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

Actuarial Jobs by State

New York  New Jersey  Connecticut  Massachusetts 
California  Florida  Texas  Illinois  Colorado


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, 01:53 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: 1,535
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, 01:59 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: 36,246
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 Sep 18, 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.
MORE:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr T Non-Fan View Post
It would be rude to turn them down rudely. Try not to do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodrow View Post
Complementing your technical skills with social skills - whatever they are - will help your career. This is not a sign that the world is unjust.
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
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 07:10 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 0.21147 seconds with 10 queries