Proxies for Academy meeting in Boston

[bdschobel]

Interesting point. If you really wanted to elect Tom, then your best strategy would be to vote only for him, but you had to think about that for a second or two, and time was pretty limited. Anyway, Lehmann had so many proxies that the outcome was certain going in. Even if everybody in the room had voted only for Tom, I believe he still would have lost (but it would have been very close!).

Bruce

[Colymbosathon ecplecticos]

Originally Posted by Gandalf

There was another element, that while probably not intended to hurt Tom's chances (they did enough other things for that) may well have helped the Board slate indirectly. You could vote for up to three. You could change votes, but you could not "unvote" completely. If you initially voted for Tom and the two others you thought best, then realized that voting Tom only would be a better strategy, you could not, or at least they didn't tell you how you could. Maybe a vote for "4,5,6" (where 5 and 6 did not correspond to any of the candidates) would create a vote for Tom (4) only, but if so it was not communicated.

There is a trade-off; you do increase the value of the vote that you give to candidate #4 at the expense of losing nearly 2/3 of your votes. In some voting systems you could vote 4, 4, 4 --- such systems tend to create parliaments with many tiny splinter parties and unstable coalition governments.

Still if everybody in the room voted 4, 4, 4 the proxies would have been out-voted.

Maybe I'll start another thread about voting methods....

[Gandalf]

Originally Posted by Colymbosathon ecplecticos

There is a trade-off; you do increase the value of the vote that you give to candidate #4 at the expense of losing nearly 2/3 of your votes. In some voting systems you could vote 4, 4, 4 --- such systems tend to create parliaments with many tiny splinter parties and unstable coalition governments.

Still if everybody in the room voted 4, 4, 4 the proxies would have been out-voted.

Maybe I'll start another thread about voting methods....

They specifically said voting more than once for a single candidate was not allowed, and I suspect that the device would not record such a "vote" as three votes for candidate 4. From my interpretation of what was said, if you did press "4" three times it would count as one vote for "4", rather than disqualifying the ballot.

[gadzookz]

How was voting done? In the past it was by voice. Sounds like a method of electronic voting?

[Gandalf]

Each AAA member got a handheld device with multiple buttons. 12, with not all identified as to purpose. You were told when voting started, and that voting would be allowed for 2 minutes. At the end of 2 minutes, the most recent three buttons you had pushed counted as your votes. E.g., pushing 1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4 would count as votes for 2,3,4. It wasn't clear what happened if one of your most recent 3 pushes was for something other than 1,2,3 or 4; if two of your most recent 3 were for the same candidate, etc.

You were explicitly told that you were not allowed to vote more than once for a candidate (except that numerous pushes, ending with 3 different pushes, were definitely allowed).

[Gandalf]

They were careful to give the voting machines only to AAA members, but did not control who actually voted with them (reasonable, IMO). OTOH, I don't know if they refused to give one to an AAA member who had submitted a proxy, invalidated the proxy, etc. I strongly suspect not, and would bet that there were at least a few double votes (more likely from people who had sent their proxies in to the AAA as requested, then were given a machine in person, maybe not even aware of the significance of the proxy. I don't mean the Bakos supporters would be any more honest, but on average would have been more aware of the process.).

I also think it's almost certain that if I had wanted to get two voting machines, I could have, especially had I known in advance that they were using the machines and how they would be given out. OTOH, we are supposed to be professionals and there are limits to how much control should be needed.

Similarly, we were told to leave the machines on the table after we voted. I saw lots of people vote, then leave the room, leaving the machine on the table. It would have been physically possible to push a button on such a machine within the 2 minute total voting period. I wasn't tempted to, and I don't think anyone would expect that would be a risk to worry about.

[idomoneus]

Given that the same people are validating the proxies and running for office, how do we know that Lehmann genuinely received 1000 proxies? Is there any proof that these proxies are real?

[Colymbosathon ecplecticos]

Originally Posted by idomoneus

Given that the same people are validating the proxies and running for office, how do we know that Lehmann genuinely received 1000 proxies? Is there any proof that these proxies are real?

This is bordering on inappropriate.

[Gandalf]

Originally Posted by idomoneus

Given that the same people are validating the proxies and running for office, how do we know that Lehmann genuinely received 1000 proxies? Is there any proof that these proxies are real?

It was not the same people running for office and validating the proxies anyway. The same people who nominated the Board-endorsed slate may have been involved in validating the proxies (I don't know), but I can't believe the candidates were.

I don't like the fact that the proxies were solicited without a clear explanation of the reason, or the advantage that solicitation had of being given the AAA membership list, but I don't suspect election fraud.

[idomoneus]

Let me clarify my previous post.

I do not know who validated the proxies on either side or what process they used. It seems likely that it was done by staff of the AAA working under the direction of the board. Given the very close connection between the current board and the nominating process, that isn't too far removed from saying the same group of people made the nominations and validated the voting process.

If that is the case, it seems a bit like asking the Republican party in Florida in 2000 to count the votes without any observers from the Democratic party. Is suggesting that would be unwise "inappropriate"?

I am not accusing anyone of fraud, though I am surprised that Lehmann received, allegedly, 1000 proxies. I am surprised that many actuaries cared enough about this to send out a proxy to either side, frankly.

I think my concern could be assuaged by a bit more transparency. If the AAA announces who did the validation of the proxies and those people were not openly supporting one side then I would feel a lot better. Given what the board has done lately I am disinclined to take these things on trust. Again, I am not asserting that there was fraud. I am just asking the question: how do we know? Is the answer "these are good guys and we should trust them?"