this forum, but If it becomes obvious, then the adjustment would have to be done manually. Not to mention that people can vote from home, work, phone... etc... (would all be a different i.p.)
All I'm saying is that the voting process is not perfect and that someone will have to address questionable votes. Not that there will necessarily be any.
I thought voters would need to register with CASAA before casting a vote, but I'm pretty comfortable with just about any of those nominated being elected.
All I'm saying is that the voting process is not perfect and that someone will have to address questionable votes. Not that there will necessarily be any.
I thought voters would need to register with CASAA before casting a vote, but I'm pretty comfortable with just about any of those nominated being elected.
Looks like a decision was made, 48 votes were added to my name. I had 13, then I had 61, so that's how I came up with 48.
It is what it is, I guess. OK by me, onward, I say!
Also, the way it's set up with the IP being the ID of the voter, only one person per household can vote - unless they use a computer elsewhere, and then only if another user hasn't voted using that IP.
It is what it is, I guess. OK by me, onward, I say!
Also, the way it's set up with the IP being the ID of the voter, only one person per household can vote - unless they use a computer elsewhere, and then only if another user hasn't voted using that IP.
Last edited:
So do you guys just make up the rules as you go along? How is it democratic when you can dish out an arbitrary amount of votes to someone who was left out of it to begin with?
I hope the dictators of the world don't get wind of this..it would make their 'democratic' elections so much easier!
I hope the dictators of the world don't get wind of this..it would make their 'democratic' elections so much easier!
Here's a different suggestion: Cancel the vote by members, and replace it with a vote by nominees. But rather than limit the number of nominees to those who received 25 votes or more, allow all nominees who are willing to serve to vote and be considered. In other words, let those who were nominated to serve on the Board be the ones who elect the Board.
Oh and CASAA isn't just here to serve ECF, it is to serve ALL vapers. Restricting here restricts the public's voice, not just a forum, or nitch of the community.
I suggest a restart, despite the difficulty and awkwardness of doing so.
Aside from the current issue I think there are three other problems with the current voting which collectively seem large enough to me to do a restart.
1) The results are being published in parallel with the voting. Someone who hasn't voted yet (such as me) may well be inclined to change their vote based on the results so far. There are some people not in the current top 12 who I'd prefer to see there than a couple who are. So I might as well change some of my votes (from a clear winner or two, or from someone who it now seems can't win a seat) to some of those candidates before voting.
2) It is relatively easy at the moment for anyone who would do this to vote multiple times. Taking the time to first set up a user registration process for CASAA, and then only accepting votes from registered members would, I think, substantially reduce this.
3) The voting is happening in parallel with ongoing publication of peoples' bios. Some past votes might be made differently now that more information has been published.
My suggestion would be to back off, call it a mis-trial, set up the registration process, then start again. In a restart, voting would not need to be open for as long (a week seems excessive) and results should not be posted till voting is closed.
I wouldn't mind hiding the amount of votes everyone has. It might make people more inclined to make an informed decision, not one that rest on what the majority is doing.
As far as limiting votes for each IP address. I have hughes net (ughhh) and they like to blanket IP half of the U.S.
Someone 75 miles away with hughes could very well have the same I.P. as me. Webby you should be familiar with what I'm saying. If I'm wrong (it's been know to happen) feel free to correct me.
As far as limiting votes for each IP address. I have hughes net (ughhh) and they like to blanket IP half of the U.S.
Someone 75 miles away with hughes could very well have the same I.P. as me. Webby you should be familiar with what I'm saying. If I'm wrong (it's been know to happen) feel free to correct me.
ummmm I'm being a PITA, but what happens if more than 3 suppliers or SE win? actually I'm comfortable with all the suppliers and SE that are running.
"3) The Board will be comprised of (no more than) three suppliers (or manufacturers), three subject experts (SE) Directors and six general users."
"3) The Board will be comprised of (no more than) three suppliers (or manufacturers), three subject experts (SE) Directors and six general users."
There is a lot of room for error with an open poll such as this serving as an elective function. I would be in favor of opening membership registration at CASAA.org and then track votes by member, rather than IP address. As we move forward, we'll need better recordkeeping anyway.
As it stands, a larger organization with goals in opposition to ours would be better equipped to sabotage or process than we are to save it. For example, somebody here could be a shill for Pfizer and then get a few hundred coworkers to vote. I don't think it would happen in this election, but if it ever does, we should at least have more information to be able to track the source of an attack or cheat. IMO, the simplest solution is enabling the membership tracking membership and only allow registered members to vote.
(Webby, if nothing else, snag a phpBB for a quick and dirty registration system and voting engine)
As it stands, a larger organization with goals in opposition to ours would be better equipped to sabotage or process than we are to save it. For example, somebody here could be a shill for Pfizer and then get a few hundred coworkers to vote. I don't think it would happen in this election, but if it ever does, we should at least have more information to be able to track the source of an attack or cheat. IMO, the simplest solution is enabling the membership tracking membership and only allow registered members to vote.
(Webby, if nothing else, snag a phpBB for a quick and dirty registration system and voting engine)
I too am surprised that:
1) A CASAA membership drive and registration wasn't completed before the voting began.
2) The vote tallies are being shown during the voting process.
Also, yvilla should be getting way more votes! Her knowledge of the legal issues, dedication to the cause, and research skills would be quite valuable assets.
1) A CASAA membership drive and registration wasn't completed before the voting began.
2) The vote tallies are being shown during the voting process.
Also, yvilla should be getting way more votes! Her knowledge of the legal issues, dedication to the cause, and research skills would be quite valuable assets.
I have to agree here. History has shown us that if there is a loop hole in ANYTHING it will be exploited. The voting process should have been set up in the first place to ensure only one vote per member, and I believe registration is the only way to achieve this. Probably should limit only 2 registrations per IP address as well, so as to account for couples, etc.
I don't know what is going on with adding names after a poll has started, but my opinion is that is unacceptable as well. I am all for adding the nominees if there was an error, but the poll should be operated properly. You can not add votes to someone that "probably would have gotten them". This is not democracy. I errors were made and names forgot, it is not fair to them or others to add later. It sways the entire vote.
As far as poll results during voting, I think we have all seen enough elections that post ballot counting as they go. Maybe this should be done as a vote between nominees only as to wether results should be made public during voting or not.
Last edited:
- Status
