[QCWA] QCWA - 2008 Election Results - reformatted
Fred Atkinson, WB4AEJ
fred at wb4aej.com
Fri Jul 25 21:13:03 EDT 2008
With a thirty per cent voting rate, I doubt it would make any
difference.
Fred
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Peters" <petersj007 at hawaii.rr.com>
To: "Discussion of QCWA or Ham Radio" <qcwa at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 6:14 PM
Subject: Re: [QCWA] QCWA - 2008 Election Results - reformatted
> Because LOTS OF OLD FOLKS don't use computers.
>
> John K1ER
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Fred Atkinson, WB4AEJ" <fred at wb4aej.com>
> To: <val.erwin at sbcglobal.net>; "Discussion of QCWA or Ham Radio"
> <qcwa at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 1:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [QCWA] QCWA - 2008 Election Results - reformatted
>
>
> > Question:
> >
> > Why waste money on printing ballots and postage for the elections
> > when the election can be done online?
> >
> >
> >
> > Fred, WB4AEJ
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Val Erwin" <val.erwin at sbcglobal.net>
> > To: <QCWA at mailman.qth.net>
> > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 4:19 PM
> > Subject: Re: [QCWA] QCWA - 2008 Election Results - reformatted
> >
> >
> > Hi Dave:
> >
> > TNX for your detailed analysis on the recent vote. That is good
info.
> >
> > The mere appx. 30% return of ballots gives rise to other concerns:
> >
> > 1. The obvious...the expense of paper, printing, postage to deliver
> > unreturned ballots to the Members is truly QCWA money wasted.
> >
> > 2. Were the ballots not returned because:
> >
> > a) Lost in the mail?
> > b) Loss of interest in the QCWA and/or ham radio?
> > c) Reluctance to purchase return postage?
> > d) Etc.?
> >
> > This failure to be proactive by many of our Members is also evident
> > right here!........That's right, Prez-elect Bob and Webmaster only
has
> > on the order of 300 Members that are signed up on the QCWA
Reflector. As
> > a result, those non-Reflector Members don't have a clue as to what
is
> > going on!
> >
> > It gets worse!.......Since I set up so many QCWA tables at area
> > hamfests, one of the frequent questions that I ask are: "How did you
> > like that recent article in the QCWA Journal about XYZ,
> > etc.?"............The reply is frequently a blank stare and a
"huh?",
> > which means to me:
> >
> > 1. They are not a current Member of natl' and do not get the
Journal.
> >
> > or
> >
> > 2. They are one of those Members that do not even crack the cover on
> > the Journal!
> >
> > Nuff' Said !............Have a good weekend.......
> >
> >
> > Val Erwin, W5PUT
> > QCWA Board Member
> >
> >
> >
> > --- On Fri, 7/25/08, Dave - VE3JX <ve3jx at sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >
> > From: Dave - VE3JX <ve3jx at sympatico.ca>
> > Subject: [QCWA] QCWA - 2008 Election Results - reformatted
> > To: QCWA at mailman.qth.net
> > Date: Friday, July 25, 2008, 2:47 PM
> >
> > Here is the previous message properly formatted (I hope) with spaces
> > instead
> > of tabs. Sorry about that. -jx
> >
> > Greetings all,
> >
> > I have gratefully received answers to my last question in the
previous
> > email
> > on this topic: "It would be good to know how many spoiled ballots
there
> > were, as well as how many ballots were mailed out. Are those
figures
> > available?"
> >
> > Here is the information received:
> >
> > Total Ballots mailed out: 7288
> >
> > Total "acceptable" Ballots received: 2115
> > Total "spoiled" Ballots received: 18
> > ------
> > Total Ballots received: 2133
> >
> > Reasons for "spoilage":
> > No vote for anyone: 1
> > Voted for more than 8 Directors: 7
> > Voted for BOTH Presidential Candidates: 10
> > ----
> > Total Spoiled Ballots: 18
> >
> > Analysis:
> > Voter "turnout": (2133/7288)x100 = 29.26%
> > Percent "spoiled": (18/2133)x100 = 0.84%
> >
> > If all spoiled ballots were good, they would not affect the outcome
of
> > the
> > election. There is more than an 18-vote separation between
successful
> > and
> > non-successful candidates. Spoiled ballot numbers are in the range
> > expected, less than 1%; the reasons for their rejection are not
> > frivolous.
> > Voter participation is a disappointment at just under 30%.
> >
> > We wish to express our thanks to our President-elect, out Vice
> > President-elect, and our General Manager, for providing these
figures.
> > The
> > analysis is mine.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Dave Hayes VE3JX
> > QCWA Life #33597
> > OOTC #4483
> >
________________________________________________________________________
> > ____
> > _______
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dave - VE3JX [mailto:ve3jx at sympatico.ca]
> > Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 8:47 PM
> > To: Discussion of QCWA or Ham Radio
> > Subject: [QCWA] QCWA - 2008 Election Results
> >
> >
> > Thank you to all Candidates, successful or not. Your participation
made
> > for
> > a very interesting election.
> >
> > Congratulations to all those who were successful in their bids.
> >
> > This is the first election that I was able to observe as a member of
> > QCWA.
> > I was surprised by a couple of factors.
> >
> > First, the low percentage of ballots cast was a surprise. The
report
> > indicated that there were 2115 "acceptable ballots received."
> > Assuming that
> > there were not that many spoiled ballots, and that our QCWA
membership
> > figures are around 7000, that would place the return rate around 30%
or
> > so.
> > I had heard the return rate was around 36%, but that figure would,
again
> > assuming that the spoiled ballots figure was low, put the membership
> > ballots
> > mailed out at around 6000. No matter; either way, the rate of
return
> > seems
> > rather low to me. I wonder why so many did not send theirs in?
> >
> > Second, The return window was unusually long; stretching to
mid-July.
> > That
> > was amazingly long to me. It also makes the surprise above more of
a
> > surprise than otherwise; no one had any excuse for not getting their
> > ballot
> > in on time.
> >
> > All in all, though, it was a good "horse-race" with a nail-biting
> > finish.
> > Our President-elect won by only 46 votes! Therefore, not only does
Bob
> > feel
> > good at winning, but Len would also be satisfied with the good level
of
> > support shown for him.
> >
> > It would be good to know how many spoiled ballots there were, as
well as
> > how
> > many ballots were mailed out. Are those figures available?
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Dave Hayes VE3JX
> > QCWA Life #33597
> > OOTC #4483
> >
> >
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > QCWA mailing list
> > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/qcwa
> > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html
> > Post: mailto:QCWA at mailman.qth.net
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > QCWA mailing list
> > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/qcwa
> > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html
> > Post: mailto:QCWA at mailman.qth.net
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > QCWA mailing list
> > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/qcwa
> > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html
> > Post: mailto:QCWA at mailman.qth.net
> >
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> QCWA mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/qcwa
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html
> Post: mailto:QCWA at mailman.qth.net
>
More information about the QCWA
mailing list