JR;

Unfortunately, no, I cannot.

I was at the last EC meeting and Sunday was spent by the entire EC working on the Bylaws, but there was no discussion at that time concerning election procedures. (The discussion was in another part of the Bylaws.) I do not think anything is so firm as to be "set in granite" at this time. (My opinion.)

However, also in my opinion, a discussion of election procedures is likely to yet occur. I think a healthy discussion here of possible alternatives would be desirable and possibly fruitful.

To get it started:

Up until the early 80's, AMA Bylaws required that an elected official receive a majority of the ballots cast. In a couple of well-known races, that was not achieved in the initial ballot and a run-off had to be performed, with the correspondent cost to the organization. Shortly after that, a Bylaws amendment was passed by the Leader Members to change an election to winning only with a plurality requirement. Coupled with the requirement that there be no more than three candidates on a ballot, it is easily conceivable that an election could be won with 1/3rd of the votes plus one.

In addition to the Bylaws, the AMA has a series of "Standing Rules" under which the organization is run. It is an unfortunate aspect of Standing Rules that they are simply voted into existence by the EC and are not subject to ratification by the membership (i.e., the Leader Members) as are the Bylaws. It is in the Standing Rules where the operation of the Nominating Committee is found. The actual definition of the Nominating Committee is found in the Bylaws, Article IX. The limit of three on a ballot is found in the Standing Rules.

The real question is: "Is the current mechanism resulting in a fair election of our AMA officers?"

The current mechanism for electing AMA officers in the By-Laws (and Standing Rules) has several inherent characteristics that guarantee second-guessing and inhibit the fair and proper election of our officers.

Currently, the procedures give the Nominating Committee (NC) the authority to include and exclude candidates as they see fit. The procedures limit the ballot to only three nominees, and if more than three nominations are received for a position, the NC must decide who to put on the ballot and who not to.

Since the NC is comprised of the current set of AMA VPs and the EVP, this procedure opens the AMA to criticism since it is quite conceivable that a viable candidate will be left off the ballot simply due to bias from the existing VPs. Similarly, this procedure can allow a ballot to be structured to favor a particular candidate simply by the choice of the opponents.

This procedure is a common source of the "smoke-filled-rooms" and "Good Ol' Boy" accusations that abound within the membership.

I have proposed that the following be instituted in place of the existing Standing Rules for selecting candidates for a ballot.

For an elected position within AMA, a "primary" ballot be held where every QUALIFIED candidate's name is listed. This ballot would be an "Order of preference" ballot, not a "vote for one of" ballot. The primary ballot would be voted on by the Leader Members only. Using voting techniques such as the "Hare" technique (do a Google search on that one!) the voting of the primary would yield the two candidates that would then placed on the final ballot for the entire membership.

I propose that the primary vote be strictly electronic: it IS the 21st century, it IS the age of computers! This would provide a mechanism of very little cost to AMA. (I have most of the mechanisms in place already to do this.) The final ballot would be carried out as it currently is, unless experience shows that electronic balloting is suitable.

O.k., there's a start. Any comments?

Regards,

Bill Lee