First of all, I voted, and Laura was on my ballot. Not that it matters. She was elected, after all. She was upset about the number of re-elected incumbents and low turnout? Well ...
There weren't very many choices on the ballot aside from incumbents. It was not mathematically possible to 'clean house.' So, most people don't bother voting when there's only one name on the ballot. If you have nine seats and twelve names, you're likely going to elect three newbies and six incumbents I don't recall what the exact numbers were but that's about how it feels every year. Always a bunch of incumbents.
June is also a crazy time of the year for families with camps, Summer vacation, traveling abroad, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if a third of the membership didn't even open their mail (or their ballot) until the deadline had passed.
<< <i>It was not mathematically possible to 'clean house.' [...] If you have nine seats and twelve names, you're likely going to elect three newbies and six incumbents >>
Aside from President and Vice-President, there were 14 people running for 7 spots on the Board and only 4 incumbents.... so, yes, it would have been very easy to clean house.
Greg
Greg Lyon, ANA Board of Governors 2011-2017 -- The views represented here are my own personal opinions and do not represent those of the American Numismatic Association.
<< <i>First of all, I voted, and Laura was on my ballot. Not that it matters. She was elected, after all. She was upset about the number of re-elected incumbents and low turnout? Well ...
There weren't very many choices on the ballot aside from incumbents. It was not mathematically possible to 'clean house.' So, most people don't bother voting when there's only one name on the ballot. If you have nine seats and twelve names, you're likely going to elect three newbies and six incumbents I don't recall what the exact numbers were but that's about how it feels every year. Always a bunch of incumbents.
June is also a crazy time of the year for families with camps, Summer vacation, traveling abroad, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if a third of the membership didn't even open their mail (or their ballot) until the deadline had passed. >>
Nick, Your point about choices in your second paragraph sounds like you don't pay too much interest on the candidates who run for election. You apparently know the names of the incumbants from seeing their names in the monthly Numismatist, but that is about it. You seem to be like most members except you apparently actually voted! That is good, but the ANA did provide opportunities to learn about the 10 new people who were running for seats on the BOG. Sure, just about everyone has heard about Laura Sperber, but the other nine names included some people whose ideas or comments might have led you to vote for. The general assumption is that incumbents always get reelected but that doesn't have to be the case. If the ANA is to suceed in the future it will be up to a lot of people who are interested in our hobby to get involved. This CU board is one way they can do it. Steve
<< <i>First of all, I voted, and Laura was on my ballot. Not that it matters. She was elected, after all. She was upset about the number of re-elected incumbents and low turnout? Well ...
There weren't very many choices on the ballot aside from incumbents. It was not mathematically possible to 'clean house.' So, most people don't bother voting when there's only one name on the ballot. If you have nine seats and twelve names, you're likely going to elect three newbies and six incumbents I don't recall what the exact numbers were but that's about how it feels every year. Always a bunch of incumbents.
June is also a crazy time of the year for families with camps, Summer vacation, traveling abroad, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if a third of the membership didn't even open their mail (or their ballot) until the deadline had passed. >>
Nick, Your point about choices in your second paragraph sounds like you don't pay too much interest on the candidates who run for election. You apparently know the names of the incumbants from seeing their names in the monthly Numismatist, but that is about it. You seem to be like most members except you apparently actually voted! That is good, but the ANA did provide opportunities to learn about the 10 new people who were running for seats on the BOG. Sure, just about everyone has heard about Laura Sperber, but the other nine names included some people whose ideas or comments might have led you to vote for. The general assumption is that incumbents always get reelected but that doesn't have to be the case. If the ANA is to suceed in the future it will be up to a lot of people who are interested in our hobby to get involved. This CU board is one way they can do it. Steve >>
Well said! There were many great candidates running for the board. People just had to care enough to take the time to read about them or listen to their platform. It is sad to see members quitting instead of sticking in there and getting active to help make things right. Every little bit helps and a correct, informed vote, (not just voting by name recognition) can make a difference.
<< <i>W/o actually delving into the numbers, I would suspect that low voter percentage is a very common thing in many if not most organizations.
Take the NRA. You could not find a group more zealously devoted to their cause, yet the average member is unlikely to vote in the elections. >>
FWIW, the NRA appears to have a considerably lower voter turnout than the ANA, however their membership is so much larger than the ANA that I don't really see them as comparable.
According to this site, the NRA voter turnout seems to be well under 10% for their annual elections.
I don't think that the ANA's 26% voter turnout is bad (as Greg said, only ~21,000 of the 28,000 ANA members are eligible to vote). I believe most of the ANA membership to be extremely casual, people who are happy to receive their copy of the Numismatist each month and attend an ANA show if it is in the area, but their interest in the organization does not extend much further. Most of these people don't vote in ANA elections and frankly, you don't really want them to. They don't know who the candidates are and most don't have the time to learn about it. Don't drown out the voice of the informed with the voice of the rabble. Only 26% of the eligible membership voted, but I'd be willing to bet it was heavily weighted towards the more informed 26%. The ANA is small enough (but at the same time, large enough), and free enough of party-politics that high voter turnout isn't critical.
That said, the easiest way to increase voter turnout is to provide a digital option. Let people vote through the ANA website.
<< <i> Let people vote through the ANA website. >>
And of course all members WERE able to vote online thru the special website in the just concluded 2013 elections. A very small percentage of the eligible voters took advantage of this option this year. The most important thing about this online voting is THAT IT WORKED PERFECTLY THE FIRST TIME. Hopefully, in two years most ANA members will vote online and save the 46 cent postage. Steve
<< <i> Let people vote through the ANA website. >>
And of course all members WERE able to vote online thru the special website in the just concluded 2013 elections. A very small percentage of the eligible voters took advantage of this option this year. The most important thing about this online voting is THAT IT WORKED PERFECTLY THE FIRST TIME. Hopefully, in two years most ANA members will vote online and save the 46 cent postage. Steve >>
That's good to hear. I wasn't aware of it. IMO that will be the way of the future.
<< <i>It was not mathematically possible to 'clean house.' [...] If you have nine seats and twelve names, you're likely going to elect three newbies and six incumbents >>
Aside from President and Vice-President, there were 14 people running for 7 spots on the Board and only 4 incumbents.... so, yes, it would have been very easy to clean house. >>
Greg et al, That statement was an approximation: "I don't recall what the exact numbers were ..." I referred to the ANA website before posting my comment and I counted 9 governors not 7. It seems I counted Tom and Walter among the governors, mea culpa. But Laura's post (or was it the OP?) complained about there being 6 incumbents not 4. Hence my statement of 9 seats and 6 incumbents. If you're saying there were only 7 and 4, well OK then 57% incumbents is better than 66%
Steve, I wish you would not make so many assumptions about who I am based on one post. I did read through the black and white pamphlet which was enclosed with my ballot. I did take interest in for whom I was voting. I've also done a heck of a lot since that time in June, and if I can't remember the exact number of candidates it doesn't mean I'm uninformed or disinterested. But I was unaware of the digital voting option, and aside from the bios included with the ballot I didn't see anything from or about the candidates. So yes it was and has always been difficult to know what kind of people they are and how they'll handle running a large organization.
And I don't see how the NRA's larger size diminishes the fact that their average voter count is a mere 10%. I believe that if more than 25% of membership is involved and responsive than you're doing alright. There are plenty of non-profits here in Atlanta who struggle to get 10% of their members to attend a free event where food is served. ANA could host a free cookout in every state, broadcast evening commercials introducing each candidate nationwide, and take a full page ad in the NY Times, and you still probably wouldn't get more than 26% voter count.
Nick, I apologize for my poor assumptions. I also see you are a life member of the ANA so you certainly have put your money into the organization. Steve
<< <i>It was not mathematically possible to 'clean house.' [...] If you have nine seats and twelve names, you're likely going to elect three newbies and six incumbents >>
Aside from President and Vice-President, there were 14 people running for 7 spots on the Board and only 4 incumbents.... so, yes, it would have been very easy to clean house. >>
Greg et al, That statement was an approximation: "I don't recall what the exact numbers were ..." I referred to the ANA website before posting my comment and I counted 9 governors not 7. It seems I counted Tom and Walter among the governors, mea culpa. But Laura's post (or was it the OP?) complained about there being 6 incumbents not 4. Hence my statement of 9 seats and 6 incumbents. If you're saying there were only 7 and 4, well OK then 57% incumbents is better than 66% >>
You totally missed my point.. you made it sound like the re-election of some (or all) of the incumbents was a given. That was far from the case. Each voter had 10 non-incumbents to choose from, for 7 positions, if they did not want to re-elect the current board. What happened was all four incumbents won -- each finishing in the top 5 -- with three additional candidates being elected.
It was very possible to "clean house" among the governor positions, but it didn't happen. It was not possible to clean house for President & VP.. but those are only two of nine positions on the full board.
Greg
Greg Lyon, ANA Board of Governors 2011-2017 -- The views represented here are my own personal opinions and do not represent those of the American Numismatic Association.
"It was very possible to "clean house" among the governor positions, but it didn't happen. It was not possible to clean house for President & VP.. but those are only two of nine positions on the full board."
Greg >>
I believe this is because people vote by name recognition alone. Such a small minority of members really care. Rarely do Board of Governors even run opposed. I believe there was no opposition two years ago.
I have heard so many people comment about the dysfunction going on at the ANA. As an example; when Jeff was first hired as ED, my sister happened upon a small coin show in her area. She started talking to some of the dealers at the show and mentioned that her brother-in-law was just hired ED of the ANA. The dealers all had very negative things to say about the ANA. They had given up their memberships long ago and don't have anything to do with the ANA any longer. She didn't tell me this until after Jeff was fired because she didn't want to worry him. I hear these types of things over and over again. So many people have given up or just throw up their arms and look the other way because they "don't want to get involved". Jeff has always had such a high regard for the ANA, this entire situation is just extremely SAD!
<< <i>I believe this is because people vote by name recognition alone. >>
If that was the case, Laura Sperber should have finished in the top 2 or 3 vote-getters. She is VERY well known.
<< <i>Rarely do Board of Governors even run opposed. I believe there was no opposition two years ago. >>
While the 2011 election was unopposed, saying there is rarely opposition is not accurate. For 7 governor seats, there were 16 candidates in 2007, 14 candidates in 2013 & 2009 and 11 candidates in 2001 and 2003. 2011 was, by far, the exception rather than the rule.
Greg
Greg Lyon, ANA Board of Governors 2011-2017 -- The views represented here are my own personal opinions and do not represent those of the American Numismatic Association.
<< <i>Point being that of the thousands of votes Laura received, many were for just her and not the incumbents. Those happy with the status quo voted elsewhere. She has the duty to represent those who voted for her - those who want change. It is not her job to fit in. Deal with it. >>
I'm sorry, but your math is plain wrong.
5542 ballots were received -- meaning a possible total of 38,794 votes for individual governors.
If you sum up the total number of votes cast, 33,023 votes were cast (or an average of 5.96 votes per ballot.
Laura received 2,569 votes. If even 1,000 of those votes were ONLY for Laura, that would have the possible total number of votes cast would be 32,794 -- less than what was actually cast.
Very few people I know voted for seven candidates (I voted for five). I'm sure Laura received perhaps 100 or 200 votes just for her... but the numbers simple don't add up to say "many [votes] were for just her and not the incumbents".
Greg
P.S. Yes, I did edit my post to add the final two paragraphs.
P.P.S. Feel free to spend $50k on a direct mail effort in an ANA election. First of all, the ANA membership list is not sold for any purpose. Secondly, I spent $0 on my campaign -- compared to $500 or so in 2011, and I won. Maybe it's not about money, but the better candidate? >>
First off, I did vote for Laura for the reasons that tradedollarnut specified. I also voted for YOU simply because you post on these forums and unless the tone changes in your posts, I'll not do that again. Communication has no place for aggressive responses which only serve to fuel hostility.
Maybe Steve should run since his responses read as smooth as silk regardless of how he personally feels.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
"Do know I am willing to sign certain non disclosure agreements-so long as I am not totally bottled up... If they want transparency, then this is their chance to start over not to screw it up. Sure, they can use the argument that if certain things got out they could shake collectors feelings of credibility in the organization."
I am a member and collector, and the stuff that has already come out has shaken the ANA's credibility with me. Based on the comments I've seen here, I'm certain I'm not alone. I realize they have an excellent YN program, but each year when I renew I have to wonder how much of my money is going toward the next legal action. It's gotten to where the only reason I continue to be a member is so I can say I am one when selling, and I'm really starting to think this no longer has any value because of the loss of credibility.
You Suck! Awarded 6/2008- 1901-O Micro O Morgan, 8/2008- 1878 VAM-123 Morgan, 9/2022 1888-O VAM-1B3 H8 Morgan | Senior Regional Representative- ANACS Coin Grading. Posted opinions on coins are my own, and are not an official ANACS opinion.
<< <i>I believe this is because people vote by name recognition alone. >>
If that was the case, Laura Sperber should have finished in the top 2 or 3 vote-getters. She is VERY well known.
Greg >>
Even though she is very well known, Larua is also very controversial. Many people do not like her attitude, which is (I believe) what the ANA needs right now. I tend to like people like Laura. I still stand by the fact that most people vote (in any election) by name recognition. It is just a sad truth.
I also voted for YOU simply because you post on these forums and unless the tone changes in your posts, I'll not do that again . Communication has no place for aggressive responses which only serve to fuel hostility.
>>
Your exquisite condescension noted.
Aggressive responses which only serve to fuel hostility...... Whereas Laurie has been the very soul of moderation; modest, cordial and conciliatory. Based on the general tenor of the diatribes directed towards GregL, whom I've previously identified as a "masochistic schmuck" for even paying attention to the cacophony of ignorant and childish spewing found here, I'd estimate 100 aggressive straightforward attacks, and many by some here who speak from ignorance, having failed to do their homework. And thanks to so many many more who have no skin in the game, but blather on about their high-minded aspirations.
Two years ago, I offered to match all PCGS Forum contributions up to $1000 for the Florence Shook School of Education. Forum responses from non-dealers...... 1. Shame on you all.
Laurie herself matched my $1000. She did grumble a bit about the lack of sushi. Where were all of you?
Please, do not forgive this aggressive response.
TDN, it would have been a perfect irony if, based on your non-voting non-membership, Laurie had failed to gain a seat by a one vote margin.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
I was catching up on a few things after my 9 days teaching (and playing) in Colorado Springs. TDN. Sorry I missed whatever your last post might have been. Interesting? "Very interesting", but I'm Jessup, not Klink.
Interesting? How so?
You choose a very high-minded road. Never legitimize an opponent's position by responding to it. Ignore whatever you might like as I might have directed it towards you. Your silence is more eloquent than any words might be.
Now, about that possible one vote loss. C'mon, I can't be the only one smiling.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
still waiting for an apology and confirmation of ANA legal expenses incurred and anticipated to be incurred since 2008. And for those of you that tooned in late or remotely care, the estimayed number for ANA legal fees since 2008 could be $1,975,000.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
still waiting for an apology and confirmation of ANA legal expenses incurred and anticipated to be incurred since 2008. And for those of you that tooned in late or remotely care, the estimayed number for ANA legal fees since 2008 could be $1,975,000. >>
That would be about $100 per member. Or on the order of that. Ouch.
<< <i>I believe this is because people vote by name recognition alone. >>
Quote from Greg Lyon:
<< <i>If that was the case, Laura Sperber should have finished in the top 2 or 3 vote-getters. She is VERY well known. >>
Greg - I have to disagree about Laura being so well known that she should have finished in the top 2 or 3 vote-getters. She is well known on this message board and among high-end collectors but I doubt that a majority of the rank-and-file ANA membership has any idea who she is. The clubs here in Colorado Springs have a fair number of ANA members, most of whom voted in the election, but I'm pretty certain that there aren't more than 5 or 6 that have ever heard of Laura. I have to agree with Cecilia that name recognition was one of the prime reasons that incumbent board members were re-elected. If those who were re-elected feel the membership has endorsed their actions because they were at or near the top in the total votes, then I believe they are deluding themselves. They were at or near the top because the average voter recognized their name.
"In politics, name recognition is the number of people who are aware of a politician. It is considered an important factor in elections, as candidates with low name recognition are unlikely to receive votes from people who only casually follow politics. Name recognition is also considered a major obstacle for challengers hoping to defeat incumbents. Incumbents are politicians who have already been elected to a particular office, and are now running for re-election to that same office. By definition, the fact that incumbents are already in office gives them name recognition. This proves to be a huge advantage over most challengers."
Comments
She was upset about the number of re-elected incumbents and low turnout? Well ...
There weren't very many choices on the ballot aside from incumbents. It was not mathematically possible to 'clean house.' So, most people don't bother voting when there's only one name on the ballot. If you have nine seats and twelve names, you're likely going to elect three newbies and six incumbents
I don't recall what the exact numbers were but that's about how it feels every year. Always a bunch of incumbents.
June is also a crazy time of the year for families with camps, Summer vacation, traveling abroad, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if a third of the membership didn't even open their mail (or their ballot) until the deadline had passed.
Amat Colligendo Focum
Top 10 • FOR SALE
Take the NRA. You could not find a group more zealously devoted to their cause, yet the average member is unlikely to vote in the elections.
<< <i>...
Oh, goodness, I was afraid that it was referring to the "other" ED thing.
edited to add: ... which WOULD be disgusting. >>
<< <i>It was not mathematically possible to 'clean house.' [...] If you have nine seats and twelve names, you're likely going to elect three newbies and six incumbents
Aside from President and Vice-President, there were 14 people running for 7 spots on the Board and only 4 incumbents.... so, yes, it would have been very easy to clean house.
Greg
<< <i>First of all, I voted, and Laura was on my ballot. Not that it matters. She was elected, after all.
She was upset about the number of re-elected incumbents and low turnout? Well ...
There weren't very many choices on the ballot aside from incumbents. It was not mathematically possible to 'clean house.' So, most people don't bother voting when there's only one name on the ballot. If you have nine seats and twelve names, you're likely going to elect three newbies and six incumbents
I don't recall what the exact numbers were but that's about how it feels every year. Always a bunch of incumbents.
June is also a crazy time of the year for families with camps, Summer vacation, traveling abroad, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if a third of the membership didn't even open their mail (or their ballot) until the deadline had passed. >>
Nick,
Your point about choices in your second paragraph sounds like you don't pay too much interest on the candidates who run for election. You apparently know the names of the incumbants from seeing their names in the monthly Numismatist, but that is about it. You seem to be like most members except you apparently actually voted! That is good, but the ANA did provide opportunities to learn about the 10 new people who were running for seats on the BOG. Sure, just about everyone has heard about Laura Sperber, but the other nine names included some people whose ideas or comments might have led you to vote for. The general assumption is that incumbents always get reelected but that doesn't have to be the case. If the ANA is to suceed in the future it will be up to a lot of people who are interested in our hobby to get involved. This CU board is one way they can do it. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>
<< <i>First of all, I voted, and Laura was on my ballot. Not that it matters. She was elected, after all.
She was upset about the number of re-elected incumbents and low turnout? Well ...
There weren't very many choices on the ballot aside from incumbents. It was not mathematically possible to 'clean house.' So, most people don't bother voting when there's only one name on the ballot. If you have nine seats and twelve names, you're likely going to elect three newbies and six incumbents
I don't recall what the exact numbers were but that's about how it feels every year. Always a bunch of incumbents.
June is also a crazy time of the year for families with camps, Summer vacation, traveling abroad, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if a third of the membership didn't even open their mail (or their ballot) until the deadline had passed. >>
Nick,
Your point about choices in your second paragraph sounds like you don't pay too much interest on the candidates who run for election. You apparently know the names of the incumbants from seeing their names in the monthly Numismatist, but that is about it. You seem to be like most members except you apparently actually voted! That is good, but the ANA did provide opportunities to learn about the 10 new people who were running for seats on the BOG. Sure, just about everyone has heard about Laura Sperber, but the other nine names included some people whose ideas or comments might have led you to vote for. The general assumption is that incumbents always get reelected but that doesn't have to be the case. If the ANA is to suceed in the future it will be up to a lot of people who are interested in our hobby to get involved. This CU board is one way they can do it. Steve
Well said! There were many great candidates running for the board. People just had to care enough to take the time to read about them or listen to their platform. It is sad to see members quitting instead of sticking in there and getting active to help make things right. Every little bit helps and a correct, informed vote, (not just voting by name recognition) can make a difference.
Cecilia
<< <i>W/o actually delving into the numbers, I would suspect that low voter percentage is a very common thing in many if not most organizations.
Take the NRA. You could not find a group more zealously devoted to their cause, yet the average member is unlikely to vote in the elections. >>
FWIW, the NRA appears to have a considerably lower voter turnout than the ANA, however their membership is so much larger than the ANA that I don't really see them as comparable.
According to this site, the NRA voter turnout seems to be well under 10% for their annual elections.
I don't think that the ANA's 26% voter turnout is bad (as Greg said, only ~21,000 of the 28,000 ANA members are eligible to vote). I believe most of the ANA membership to be extremely casual, people who are happy to receive their copy of the Numismatist each month and attend an ANA show if it is in the area, but their interest in the organization does not extend much further. Most of these people don't vote in ANA elections and frankly, you don't really want them to. They don't know who the candidates are and most don't have the time to learn about it. Don't drown out the voice of the informed with the voice of the rabble. Only 26% of the eligible membership voted, but I'd be willing to bet it was heavily weighted towards the more informed 26%. The ANA is small enough (but at the same time, large enough), and free enough of party-politics that high voter turnout isn't critical.
That said, the easiest way to increase voter turnout is to provide a digital option. Let people vote through the ANA website.
<< <i> Let people vote through the ANA website. >>
And of course all members WERE able to vote online thru the special website in the just concluded 2013 elections. A very small percentage of the eligible voters took advantage of this option this year. The most important thing about this online voting is THAT IT WORKED PERFECTLY THE FIRST TIME. Hopefully, in two years most ANA members will vote online and save the 46 cent postage. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Sad to say, but I would guess half the eligible voters are DEAD and just have not been purged from the membership list.
<< <i>
<< <i> Let people vote through the ANA website. >>
And of course all members WERE able to vote online thru the special website in the just concluded 2013 elections. A very small percentage of the eligible voters took advantage of this option this year. The most important thing about this online voting is THAT IT WORKED PERFECTLY THE FIRST TIME. Hopefully, in two years most ANA members will vote online and save the 46 cent postage. Steve
That's good to hear. I wasn't aware of it. IMO that will be the way of the future.
<< <i>
<< <i>It was not mathematically possible to 'clean house.' [...] If you have nine seats and twelve names, you're likely going to elect three newbies and six incumbents
Aside from President and Vice-President, there were 14 people running for 7 spots on the Board and only 4 incumbents.... so, yes, it would have been very easy to clean house. >>
Greg et al,
That statement was an approximation: "I don't recall what the exact numbers were ..."
I referred to the ANA website before posting my comment and I counted 9 governors not 7. It seems I counted Tom and Walter among the governors, mea culpa. But Laura's post (or was it the OP?) complained about there being 6 incumbents not 4. Hence my statement of 9 seats and 6 incumbents. If you're saying there were only 7 and 4, well OK then 57% incumbents is better than 66%
Steve,
I wish you would not make so many assumptions about who I am based on one post. I did read through the black and white pamphlet which was enclosed with my ballot. I did take interest in for whom I was voting. I've also done a heck of a lot since that time in June, and if I can't remember the exact number of candidates it doesn't mean I'm uninformed or disinterested. But I was unaware of the digital voting option, and aside from the bios included with the ballot I didn't see anything from or about the candidates. So yes it was and has always been difficult to know what kind of people they are and how they'll handle running a large organization.
And I don't see how the NRA's larger size diminishes the fact that their average voter count is a mere 10%. I believe that if more than 25% of membership is involved and responsive than you're doing alright. There are plenty of non-profits here in Atlanta who struggle to get 10% of their members to attend a free event where food is served. ANA could host a free cookout in every state, broadcast evening commercials introducing each candidate nationwide, and take a full page ad in the NY Times, and you still probably wouldn't get more than 26% voter count.
Amat Colligendo Focum
Top 10 • FOR SALE
I apologize for my poor assumptions. I also see you are a life member of the ANA so you certainly have put your money into the organization.
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>It was not mathematically possible to 'clean house.' [...] If you have nine seats and twelve names, you're likely going to elect three newbies and six incumbents
Aside from President and Vice-President, there were 14 people running for 7 spots on the Board and only 4 incumbents.... so, yes, it would have been very easy to clean house. >>
Greg et al,
That statement was an approximation: "I don't recall what the exact numbers were ..."
I referred to the ANA website before posting my comment and I counted 9 governors not 7. It seems I counted Tom and Walter among the governors, mea culpa. But Laura's post (or was it the OP?) complained about there being 6 incumbents not 4. Hence my statement of 9 seats and 6 incumbents. If you're saying there were only 7 and 4, well OK then 57% incumbents is better than 66%
>>
You totally missed my point.. you made it sound like the re-election of some (or all) of the incumbents was a given. That was far from the case. Each voter had 10 non-incumbents to choose from, for 7 positions, if they did not want to re-elect the current board. What happened was all four incumbents won -- each finishing in the top 5 -- with three additional candidates being elected.
It was very possible to "clean house" among the governor positions, but it didn't happen. It was not possible to clean house for President & VP.. but those are only two of nine positions on the full board.
Greg
"It was very possible to "clean house" among the governor positions, but it didn't happen. It was not possible to clean house for President & VP.. but those are only two of nine positions on the full board."
Greg >>
I believe this is because people vote by name recognition alone. Such a small minority of members really care. Rarely do Board of Governors even run opposed. I believe there was no opposition two years ago.
I have heard so many people comment about the dysfunction going on at the ANA. As an example; when Jeff was first hired as ED, my sister happened upon a small coin show in her area. She started talking to some of the dealers at the show and mentioned that her brother-in-law was just hired ED of the ANA. The dealers all had very negative things to say about the ANA. They had given up their memberships long ago and don't have anything to do with the ANA any longer. She didn't tell me this until after Jeff was fired because she didn't want to worry him.
I hear these types of things over and over again. So many people have given up or just throw up their arms and look the other way because they "don't want to get involved". Jeff has always had such a high regard for the ANA, this entire situation is just extremely SAD!
Cecilia
<< <i>I will not join until I have respect for the organization. Unless Laura needs an ally on the board next election.
I know that you and I have had our differences but I'd support you all the way Bruce!
The name is LEE!
<< <i>I believe this is because people vote by name recognition alone. >>
If that was the case, Laura Sperber should have finished in the top 2 or 3 vote-getters. She is VERY well known.
<< <i>Rarely do Board of Governors even run opposed. I believe there was no opposition two years ago. >>
While the 2011 election was unopposed, saying there is rarely opposition is not accurate. For 7 governor seats, there were 16 candidates in 2007, 14 candidates in 2013 & 2009 and 11 candidates in 2001 and 2003. 2011 was, by far, the exception rather than the rule.
Greg
<< <i>
<< <i>Point being that of the thousands of votes Laura received, many were for just her and not the incumbents. Those happy with the status quo voted elsewhere. She has the duty to represent those who voted for her - those who want change. It is not her job to fit in. Deal with it. >>
I'm sorry, but your math is plain wrong.
5542 ballots were received -- meaning a possible total of 38,794 votes for individual governors.
If you sum up the total number of votes cast, 33,023 votes were cast (or an average of 5.96 votes per ballot.
Laura received 2,569 votes. If even 1,000 of those votes were ONLY for Laura, that would have the possible total number of votes cast would be 32,794 -- less than what was actually cast.
Very few people I know voted for seven candidates (I voted for five). I'm sure Laura received perhaps 100 or 200 votes just for her... but the numbers simple don't add up to say "many [votes] were for just her and not the incumbents".
Greg
P.S. Yes, I did edit my post to add the final two paragraphs.
P.P.S. Feel free to spend $50k on a direct mail effort in an ANA election. First of all, the ANA membership list is not sold for any purpose. Secondly, I spent $0 on my campaign -- compared to $500 or so in 2011, and I won. Maybe it's not about money, but the better candidate? >>
First off, I did vote for Laura for the reasons that tradedollarnut specified.
I also voted for YOU simply because you post on these forums and unless the tone changes in your posts, I'll not do that again. Communication has no place for aggressive responses which only serve to fuel hostility.
Maybe Steve should run since his responses read as smooth as silk regardless of how he personally feels.
The name is LEE!
I am a member and collector, and the stuff that has already come out has shaken the ANA's credibility with me. Based on the comments I've seen here, I'm certain I'm not alone. I realize they have an excellent YN program, but each year when I renew I have to wonder how much of my money is going toward the next legal action. It's gotten to where the only reason I continue to be a member is so I can say I am one when selling, and I'm really starting to think this no longer has any value because of the loss of credibility.
<< <i>
<< <i>I believe this is because people vote by name recognition alone. >>
If that was the case, Laura Sperber should have finished in the top 2 or 3 vote-getters. She is VERY well known.
Greg >>
Even though she is very well known, Larua is also very controversial. Many people do not like her attitude, which is (I believe) what the ANA needs right now. I tend to like people like Laura.
I still stand by the fact that most people vote (in any election) by name recognition. It is just a sad truth.
Cecilia
<< <i>....
I also voted for YOU simply because you post on these forums and unless the tone changes in your posts, I'll not do that again . Communication has no place for aggressive responses which only serve to fuel hostility.
>>
Your exquisite condescension noted.
Aggressive responses which only serve to fuel hostility......
Two years ago, I offered to match all PCGS Forum contributions up to $1000 for the Florence Shook School of Education. Forum responses from non-dealers...... 1. Shame on you all.
Laurie herself matched my $1000. She did grumble a bit about the lack of sushi. Where were all of you?
Please, do not forgive this aggressive response.
TDN, it would have been a perfect irony if, based on your non-voting non-membership, Laurie had failed to gain a seat by a one vote margin.
Interesting? How so?
You choose a very high-minded road. Never legitimize an opponent's position by responding to it. Ignore whatever you might like as I might have directed it towards you. Your silence is more eloquent than any words might be.
Now, about that possible one vote loss. C'mon, I can't be the only one smiling.
<< <i> Didn't happen so it's irrelevant.... >>
<< <i>... This is Laura's windmill, not mine. >>
You should be embarrassed to make a statement so disingenuous it's beyond the line that might separate it from sophistry.
<< <i>
<< <i>... This is Laura's windmill, not mine. >>
You should be embarrassed to make a statement so disingenuous it's beyond the line that might separate it from sophistry.
Do you actually want us to believe that you believe that? Not so much an insult to our intelligence as to your own
still waiting for an apology and confirmation of ANA legal expenses incurred and anticipated to be incurred since 2008. And for those of you that tooned in late or remotely care, the estimayed number for ANA legal fees since 2008 could be $1,975,000.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>Oh I remember this thread...
still waiting for an apology and confirmation of ANA legal expenses incurred and anticipated to be incurred since 2008. And for those of you that tooned in late or remotely care, the estimayed number for ANA legal fees since 2008 could be $1,975,000. >>
That would be about $100 per member. Or on the order of that. Ouch.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>Greg is a VERY good guy, and one I am proud to call my friend for over 25 years. >>
That doesn't mean he has to be a good Board member on the other hand, IMHO.
<< <i>I believe this is because people vote by name recognition alone. >>
Quote from Greg Lyon:
<< <i>If that was the case, Laura Sperber should have finished in the top 2 or 3 vote-getters. She is VERY well known. >>
Greg - I have to disagree about Laura being so well known that she should have finished in the top 2 or 3 vote-getters. She is well known on this message board and among high-end collectors but I doubt that a majority of the rank-and-file ANA membership has any idea who she is. The clubs here in Colorado Springs have a fair number of ANA members, most of whom voted in the election, but I'm pretty certain that there aren't more than 5 or 6 that have ever heard of Laura. I have to agree with Cecilia that name recognition was one of the prime reasons that incumbent board members were re-elected. If those who were re-elected feel the membership has endorsed their actions because they were at or near the top in the total votes, then I believe they are deluding themselves. They were at or near the top because the average voter recognized their name.
"In politics, name recognition is the number of people who are aware of a politician. It is considered an important factor in elections, as candidates with low name recognition are unlikely to receive votes from people who only casually follow politics. Name recognition is also considered a major obstacle for challengers hoping to defeat incumbents. Incumbents are politicians who have already been elected to a particular office, and are now running for re-election to that same office. By definition, the fact that incumbents are already in office gives them name recognition. This proves to be a huge advantage over most challengers."
Cecilia