Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Actuarial Discussion Forum > Chat with the Candidates & Exam Committee
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions


Chat with the Candidates & Exam Committee First Ballot Candidates are posted - Post questions to candidates here!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #221  
Old 09-13-2017, 02:53 PM
Numbers Nerd's Avatar
Numbers Nerd Numbers Nerd is offline
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Midwest
College: University of Wisconsin
Favorite beer: Ale, Lager, you name it
Posts: 1,546
Default

I looked up the results for the election:

In the first preferential vote:
Code:
Glickman   2,550  43.6%
Rosenblatt 1,859  31.8%
Barrett    1,440  24.6%
Since nobody got 50%, the second choices were considered for the top two:
Code:
Glickman   2,963  51.5%
Rosenblatt 2,787  48.5%
So, Glickman got 700 more first-place votes. But due to the way the rules are written, he won by fewer than 200 votes.

Is this another example of having election rules which favor the "endorsed" candidates?
Reply With Quote
  #222  
Old 09-13-2017, 02:59 PM
JMO's Avatar
JMO JMO is offline
Carol Marler
Non-Actuary
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Back home again in Indiana
Studying for Nothing actuarial.
Posts: 36,391
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Numbers Nerd View Post
I looked up the results for the election:

In the first preferential vote:
Code:
Glickman   2,550  43.6%
Rosenblatt 1,859  31.8%
Barrett    1,440  24.6%
Since nobody got 50%, the second choices were considered for the top two:
Code:
Glickman   2,963  51.5%
Rosenblatt 2,787  48.5%
So, Glickman got 700 more first-place votes. But due to the way the rules are written, he won by fewer than 200 votes.

Is this another example of having election rules which favor the "endorsed" candidates?
only indirectly. If people voting for endorsed candidates also tend to list an endorsed candidate as second choice, yeah, it has that effect.

Maybe a first action would be to remove the distinction on all ballots and other election materials. These elections are all about "name recognition" anyway. Maybe Jim can convince the board to make this simple change!

Or maybe we could skip the whole nom com farce and require all candidates to qualify through use of petition. With a far lower threshold for getting on the ballot.
__________________
Carol Marler, "Just My Opinion"

Pluto is no longer a planet and I am no longer an actuary. Please take my opinions as non-actuarial.


My latest favorite quotes, updated Oct 13, 2017.

Spoiler:
I should keep these four permanently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rekrap View Post
JMO is right
Quote:
Originally Posted by campbell View Post
I agree with JMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westley View Post
And def agree w/ JMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MG View Post
This. And everything else JMO wrote.
And this all purpose permanent quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr T Non-Fan View Post
Yup, it is always someone else's fault.
MORE:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bro View Post
I recommend you get perspective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enough Exams Already View Post
Dude, you can't fail a personality test. It just isn't that kind of test.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locrian View Post
I'm disappointed I don't get to do both.
Reply With Quote
  #223  
Old 10-19-2017, 04:49 PM
Talmage's Avatar
Talmage Talmage is offline
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Plano, TX
Studying for Chess Tactics
College: Kentucky
Favorite beer: Prefer Scotch
Posts: 816
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JMO View Post
Or maybe we could skip the whole nom com farce and require all candidates to qualify through use of petition. With a far lower threshold for getting on the ballot.
I would support something like automatically placing the top two petition candidates on the ballot and then the third and fourth finishers if they each met a required threshold (perhaps 10% of last year's votes). So you'd get at least two candidates on the final ballot, but no more than four.
Reply With Quote
  #224  
Old 10-20-2017, 10:26 AM
twig93's Avatar
twig93 twig93 is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 26,206
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JMO View Post
Or maybe we could skip the whole nom com farce and require all candidates to qualify through use of petition. With a far lower threshold for getting on the ballot.
I thought that historically one of the functions of the nominating committee was to recruit people to serve as there were not always a sufficient number of people who volunteered their services to the SOA.

So I'm OK with the existence of a nominating committee whose primary purpose is to get people ON the ballot rather than to keep people OFF.
__________________
Originally Posted by Gandalf
The thing that is clearest is twig's advice
Reply With Quote
  #225  
Old 10-20-2017, 10:58 AM
bdschobel's Avatar
bdschobel bdschobel is offline
Past SOA President
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sunrise, FL
Studying for FSA '76
College: MIT '74
Posts: 15,061
Default

You are exactly correct!!!

Bruce
Reply With Quote
  #226  
Old 10-20-2017, 12:42 PM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 79,352
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by twig93 View Post
I thought that historically one of the functions of the nominating committee was to recruit people to serve as there were not always a sufficient number of people who volunteered their services to the SOA.

So I'm OK with the existence of a nominating committee whose primary purpose is to get people ON the ballot rather than to keep people OFF.
Yes, that's what I thought as well.
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #227  
Old 10-20-2017, 05:38 PM
bdschobel's Avatar
bdschobel bdschobel is offline
Past SOA President
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sunrise, FL
Studying for FSA '76
College: MIT '74
Posts: 15,061
Default

Here's some relevant history:

The current incarnation of the Nominating Committee dates back to the revised Bylaws adopted in 2007 or so (not sure of the exact year right now). Before then, successive SOA presidents, myself included, had to call people and beg them to run for time-consuming, zero-compensation Board positions, especially president-elect. In those days, candidates for president-elect generally had to have already completed a term as VP (a now-abolished position). That was a pretty limited universe, and we had to exclude those who had already been elected president-elect in an earlier year. Some of the remaining people had run for president-elect, lost (sometimes multiple attempts) and didn't want to try again. So getting three (the preferred number) of candidates EVERY year for the president-elect ballot was a real challenge.

One change that was adopted early on was eliminating the implicit requirement that a president-elect candidate had to have completed a term as VP. The first modern candidate who bypassed serving as VP was Tonya Manning, who interestingly won as president-elect on her first attempt. Now that the VP positions have been abolished, that old requirement is obsolete and gone.

But the more fundamental change was appointing a Nominating Committee whose primary task was to identify and recruit Board candidates, taking that job away from SOA leadership, who already had plenty to do. The Nominating Committee also had the secondary task of screening "bad" candidates from the ballot, but that wasn't supposed to happen very often, if ever! Unfortunately, the Nominating Committee seems to have skipped the primary task, based on the fact that so many ballots have had just two president-elect candidates -- and they even changed the guidelines to make that result acceptable! Meanwhile, they seem to relish the secondary task way too much, to the extent of keeping current president-elect Jim Glickman off the "endorsed" ballot four -- yes, FOUR -- times, and he wasn't the only one. They continued to keep Jim off the endorsed ballot even after he had repeatedly collected the votes of thousands of actuaries!!! That was an outrageous abuse of power, in my opinion. And not the only one, either. They set up a complex and limited petition procedure with a huge hurdle to cross. Only Jim has managed to cross it, thank goodness. I am sure that nobody expected him to succeed, but Jim is a very special guy, and he did.

Bruce
Reply With Quote
  #228  
Old 10-20-2017, 05:57 PM
twig93's Avatar
twig93 twig93 is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 26,206
Default

Has there ever been any thought to lengthening the terms?

What if the office of the President just consisted of two people? The progression could be:

President-Elect: serve one year
President: serve two years
Past President: serve one year

Thus you'd still have a four year commitment, but you'd only have to recruit half as many candidates.

The Presidential officers would consist of either:
A) Past President & President (in his/her first year)
B) President-Elect & President (in his/her second year)

Just a thought.
__________________
Originally Posted by Gandalf
The thing that is clearest is twig's advice

Last edited by twig93; 10-23-2017 at 11:29 AM.. Reason: Changed "term" to "year" for clarity
Reply With Quote
  #229  
Old 10-20-2017, 07:23 PM
bdschobel's Avatar
bdschobel bdschobel is offline
Past SOA President
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sunrise, FL
Studying for FSA '76
College: MIT '74
Posts: 15,061
Default

Interesting idea, but not likely to happen. The most recent Bylaws removed the penultimate president from the Board, as a way to reduce the commitment from 4 years to 3. And being president is so time-consuming that I can't see anyone with a full-time job being able to do it for 2 years (without getting fired from that other job). I don't believe that the SOA would be well served by having a steady stream of retirees serving as president. (Not that there's anything wrong with retirees! )

Bruce
Reply With Quote
  #230  
Old 10-21-2017, 07:47 PM
Westley Westley is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 25,941
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bdschobel View Post
They continued to keep Jim off the endorsed ballot even after he had repeatedly collected the votes of thousands of actuaries!!! That was an outrageous abuse of power, in my opinion.
And after he got 30% or so of the votes in the prior election, right? Like, hey, 30% of all voting members considered him the best choice last year - still not worthy of being on the ballot. I actually thought (have always thought) merger would be a good idea if it could be done in a way that preserves some of the unique attributes that the CAS provides. But SOA is pretty much a comical caricature of what a professional organization looks like.

Last edited by Westley; 10-23-2017 at 11:27 AM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
*PLEASE NOTE: Posts are not checked for accuracy, and do not
represent the views of the Actuarial Outpost or its sponsors.
Page generated in 0.48209 seconds with 12 queries