ORIGINAL: Bob Mitchell


1. Has there ever been a case of a qualified candidate being witheld from the ballot by the committee resulting in LESS than 3 nominees? IOW, only 2 names on the ballot, even though 3 or more candicates qualified per the bylaws were submitted by Leader Members?

Not that we know of.

2. How many times has there been a nomination witheld, because of the limitation of 3 on the ballot. IOW 3 names on the ballot but other additional "qualified" candidates left off to meet that limitation?

We know of at least one, Horrace Cain

Comments:

1. It seems to me, and I know that there are a number posting here agree that this current procedure results in a situation where the sitting EC can essentially eliminate someone from the ballot that they don't want to deal with, or can included people on the ballot that are less likely to receive votes, in order to steer the election to someone of their choosing. That's my primary reason for asking question #1 above. I think that if there are 3 or fewer candidates who meet the qualifications laid out in the bylaws, all three should automatically be on the ballot.

They will be if they meet the qualifications.

2. It also seems to me that the current procedures were put in place to eliminate the need for run-off elections, but that it puts more power into the hands of the nominating committee than is really appropriate. I don't think the EC should be in a position to essentially perpetuate itself, but what are the alternatives if one is to avoid costly and lengthy run-off elections?

Run offs could be conducted with on line voteing at a fairly low cost.

3. It's my understanding that the nominating committee has been charged with bringing a report to the EC on suggestions of how to improve the nominating procedures, and that the report is due at this months EC meeting.

In the elections now winding down, we have one office with 3 names on the ballot, 2 offices with only the incumbant running, and the balance (including EVP) with just 2 names.

So...........how do you think the nominating procedures should be changed/improved? (If at all?) Leave things the way they are? Should we just bite the bullet, accept all nominees that are qualified per the bylaws and deal with the run-offs? Come up with a totally new way of choosing which nominees actually appear on the ballot, removing the EC from the equations somehow? Could that be done without just putting the power the EC/Nominating Committee now has into just another set of hands? What, if anything, should be changed? It will be interesting to compare the comments here with whatever the commitee reports back with.

Also......What can or should be done to encourge others to get involved, so we don't have the common situation of the incumbant running unopposed for re-election?

My personal opinion is that any qualified nominee (per the bylaws) should appear on the ballot, and we accept that we'll have run-offs. That would probably require that the entire procedure be started 2-3 months earlier for each election, and increase the cost of each election. That seems a reasonable price to pay to me, but this is the first AMA election since I got involved and I'm interested in hearing other perspectives.