Forums: Archive: 2008-2009 USPA BOD Elections:
Election results

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All

johndh1  (A License)

Jan 9, 2009, 9:32 PM
Post #1 of 53 (5635 views)
Shortcut
Election results Can't Post

I do not align myself with a particular political party, because I am convinced that they all have "shit the nest," proverbailly. I don't suppose to know which man would have been the better candidate in the end, looking back; at the same time, when I pondered the two (and to whom I would present my single vote), I could not erase from my mind the one who suffered broken bones and unimagineable torture in that hell-hole, in the name of his fellow countrymen - never compromising his integrity or his voice of truth, and who now aspired to lead this nation out of his own unselfish 'sense of urgency' in these crucial times; who I believe did right under so much pressure and adverse circumstance...and who I still believe routinely did the noble and just thing out of his own good conscience.

http://www.uspa.org/...59/Default.aspx#5635

So here we are. The people chose Barabbas.
(No statement here is intended as a personal or professional attack on any newly-elected board member).


(This post was edited by johndh1 on Jan 9, 2009, 9:52 PM)


Andrewwhyte  (C 1988)

Jan 10, 2009, 3:27 PM
Post #2 of 53 (5372 views)
Shortcut
Re: [johndh1] Election results [In reply to] Can't Post

What these results clearly show is that the overwhelming number of USPA members could not give a flying fuck.


labrys  (D 29848)

Jan 10, 2009, 4:11 PM
Post #3 of 53 (5360 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Andrewwhyte] Election results [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
What these results clearly show is that the overwhelming number of USPA members could not give a flying fuck.

Could also be that an overwhelming number of USPA members are happy with the status quo and don't really "give a flying fuck" about your particular opinion.


Halfpastniner  (D 30747)

Jan 10, 2009, 4:13 PM
Post #4 of 53 (5356 views)
Shortcut
Re: [labrys] Election results [In reply to] Can't Post

Ka-BOOM!

I for one am pretty happy with the results


JohnRich  (D License)

Jan 10, 2009, 7:17 PM
Post #5 of 53 (5298 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Andrewwhyte] Election results [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
What these results clearly show is that the overwhelming number of USPA members could not give a flying fuck.

And those that did care, overwhelmingly didn't want USPA run by the Red Bull kids.


g2gjump  (B License)

Jan 11, 2009, 12:26 PM
Post #6 of 53 (5200 views)
Shortcut
Re: [labrys] Election results [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Could also be that an overwhelming number of USPA members are happy with the status quo and don't really "give a flying fuck" about your particular opinion.

agreed


jtval  (D 26340)

Jan 11, 2009, 6:11 PM
Post #7 of 53 (5098 views)
Shortcut
Re: [labrys] Election results [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
What these results clearly show is that the overwhelming number of USPA members could not give a flying fuck.

Could also be that an overwhelming number of USPA members are happy with the status quo and don't really "give a flying fuck" about your particular opinion.
MAybe you read his post correctly. BUt here's what I got from his post.

Approx 10,000 people voted.
IIRC USPA is 31,000 stong.

There's an overwhelming number of UPSA who didnt vote.


johndh1  (A License)

Jan 11, 2009, 6:15 PM
Post #8 of 53 (5098 views)
Shortcut
Re: [labrys] Election results [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
What these results clearly show is that the overwhelming number of USPA members could not give a flying fuck.

Could also be that an overwhelming number of USPA members are happy with the status quo and don't really "give a flying fuck" about your particular opinion.

I'm a little puzzled as to whom your statement (and the resulting "Ka-BOOM") is aimed toward - myself, or Andrew.

Either way, to assert that you speak for the majority in whose particular opinion is cared for and whose isn't would only validate the point made by some detractors that the whole premise of a/this public forum is useless (which it isn't). Still, I suppose the possibility exists that you were actually being cynical toward the "overwhelming number of USPA members..." If that's the case, then I apologize for my taking it the wrong way.

I should note, since the reading of my original post may have provoked comprehension problems, let me clarify: I am not completely disappointed in the fully-elected new board (I mean, if anyone else gives a f.f. what I think) - if you'll re-read and keep in mind that both comparisons I made involved one single position chosen over what I believe to be a much more desirable one.

From the private notes and comments I've received, most got it, and realized it was no slight to the majority of the new board, and certainly not to any newly-elected first-timer.


johndh1  (A License)

Jan 11, 2009, 6:21 PM
Post #9 of 53 (5091 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jtval] Election results [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
MAybe you read his post correctly. BUt here's what I got from his post.

Approx 10,000 people voted.
IIRC USPA is 31,000 stong.

There's an overwhelming number of UPSA who didnt vote.

But don't forget it's block voting - you can't go down the list and add the numbers by each name to get the number of voters, only votes cast. Up to 8 per voting member, remember?

I do know some voted for just one or two, because you have to take into account that if you really want one or two candidates, then voting for eight names total could easily knock someone off your list. Plus, one may take into account that some names are already secure in their place.

USPA received 3,503 ballots. 10,000 would have been a good percentage in most any election.

I hate block voting.


(This post was edited by johndh1 on Jan 11, 2009, 6:41 PM)


Premier NWFlyer  (D License)

Jan 11, 2009, 6:28 PM
Post #10 of 53 (5085 views)
Shortcut
Re: [johndh1] Election results [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I would estimate myself that less than 3,000 individuals voted. If the numbers are presented elsewhere, let me know.

Read the results posted on USPA's site:

http://www.uspa.org/...mfid/19/Default.aspx

Quote:
The election of the 2009-2010 USPA Board of Directors is complete with the following results. USPA received 3,503 ballots by the deadline.

Assuming membership is somewhere under 32,000 (don't know the exact number but I believe it is slightly up from last year), that's about an 11% turnout.


johndh1  (A License)

Jan 11, 2009, 6:29 PM
Post #11 of 53 (5085 views)
Shortcut
Re: [NWFlyer] Election results [In reply to] Can't Post

Thanks, Krisanne - I went back and looked after I posted that just to see if it was there, and had edited already.


skydived19006  (D 19006)

Jan 11, 2009, 7:24 PM
Post #12 of 53 (5049 views)
Shortcut
Re: Election results [In reply to] Can't Post

I think that these results are simply stereotypical American apathetic ignorant uninformed results. 90% don't bother to vote, and of the 10% that do 90% are uninformed. Thinking that they're "doing their duty" by casting an ignorant name recognition vote. As with any local, state, or national election, I'd rather that the uninformed stay home.

Now, the vote I'm most interested in would be that conducted by the USPA BOD for Prez. They were all played for a bunch of fools the last go-round, let's hope that it doesn't happen again!

There in lies a litmus test of the electorate. What percentage of those who voted know how Glen Bangs came to be elected president of the BOD the last go-round. My guess is somewhere well less than 1%.

One result I am pleased with is the "turn out" in the vote for Central RD. Only two regions with more votes, but then maybe a bunch of those bible thumpers out here in fly over country could very well be responsible for the status-quo ignorant results?

It's America, it's my opinion, I'm welcome to it!

Have a nice day.
Martin Myrtle


johndh1  (A License)

Jan 11, 2009, 7:36 PM
Post #13 of 53 (5034 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skydived19006] Election results [In reply to] Can't Post

I remember how it happened. IIRC, the rules were changed immediately after to prevent that scenario from happening again?


skydived19006  (D 19006)

Jan 11, 2009, 7:45 PM
Post #14 of 53 (5030 views)
Shortcut
Re: [johndh1] Election results [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I remember how it happened. IIRC, the rules were changed immediately after to prevent that scenario from happening again?

I am unaware of a policy change. It is politics, and dirty pool is business as usual.

"Point of order!" "Dilatory!"

Sad but true.


labrys  (D 29848)

Jan 11, 2009, 9:47 PM
Post #15 of 53 (5000 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skydived19006] Election results [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Thinking that they're "doing their duty" by casting an ignorant name recognition vote.

What evidence do you actually have to back your assertion that anyone cast an "ignorant name recognition vote"?

Or is that sour grapes?


skydived19006  (D 19006)

Jan 12, 2009, 5:53 AM
Post #16 of 53 (4936 views)
Shortcut
Re: [labrys] Election results [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
Thinking that they're "doing their duty" by casting an ignorant name recognition vote.

What evidence do you actually have to back your assertion that anyone cast an "ignorant name recognition vote"?

Or is that sour grapes?

The first few times that I voted, I didn't do any research, I just picked a few names from the list. As a percentage, how many of the 3500 people who voted looked any farther than Parachutist for information? My opinion, and it is my opinion that if a person votes on nothing more than the USPA bio printed in Parachutist, that they are ignorant.

For the first 10 years of my USPA Individual membership, I didn't really give much attention to USPA politics. I was a fun jumper, and for the later half of that 10 years also an Instructor. Truthfully, I didn't get very interested until I became a DZO, imagine that, once I had a real (follow the money) interest in the politics behind the USPA, I became "interested."

Not really sour grapes, just sad recognition of what I knew to be true was in fact the case. I'm sure that if you look back through my posts in this forum, you'll see "predictions" that we'd have a bunch of folks voting "blind", and that we'd get the results we have.

In the end, the real power in this sport lies with the guy who owns the football. It's been said in these forums many times, nothing happens without the DZO getting behind it. I could drop all my USPA memberships/ratings, and it wouldn't slow my business one bit. Granted, I would be "more exposed" in any potential law suit. Then, simply being a USPA Group Member doesn't keep people from dieing, and airplanes from crashing.

That one turned into a bit of a rant. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

Martin


(This post was edited by skydived19006 on Jan 12, 2009, 7:40 AM)


livendive  (D 21415)

Jan 12, 2009, 10:43 AM
Post #17 of 53 (4853 views)
Shortcut
Re: [labrys] Election results [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
What these results clearly show is that the overwhelming number of USPA members could not give a flying fuck.

Could also be that an overwhelming number of USPA members are happy with the status quo and don't really "give a flying fuck" about your particular opinion.

And that's why the top vote getter got approximately one vote per 26 USPA members (less than 4%)?

Blues,
Dave


DougH  (D License)

Jan 12, 2009, 11:36 AM
Post #18 of 53 (4826 views)
Shortcut
Re: [livendive] Election results [In reply to] Can't Post

Pretty damn sad. Pirate

I am personally still recovering from the huge strain of sending in my own ballot. That was a monumental task. Mad


monkycndo  (D License)

Jan 12, 2009, 1:39 PM
Post #19 of 53 (4773 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DougH] Election results [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I am personally still recovering from the huge strain of sending in my own ballot. Mad

That's because you don't have mad skilz at stamp licking.TongueLaugh


pms07  (D 7571)

Jan 12, 2009, 8:40 PM
Post #20 of 53 (4691 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skydived19006] Election results [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Quote:
Thinking that they're "doing their duty" by casting an ignorant name recognition vote.

What evidence do you actually have to back your assertion that anyone cast an "ignorant name recognition vote"?

Or is that sour grapes?

The first few times that I voted, I didn't do any research, I just picked a few names from the list. As a percentage, how many of the 3500 people who voted looked any farther than Parachutist for information? My opinion, and it is my opinion that if a person votes on nothing more than the USPA bio printed in Parachutist, that they are ignorant.

For the first 10 years of my USPA Individual membership, I didn't really give much attention to USPA politics. I was a fun jumper, and for the later half of that 10 years also an Instructor. Truthfully, I didn't get very interested until I became a DZO, imagine that, once I had a real (follow the money) interest in the politics behind the USPA, I became "interested."

Not really sour grapes, just sad recognition of what I knew to be true was in fact the case. I'm sure that if you look back through my posts in this forum, you'll see "predictions" that we'd have a bunch of folks voting "blind", and that we'd get the results we have.

In the end, the real power in this sport lies with the guy who owns the football. It's been said in these forums many times, nothing happens without the DZO getting behind it. I could drop all my USPA memberships/ratings, and it wouldn't slow my business one bit. Granted, I would be "more exposed" in any potential law suit. Then, simply being a USPA Group Member doesn't keep people from dieing, and airplanes from crashing.

That one turned into a bit of a rant. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

Martin

Rant? I'm not sure whether to cue the violins or cue the twilight zone theme. First you say the DZOs have taken over the USPA, next it's ignorant voters that have ruined the sport, followed by "blame the anti-christ Glenn Bangs", football owners, sour grapes and what's next? You need to start drinking more or something man... Crazy


tbellopa-c  (D 28953)

Jan 12, 2009, 10:55 PM
Post #21 of 53 (4670 views)
Shortcut
Re: [livendive] Election results [In reply to] Can't Post

A little more than a month ago, somebody I didn't vote for got into the presidential office. I bitched and raved for three days at the DZ and it took my my attorney and marketing director to tell me to move on.

I have since then contacted all local newly electives to invite them out to the DZ for a basic questions and answers. It so far has gone very well.

Now that the USPA vote is over, I feel if you have concerns contact them ASAP before PIA. Give the 2009 elective class the facts and ask for help when needed.

The people have spoken, now lets get back to jumping and leave the politics for the newly elected.

Cheers,

Todd Bell


DougH  (D License)

Jan 13, 2009, 4:13 AM
Post #22 of 53 (4648 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tbellopa-c] Election results [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The people have spoken, now lets get back to jumping and leave the politics for the newly elected.

Cheers,

Todd Bell

A FEW of the people have spoken.

I would have liked to see some change, but none of the non voters really deserve it.


wmw999  (D 6296)

Jan 13, 2009, 4:39 AM
Post #23 of 53 (4644 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tbellopa-c] Election results [In reply to] Can't Post

Great post, Todd.
Many jumpers really only have Parachutist, and maybe Skydiving, to refer to when selecting a national director. If they're not postwhores, they're not likely to come here and hear all the (largely secondhand) stories about the Board.

Note: I voted, and I voted for a whole lotta fresh faces. But I'm a postwhore. Friends who aren't, and who don't devote quite a bit of time to jumping, really don't have a lot of complaints, and really don't want to invest too much time into finding out more from alternative media -- Parachutist serves them.

It's like the people who read the League of Women Voters handouts before the election. They want to do the right thing, but the issues aren't central to their lives.

Wendy W.


skydived19006  (D 19006)

Jan 13, 2009, 7:01 AM
Post #24 of 53 (4603 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pms07] Election results [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
First you say the DZOs have taken over the USPA Crazy

I don't think that I said "DZOs have taken over...", I said "I'm a DZO."

In other posts, I've said that DZOs have a place on the BOD, but do not think that they should dominate.

I would have rather have seen more new faces on the BOD, but it'll be all right regardless. I would really like to see someone other than Bangs, or any of his puppets be elected president.

Martin


pms07  (D 7571)

Jan 13, 2009, 12:49 PM
Post #25 of 53 (4513 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skydived19006] Election results [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:


I don't think that I said "DZOs have taken over...", I said "I'm a DZO."

In other posts, I've said that DZOs have a place on the BOD, but do not think that they should dominate.

I would have rather have seen more new faces on the BOD, but it'll be all right regardless. I would really like to see someone other than Bangs, or any of his puppets be elected president.

Martin

Okay, I know you are a DZO. I was using hyperbole to illustrate a general point...perhaps not real effectively however. Let me try again; you or others are unlikely to affect change in the USPA by ranting on the internet, calling people names like puppet or fools, describing BoD members or voters as ignorant, or proposing conspiracy theories (speaking in generalities again..and I don't mean to imply that you personally said or did all that).

I would also propose that there are some that might be generally satisified with direction of the USPA. Or at the very least the evidence seems to indicate the 10% that actually vote, might think that way. Wink


First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Archive : 2008-2009 USPA BOD Elections

 


Search for (options)