Computer geeks think THEIR WAY is THE ONLY WAY.

And... it's NOT.

Not to mention their quality and level of participation in the sport. There are a whole bunch of USPA members who seldom or never go to the DZ or otherwise keep up with what's going on in the sport.

Online voting means more keyboard terminators and less actual jumpers voting -- especially when you consider the number of paper ballots photocopied and handed out AT THE DZ during jump weekends by motivated candidates and THEIR minions.

And pulllleeeeze --- your "time" is "valuable"?

Right. It takes you the same amount of time to fill out the ballot online as it does to fill in the blanks on the paper -- and then it takes about the same amount of time to seal the envelope and stamp it and then drop it in your mailbox or the company mailbox and send it on its way as it does to fill out the online forms and stuff (which is ANOTHER dangling thread about which there is no discussion, no proposed form, or anything else).

This whole thing is illegitimate from the get go, so please don't try to justify it with bogus comments about your "valuable time."

Come on, tell me with a straight face that spending an order of magnitude more money to save YOU 30 seconds of your "valuable time" is worth diverting tens of thousands of membership dollars that could be better used gaining and maintaining access for jumping.

Propose a half-baked idea like that at your IT job and you'll be filing for unemployment in a week.

>the only problem with the online voting "solution" its its exorbitant
>cost compared to the paper ballots.

I don't think that's the case. Online voting is inherently cheaper than filling out, mailing and counting paper ballots. You can spend as much as you want on either one, of course - but at the end of the day, online voting takes fewer resources.

>You want to get more people to VOTE? Take the tens of thousands forecast
>to be spent ON EACH ELECTION - and use a portion of it to reduce by $5 the
>next year's membership fee of every USPA member who votes in the
>election.

Not sure bribery is such a good solution to the problem. I mean, you just condemned BJ for coercing people to get an online system going, and you're proposing to buy people's votes to make sure online voting doesn't happen?

Robin,
I'm not sure why you chose BJ as your whipping boy....

but I happen to agree with him on this issue.

Computers/online access are the future. Mail as we know it is doomed. Parachutist as we know it is doomed.
Hell, I haven't had a physical newspaper delivered to my house in 5 years. The majority of my "big" purchases are online these days.
The future is here, and securing it for the USPA and its members is important.

If this step isn't taken now, it will only become more of a burden and cost later.

If anything, this diminishes the ability of the current board to be re-elected. The BOD may become a revolving door for a while due to the whims of elections being more accessible.

But at least it allows elections to meet the current world and the ADD that accompanies modern society.

Face it, you're taking advantage of the very medium you're bitching about.

Does online voting preclude paper balots? Please explain why paper balots can't also be accepted from those more technophobic among us.



REALLY?!?!? So how many jumps does a dues paying member have to make before they deserve a vote? Who gets to decide?



If I proposed sticking with outdated and ineffective methods when much more effecient methods are available that would encourage better participation and reduce costs in the future, I would quickly loose my customer base.

then read my SKYDIVING excerpt higher up in the thread.


as do i in general terms.


nice speech douglas, and accurate, but not relevant. High-minded rhetoric aside, the devil is in the details, and the process by which this change is being made threatens the integrity of the organization and its future. that is why i think this proxy vote should fail, and that we should not go forward with this great idea until the details are sharp and presented ahead of this proxy vote which is, in fact, fraudulent in itself because everyone who votes "no" has not been clearly told by the pushers of this action that their "no" voteis the same as a a "yes" vote because the very act of voting ADDS THEM TO THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE COUNTED TO MAKE A QUORUM.

Think about THAT fraud, Douglas; people think they are voting "no" on the proxy -- when in fact a "no" vote actually means YES too.

Fraud, pure and simple. Deceit and deception, pure and simple. And THAT counts way more to me than all of your soaring rhetoric.


according to whom? Show me your evidence.



May? You "may" bounce on your next jump. Show me some empirical evidence that says we need to go forward with a fraudulent and flawed process in order to save the organization from a low voter turnout. Show me some FACTS that support anything you've said so far in this post.


In the current world, 99.9 percent of all elections for all purposes in all countries are done not online but with PAPER BALLOTS.


Sorry, Douglas, you're waxing rhetorical again. Please show me one place in this thread or any other where I'm going Luddite about the medium - just one. I say again, the END of online voting per se is not my concern; it is the fraudulent and corrupt MEANS by which B.J. Worth, Larry Bagley and certain others are trying to impose it.

If you want to corrupt USPA's PROCESS by seeking to justify the means with the end, be my guest. Just don't try to dress it up with blah blah about the future because that's a very old argument.

There is no fraud in the USPA, for crissakes. There is a fair amount of stupidity, but fraud? Gimme a break.

The proxy process is a priori fraudulent in the way it's being conducted. period.

The proxy process is a priori fraudulent in the way it's being conducted. period.

Really, show me where the perpetrators of this fraud have anywhere clearly explained that a "no" vote is the same as a "yes" vote in terms of being counted as a part of the number needed to establish a quorum.

a quorum of 10% of the membership must vote to make such a change to our voting process.

So basically you're saying that in your opinion, it's fraudulent, but there are no actual facts to back up that position. It's good that you cleared that up.


I wasn't aware that part of the USPA BOD's function was to provide english lessons. BJ's email message - posted in the very first post of this thread - states that

What else do you expect? A dictionary definition of the word "quorum"?

Your comment that a "no" vote is essentially a yes vote is misleading. This is quorum busting - a minority voting tactic that only makes sense when you're sure you're going to lose the vote. To me that says you're well aware that the majority of USPA is likely to support this measure but you don't care about the will of the membership, just your own agenda. The USPA BOD should be encouraging everyone to vote regardless of their position, as that will give a more representative answer on where the will of the membership really is, regardless of the outcome, but I'm sure if it scrapes through on just 3200 votes you'll be able to feel better by talking about your silent majority.

But, in truth, if you stand on the "no" side, not sending the proxy is the best thing you can do. As such, it is not apathetic at all.

If you and your friends pass this measure with 5.1% of the membership, it is you who are ignoring the will of 94.9% of the members, not Robin and me.

But, in truth, if you stand on the "no" side, not sending the proxy is the best thing you can do. As such, it is not apathetic at all.

Calling an unsent proxy apathetic is what is essentially misleading. The goal of the misrepresentation is to have the "no" votes help establish the quorum. Sending in a "no" proxy will contribute to the quorum, and as such will help enable as little as 5.1% of the organization to pass this expensive measure.

If nobody sends in a "no" proxy, at least you'll need 10% of the membership agreeing to pass this measure. Then you are only ignoring 90%.

If you can't even get that much done, don't tell me about how the majority of the membership is clamoring for this change.

If you really believe you have a clear majority of no voters, your strategy is flawed because by not voting, you're putting the outcome solely in the hands of everyone else. On the other hand, if this is the right strategy and you know that, then you must believe that you have very little chance of getting a majority of no votes. If you have such a clear majority behind you, why should that be so hard? If the majority of the membership is so against this change, why are they not clamouring to stop it?

Some just general FYI info
from various sources....

If you sent in a proxy that had a No vote, that will be used to determine whether or not a quorum is established.

IOW, your 'No' vote may lead to the passing of the 'yes' version because you help establish a quorum, if the cumulative number of proxies received turn that way.
If you do not want this initiative to go forward, the best answer is to 'do not send in a proxy'.
If you have sent in a proxy, revoke it.
You may at any time revoke your proxy until the meeting.
It has been mentioned to me by numerous sources that if you wish to revoke your proxy, that you copy a BOD member.
They can then verify the authenticity of the GMM vote.
You may revoke your vote by sending an email stating such to USPA HQ - cc a BOD member or two would be good too.

You may also contact/copy me on these issues.

.

That's bullshit. A 'YES' means yes. A 'NO' means no. If enough people vote, we get a good sampling of the wishes of the membership. Plain and simple.

Trying to get your way by encouraging people to shut down the voting system by abstaining and preventing a quarum is just wrong. And by doing it, YOU become part of the problem.