IOMICA Forum

In thinking about some of the problems that arose as part of the most recent IOMICA election, I think it might be worth considering changing our voting system to "one owner/one vote" and to a fixed date for the class AGM.

I've always thought direct, popular vote elections are the best way to decide issues and vote on candidates. It would also eliminate the need for "certificated" and "registered" boats.

As to a fixed date meeting, it seems that not much happens at our "live" AGM (you can't raise motions for voting without weeks of notice); so that the idea of a regularly scheduled, electronic meeting would seem to serve our class needs well.

One of the points discussed at this year's AGM was having the AGM at the same time each year. People thought it would be good to be able to plan ahead and know when the meeting is scheduled.

The idea of having the AGM coincide with the World Championship regatta, ostensibly to allow face to face discussion, still has value.

By getting the formal counting of votes for candidates and proposals done electronically, it leaves more time for informal discussion at the AGM held during the WC's.

Given the advance notice requirements for the AGM and the proposals to be voted upon, an electronic AGM at the same time each year makes sense to me.

Dear Bruce and Roy:
Only 2 years ago that I am in Class 1M and 1 that I connect to the forum.
My first intervention was to ask why nobody was ever order in the endless discussions on every word of the regulations were being discussed "democratically" on the web ...
Then I tried to clarify the issue RoyL tank all speak and nobody defines its use. (unsuccessfully).
Then I looked and I saw that in the last 4 years, has not taken any decision on the rule book.
At the moment, in which Mr Anders Wallin, and with the current rules in hand, announced that Bruce has not won the election ...
Can I ask ...
Why Bruce wants to continue in spite of everything as Chairman?
RoyL wants to now why the flag rule change regarding the electoral system?

If neither has done anything in recent years ... Is that now going to work?
I notice that people seem to be tired of approaches "so democratic" and that the findings of RoyL since June 10 have not received not one reply .... (see...http://www.iomclass.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1447)
Does not mean that everything said there should be forgotten?

Gentlemen: A regulation is applied, and modified if there is any doubt, but it applies.
On the contrary I am looking at the behavior of both.
Regrettable.

Antionio: Respectfully, I think your lack of fluency in English and a less than clear understanding of the rules and history of our class have lead you down the wrong path.

If you read the class regulations and constitution you will see that the method provided to change our class rules in a binding manner is by a formal vote that requires advance notice and votes allocated by number of registered boats in each country. This procedure was not followed in the case of the "resolutions" that are at the center of the current election dispute.

Perhaps arguments can be made that these resolutions should be followed or have value as precedent, but one thing is 100% certain--contrary to your post, it is an open question as to how and in what way these resolutions "applies"(sic).

Second, I have to take very, very strong exception to your claims that the Executive over the past few years has somehow failed the IOM Class. In the time prior to your joining our class, we had an unfortunate history of turmoil and dissent. Boats where ruled illegal. Sails were required to be modified or discarded. People were banned from our forums. The list could go on.

On the other hand, during the time I served on the Executive under Greg Willis and Andy Stevenson and with Bruce Andersen, the class has experienced unprecedented stability and growth. There has not been a single technical or measurement protest at any of our major events. No boats have been banned or equipment required to be discarded. The class rules have been generally understood and workable. Reasonable modifications have been made when necessary and voted upon by the entire class. Major international regattas have been successfully organized and held. Boat registrations and new members (such as yourself) have increased year to year.

Sustaining and maintaining this positive class environment required sensitivity and diligence and hard work. To suggest that the Executive was doing "nothing" is frankly, an insult to all of the volunteers who worked so hard to bring us where we are today. It's easy to throw bombs and suggest that everything is wrong and needs to be totally modified, updated and "fixed". It is much harder to create a positive atmosphere where the rules don't get in the way of successful sailing and racing.

Finally, as to my purpose of starting this thread. Under our existing system of voting and elections, we have found ourselves with a dispute as to how votes should be allocated. This is unfortunate for us all. One simple solution to that problem going forward would be to change our system to "one person/one vote" and directly elect officers and enact rule changes. At the very least I think it is an idea worth discussing.

Finally, I really don't see how any of this is "Regrettable", but as a firm believer in democracy and free expression, you are certainly entitled to you opinion.

Oh, and to get back on topic, what do you think of the idea of "one person/one vote"?

I would like to strongly support Roy's "thought" of one owner/one vote. The present system of "certificated" and "registered" owners is unnecessarily complicated and simply adds work for the officer concerned with collating an IOMICA vote within each NCA.

Once the one owner/one vote issue is clarified, then IOMICA should set up a on-line voting system where all owners throughout the world could vote. Obviously, such a system would require input from each NCA to vaildate an owner's entitlement to vote, but that shouldn't require much more effort from the NCAs than currently.

And while we are thinking about what might be done, it is my strong opinion that the new executive should sort out the problems that have just arisen with the constitution and regulations. I have been following the threads elsewhere, but frankly, my eyes glaze over, my attention wanders and I think to myself - "I need to get myself a life" !

The first apologize if I offended anyone.

Well I can not agree on "one person one vote" and explain why.
We are not a country.
We are simply an association of “ownersâ€

1. The concept of election reform, particularly the idea of one person = one vote made its debut 6 posts below, not at the Barbados AGM. That is why there are no prior mentions of it.

I like the concept both for its democracy and ease of use. The USA NCA set up an on-line voting system this year, and it worked quite well. The hardest part is identifying who has the right to cast a vote, but once that's done the rest is pretty straightforward.

If we decide to keep the present system of NCA members voting then the NCAs casting their membership weighted votes we can still consider using electronic voting. While not all NCA's have websites, they all have a section on this board that could be used to cast electronic votes for local as well as IOMICA affairs.

2. Having run the float tank measurement station for Renata for a while, I can assure you that once she realized the ends of the tank had warped ~3mm, we were instructed to take that into account during overall length measurement.

USA has 2 float tanks that work well, and we offered them to BAR for the WC's. They opted to make their own and it turned out not to be accurate in the overall length when filled with water. This was easily fixed.

One of our float tanks is designed to be shipped, with side and top panels that come off and become a course board and heat board and spaces inside to hold the calibration weights and scale. It costs about $50 USD to ship anywhere in the US. We could turn it into some sort of line drawing and post it on the website (with instructions for use) if desired, but it's pretty similar to Graham's float tank (just beefed up for shipping).

3. The templates used had maximum sail area as well as mast band placement marks. Sails were hand measured if they were over dimension and mast band placement was checked for every rig. I realize that the use of a template poses its own set of problems, but it works well to determine which sails need to be hand measured and thus, saves quite a bit of time.

I was puzzled with the response of Bruce, and developing a range of questions ... but since we already have a new Chairman, the question boils down to the next, they immediately put together a RoyL and Bruce:

How democratic system(other than the possible 3) get the votes that gave Bruce winner?

Thanks for the clarification.

Antonio Espada wrote:How democratic system(other than the possible 3) get the votes that gave Bruce winner?

Hi Antonio

I think I understand your question (smile), and I think the answer is simply that Anders Wallin, the 'official' counter of the votes, made an error, incorrectly identifying Bruce as the winner at first.

Thanks Lester.
Produced another impression.
For me personally, I would like to see both contribute their ideas to the new phase starts.
Sincerely

I think I speak for all IOM sailors that we are pleased that this issue has been resolved and that we now have a new executive in place.

As if the executive did not have enough to work on with the various issues raised about the clarity of the class rules, and with the debate on the future of the ICA and its relationship to the RSD and/or the ISAF, now we have several problems exposed with our voting procedures.

There have been two major errors in vote counting in the last two years.

First was the 10mm mast (showed as passed when a simple majority was used instead of the mandated 2/3rd majority) – and as it was minuted, it took a year to get the minutes corrected at the next AGM).

Second was the incorrect allocation of NCA votes for the officers of the Executive.

These errors were not deliberate attempts to thwart democracy, they were simply errors brought about by confusing and conflicting documentation and methods.

It strikes me that we have several problems with our voting processes, attributable to the constitution, that lead to the above situations.

1. From posts in the forum, it appears that there is not a consistent way across NCAs to maintain the list of members in good standing and a count of registered boats and certified boats. In our ‘electoral college’ vote allocation, this could lead to some NCAs having an inappropriate number of votes.

Solution – a standard method for maintaining the active count of members (in good standing) that have registered boats and active certificates. We also need a statement of one vote per person at the NCA level, regardless of the number of boats he/she owns.

2. Unnecessary complexity in distinguishing between registered boats and certificated boats. At present, owners of registered boats may vote on the class constitution and executive related items, but only certificated boat owners may vote on class rules. Anyone can register a boat, even if the boat does not exist – the real test of commitment to the class is a measurement certificate

Solution – standardise on either (but preferably Certificated boats only) to vote on all items (the constitution, the executive and the class rules).

3. Use of Regulations to apportion an NCAs block of votes

We have several documented (and lost) regulations passed by the WC relating to how member NCA votes are to be counted. No matter how well intended, neither the WC nor the Executive should have any say in how an individual NCA wishes to cast its assigned block of votes. That decision should rest solely with the NCA.

How an NCA chooses to allocate its block of votes must be documented within its own constitution. In the absence of such documentation, NCA votes should be cast using ‘first past the post’ takes all of that NCA block for a specific issue or candidate.

Solution. Strike down the regulations referring to apportioning any NCA votes. Provide some standard wording on voting for adoption by member NCAs into their constitutions.

And all that without getting into the discussion of one member/one vote


John

Antonio

I can not see a legal method of counting the votes that puts me in the position of Chairman, nor is it my intent. As John has stated, our election procedures can be confusing. My intent is to start a discussion as to how they could be simplified.

On the concept of having 2 classes of owners (registered and certificated) - when the class was first started, it made some sense to have issues not related to racing voted upon by all members and to have issues related to racing only voted upon by those with boats certified to race.

Inasmuch as the class has transformed into one that emphasizes competition, now may be the time to do away with the 2 classes of votes, and have only skippers that have certificated boats vote on all issues. Getting a boat certified for racing is not a huge issue and supports the notion that the IOM class puts a premium on racing competition.

On the concept of one owner = one vote, I see a few obvious issues. First and foremost, it puts the direction of the class in the hands of racing skippers that have an opinion upon which they are willing to vote.

However, this does dilute the strength of NCA's with large numbers of skippers that may not voice their opinions.

Look at the number of skippers that actually voted from GBR, AUS, and USA (the 3 largest NCA's) - only a small fraction of the number listed on their rosters!

Why should USA with a voter turn out of 30 skippers (15% of their certificated owners) get to cast 8 votes while BAR with a voter turnout of 12 (100% of certificated owners) get to cast only 1 vote?

If an NCA cannot get a significant voter turn out, should that NCA retain the voting power given to it based upon historical numbers of members rather than active, voting members?

Furthermore and in the interest of ease and transparency, a one owner = one vote would be relatively easy to carry out electronically which would save time and expense for NCA's that still depend upon FAX or hardcopy transmission of votes, particularly if it could be done at the NCA portions of the IOMICA website.

Bruce:

I am very grateful to customize your response to me, but I am only a simple sailor in the class (which is also a measurer).

Completely agree on almost everything, and I hope the debate will produce the best result for the class.

In short, I have a new Consultation to VC Technical imn order to clarify ify all the things RoyL refused or failed to explain.

Like to congratulate all the new executive class and wish to have the success we all deserve.

I would like to congratulate all of the new officers who will be leading our class going forward. From the outside looking in, it appears that there was a great degree of cooperation on that part of all the affected parties.

Thanks to all who made the effort to cooperate through these trying times. Now we can address the changes that need to be made to insure that similar problems don't arise again. To be sure, more problems will arise -- that's called life -- but if they can be addressed in a cooperative manner, we as a class will all be the better for it.

Regarding how elections will be held in the future, I am strongly in favor of the "one man, one vote" method. As has been stated elsewhere, the US had a dismal showing in its voting, and if voting is meaningful to us, we will whip up the voter turnout. I personally don't like block voting, and the one vote per owner will do away with that practice.

Brig North

I suspect that the current 'block voting', sometimes referred to as the 'electoral college' leads to voting indifference from our owners around the world. The voter is an extra step away from the outcome. It is easy to say "I don't need to vote as others in my country will vote and our country still votes its entire block regardless of participation".

Does the class belong to the boat owners or member countries?

If we were to move to one member/one vote, do we change the character of the IOMICA? Are we reducing the power of the DMs who make up the World Council?

Proposals and nominations still need to come from NCA's.

It may be worth glancing back before we move forward; there are (or, in some folks minds, never were) good reasons for where we are. This takes some unpicking, so please bear with me. IMHO Bruce has provided a particularly well-balanced approach for discussion.

Bruce Andersen wrote:On the concept of having 2 classes of owners (registered and certificated) - when the class was first started, it made some sense to have issues not related to racing voted upon by all members and to have issues related to racing only voted upon by those with boats certified to race.

Well, when IOMICA first started, there was a very strong concern that the international ISAF-model structure of ICA and NCAs might disenfranchise those IOM owners who enjoyed club racing yet who did not have, and their club did not require, valid boat certificates. It was estimated that, for every IOM with a valid certificate in the world, there were 3 being sailed without, and we wanted to be sure that these owners would be encouraged and welcomed as stakeholders in their NCAs. On the other hand, it was clear that class rule issues were for those 'committed' to the class -- that is, owners who were certificated.

Inasmuch as the class has transformed into one that emphasizes competition, now may be the time to do away with the 2 classes of votes, and have only skippers that have certificated boats vote on all issues. Getting a boat certified for racing is not a huge issue and supports the notion that the IOM class puts a premium on racing competition.

Just as Bruce says, it turns out that we do not see anything like the expected 3:1 ratio in most NCAs; only the owner numbers from ESP, FIN, IRL, NOR, RSA, and SWE show this kind of ratio, and in all other NCAs there is hardly any difference in certificated versus registered owners.

It is not clear to me, though, that this outcome therefore means that we should do away with registered owners. It may well be that those NCAs which show little difference in certificated and registered owners are simply those NCAs which do emphasise racing over fun and casual enjoyment and which do not particularly cater for non-certificated boats. This is not a criticism of these NCAs, just an observation! My personal guess is that there are probably around 1500 IOM owners in GBR, for example, of whom around 500 are certificated.

On the concept of one owner = one vote, I see a few obvious issues. First and foremost, it puts the direction of the class in the hands of racing skippers that have an opinion upon which they are willing to vote.

However, this does dilute the strength of NCA's with large numbers of skippers that may not voice their opinions.

The issue of 'one owner one vote' versus 'national association vote' was debated at length, and sometimes hotly, in 2002 - 2004. It came down to two concerns.

One was to adhere to the ISAF model for international class governance. You will notice that, to be recognised as an ISAF-RSD (and soon, ISAF alone) international class, the class must be sailed in a specified minimum number of Member National Authorities with a specified geographical distribution. When IOMICA first sought recognition from RSD, it was a condition of acceptance that a minimum number of NCAs signed up. All of this very strongly suggested that IOMICA needed to be an association of NCAs, rather than an association of Owners directly.

Two was to encourage the formation of NCAs in as many countries as possible. This also strongly suggested that the NCA should be the 'unit' of membership of the ICA, since giving owners direct representation in the ICA would mean that an NCA was unnecessary.

And, it was this line of thinking which sought to limit the voting power of the countries with large numbers of owners -- that is, to explicitly give significant voting power to countries with smaller numbers of owners.

So these concerns suggested that the ICA should be composed of, and encourage, strong NCAs and NCA formation, and it is clear that 'one owner one vote' significantly reduces the role and function of NCAs. Because of this, it is correspondingly clear that 'one owner one vote' (OOOV) will have the effect of enhancing the power and authority of the Exec. Again, this is not a criticism of NCAs or the Exec, just observations on the likely implications of OOOV.

OOOV may well eliminate any need for NCAs altogether in certain countries where other associations are already positioned to undertake administrative matters such as event organisation, and where IOM owners do not see any strong need for a separate association. Associated with the weakening of the NCA position is the likely encouragement of stronger management and leadership from the IOMICA Exec. As long as proposals and nominations continue to come from the Exec, owners can vote on them and express their opinions directly, without needing to engage with their NCA.

It seems to me that the policy so far of strong NCAs and NCA formation has been particularly successful. By the observation of many knowledgeable people, IOMICA has around twice the number of NCAs that anyone originally thought would happen. On the other hand, what does concern me is the low engagement of some NCA in the World Council. I would much prefer to focus on how to get countries who did not vote at all back into the fold (GER, ITA, NED, NOR, RSA, SWE), since it is certain that they had owners who did want to vote.

Look at the number of skippers that actually voted from GBR, AUS, and USA (the 3 largest NCA's) - only a small fraction of the number listed on their rosters!

Why should USA with a voter turn out of 30 skippers (15% of their certificated owners) get to cast 8 votes while BAR with a voter turnout of 12 (100% of certificated owners) get to cast only 1 vote?

If an NCA cannot get a significant voter turn out, should that NCA retain the voting power given to it based upon historical numbers of members rather than active, voting members?

Personally, I don't think it matters one jot whether 1% or 10% or 100% of owners in a country happen to vote. I might be wrong, of course, but I can't see why NCAs should be penalised somehow if they fail to achieve significant voter turnout. And I don't see that the ICA is some kind of evangelical movement for getting folks to vote. Why should anyone be 'whipped' to vote (smile)(sorry Brig, couldn't resist!)?

This thread started with a RoyL’s post which brought to the light three interesting proposals:

First, the idea of changing the vote system for “one owner/one voteâ€

Thanks Lester. . .great background info, Now I understand much better.

Thanks

John

Perhaps the concepts of one owner = one vote and the issue of registered v. certificated owners could be decided upon by the class?

It would be interesting to see how many members feel that this might be something that should be changed rather than have a few people simply say "it's not broken, don't fix it". Yes, we had a problem with voting this AGM. We also had a problem with voting at the last AGM. That seems to suggest a problem that might need fixing.

NCA's have important roles to play in an international class: national regattas, ranking, nomination of candidates, formulation of proposals, certification of boats/owners, oversight of measurement, social affairs, website/forum hosting, dissemination of information and schedules, and funding just off the top of my head. Casting electoral votes for their membership is just one of many duties.

Not to cast stones, but some of the "lengthy" debates from 2004 got us into the most recent election mess. I'd like to think the class has matured enough since then to re-visit this issue in a more public way.

We already have the geographic distribution and numbers for NCA's to be recognized by ISAF, and with the present structure of the EXEC and World Council I can't see that giving votes directly to owners will make NCA's superfluous or run us afoul of ISAF.

As evidenced by our last election, the voting power of the largest NCA's was in no way limited! Very few members actually cast votes, yet the NCA's retained large numbers of electoral votes. I see it as quite the opposite: 30 owners from the USA had 8 times the voting power of the NCA's with only 1 electoral vote, despite larger percentage of voting participation by their members.

People are motivated to vote for many reasons - it seems to me that owners that take an active role in the class should derive some benefit from being active and expressing their opinion by having their votes count directly.

As an example (which I don't think is unique) in the USA I know of numerous owners that own registered and certified boats but have not put them in the water in years - should their presence on our NCA roster increase our voting strength?

In a one owner = one vote system, folks that choose not to participate will probably also choose not to vote, resulting in an election outcome that more closely describes the desires of the active members of the class.

I can't see how allowing direct elections of IOMICA officers will undermine NCAs. I also don't see the difference between types of sailors. If you own and register an IOM and you care enough to vote, I don't see why you shouldn't have a full voice in class affairs.

I guess if you look at anything long enough and hard enough you can make the most simple things complicated. I view the idea of "one owner/one vote" a positive change and a step forward in how we govern ourselves.

Unfortunately I do think our election system is "broke". If the last election isn't clear evidence of the problem, the low voter turn out and the fact that we don't have a uniform system of tracking active owners and allocating "electoral votes" should be enough to at least cause us to re-examine the existing system.

To me, nothing is wrong with letting the class discuss and then vote on these issues. I much prefer that solution than any imposed on the class from above.

So for me, on the three issues I think (a) one owner/one vote--yes; (b) ending the distinction between certificated and registered owners--yes; and (c) uniform date for the AGM--yes.

The difference between registered and certified, is that "someone" has "seen" the object of the class, which is nothing less than "a boat of Class 1M".

I can registered,( for example), my project of buying a lintel, and should not be entitled to vote, until he is able to navigate to it (unless you have another 1M).

1 person = 1 vote, with the low level of participation, means that someone can "buy votes" and were Chairman without ever having owned a boat 1M.

I remember that we are an association of "owners", not "sympathetic"

Another thing is the process of "register" that it must be completely changed.

Sincerely

Just a few points from our class documents regarding Lester's post below. A bit wordy so Lester, do keep up (ha)!

1) "...disenfranchise those IOM owners who enjoyed club racing yet who did not have, and their club did not require, valid boat certificates."

IOM Class Rules, Section B – Boat Eligibility
To be eligible to take part in racing, the rules in this section shall be complied with.
B.1 CERTIFICATE
B.1.1 The hull shall have a valid certificate.

2) "...NCAs which do emphasise racing over fun and casual enjoyment and which do not particularly cater for non-certificated boats."

IOM Constitution, Section 4. OBJECTS
4.1. The objects of the IOM ICA shall be:
4.1.1. To promote and develop IOM class racing under uniform rules throughout the world.

3) "... since giving owners direct representation in the ICA would mean that an NCA was unnecessary."

IOM Regulations, Section 3
3.1. There is no provision to grant World Council membership to Owners or classes of Owners where no IOM NCA or NCS exists in their country. Such Owners are requiredto form a NCA or appoint a NCS and then apply.

Please do not misunderstand this post - I not trying to be confrontational which I (and many others) have been guilty of in the past. I'm just trying to bring some facts to the table.

On the possibility of "buying votes", I guess it's possible if you're dealing with the unsophisticated. I rather doubt that includes the majority of IOM owners.

Now that the dust has cleared, I think it is appropriate that we re-visit the issue of class voting procedures.

It would seem pretty clear that we need uniform rules that apply to all NCAs.

An easy answer is to go to a one member/one vote direct election voting system.

The present electoral college system and the distinction between registered and certificated owners is overly complex. Further to reform it will require some way that each NCA uniformly annually re-confirm the actual number of registered and certificated boats and owners--something not currently required under our rules.

One owner/one vote allows those interested enough to participate to be fully enfranchised. It is also a simple and straightforward system to administer.

No matter how this matter is resolved, I think this governance issue should be the top of the Executive "pile" for action in the new year.

Has the date for the 2010 AGM meeting been set? I recall some discussions about putting them on a regular schedule so the NCA's could start working on proposals well in advance.

It is very seldom that big organisations and specially organisations with members across the borders has a voting process that gives votes on a one to one basis.
how we are oganized is common for many organisations.

It is good reasons for why some NCA has higher participation than others. The bigger the NCA is one can excpect lower percentage. I know BAR and they are kommunicating close and it is easy to reach all members with info. Big organisations like USA, GBR, AUS can not approach the individual members on a personal basis and are dependent on that the members take actions.

I can't se any problem with the way it is today. If a one to one member voting was choosen I am afraid that even fewer would vote and those who voted would be those who where fluent in english.

All info is in english and the workload for NCA representives such as myself in Norway would increase to be able to get my members to vote. Many don't read discussions here on the forum for many reasons, one of them is that the language is one of the barriere others is as I have mentioned before the way discussions on the board goes.

Who is discussing? well take a look at the IOMICA becoming an ISAF class.
This is typical for the situation, mostly english speaking NCA's discussing intricate details in their own language, a playground for nitty gritty and tiny details. I would say that even if I understand english fairly well struggles some times to read it and understand what is discussed.


Take the example with similar to USA and BAR, lets say NOR and GBR.
How many votes would GBR cast compared to NOR, well just look at the result. The consequence is that NOR vote would be like a mouse pee in the ocean.

In my opinion each country should have at least one vote no matter how small they are. The we have today gives enough power to the big countries to be able to control the class, ref the latest vote in the ISAF case.

I am very disapointed that the IOMICA did not become a ISAF class. After having followed the discussion this was stopped by som pondsailors in some of the english speaking countries.

In Norway we are working to becom fully integrated in the "big" boat community and in this work the becoming an ISAF international class is essential. If that had happened Norsk IOM Klubb which is the NCA for NOR would have become a classorganisation in the Norwegian Sailing Asscosiation with the same influence as any other class organisation. As it is now we have no formal way of working for radiosailing in our national organisation, which in my opinion is devistating for the growth of the IOM in Norway.

Yes I see the wish in that the class should be governed by the owners, it is a good thought. But it doesn't work that way.

What do we need NCA's for if every owner shall have their own vote????

IMHO, if we move to a "one owner = one vote" system, NCA's will still have plenty to do in terms of organizing their national regattas and championships, maintaining owner lists, publicity, growth, fund raising, communication, etc.

If we change over to this type of voting, the only work item removed from the NCA's is the onerous task of scheduling and counting votes.

So where does that onerous task transfer to? Whether you vote as we do now or do a one owner=one vote system, someone(s) have to verify that the right people have voted and count them and audit memberships and. . . . and . . . . . and.

An old mentor of mine once told me "there ain't anything simple". It is so true.

Barry - you are correct: somewhere a system needs to be in place to insure that all properly registered owners are allowed to vote. Presently, that is the task of the NCA's.

NCA's that charge annual fees can rather easily determine who are active members - NCA's that do not have an annual "update" of their membership may in fact have a much larger list of skippers that at one time or another became IOM owners than those owners that actively participate at one level or another.

This dichotomy between NCA's with annually renewed member lists and those with historical lists of owners questions whether the present electoral system fairly represents all owners.

Theoretically, a "one owner = one vote" system effectively eliminates those IOM owners who were active at one time and whose name appears on a list but no longer care for the sport from the voting process.

If we ever get around to actually changing our election processes, the issue of how to maintain a list of properly registered IOM owners will have to be dealt with to effectively manage this type of voting system.

You can never take the task of collecting the votes away from the NCA simply because there many people who are registered (paid there annual fee) who do not have either e-mail or internet access. I know that IOMICA only accepts an NCA if it has but the NCA cannot exclude a member because he does not have electronic access. I also believe that the current system does not need to be re written (this will just create another whole host of other problems) but we need to tighten up on how we control the numbers of registered skippers.