ORIGINAL: Red Scholefield
When discussing if there is a problem with the nomination proceedure, here is something to chew on, election results from 1989 though 2007. Sorry, I didn't save the 2005 and 2006 tabulation. If anyone has those please add to this list.
Thanks for posting the historical numbers, Red. I can't pull up any results from 2005 or 2006 on the PC I'm using right now, but have summarized your numbers below:
Total number of elections listed: 62
Total with 2 or 1 on ballot: 51 (82%)
Total with 3 on ballot 11 (18%) 6 decided by majority, 5 by plurality
Note that by "on ballot" I mean those that were actually listed on the ballot, not those receiving votes. There were many cases of individuals receiving single digit or low double digit vote totals and the above summry assumes they were write in candidates, not actually on the ballot. That may not be accurate, but seems to be a reasonable assumption.
Also, for historical perspective, using Red's numbers above Horrace received votes in 3 of the listed elections: (Don't know if any of the 70 "other" votes in 2007 may have been write-in's for Horrace.)
2000 D8, write in, single digit total
2002 EVP, 3 on ballot, election won by D. Holland, 65% majority
2003 D8, 3 on ballot, election won by S. Frank, 65% majority
So, same question again. Of the 11 listed elections with 3 candidates on the ballot, was the 2007 ballot the only instance of someone being held off to meet the max 3 limit?
Now, to play devil's advocate. Lacking any information to the contrary, is it reasonable to assume that for the 82% of the elections with less than 3 on the ballot, all nominations of qualified individuals received by the nominating committee passed through with only the formal vote required to place them on the ballot? Also
lacking any information to the contrary, (at least so far) we know of only 1 instance out of 11 where the limit of 3 actually resulted in qualified nominee being held off the ballot.
If that is true, (big if) then I'm beginning to wonder if my concern about the nominating procedures isn't becoming one of "it's the principal of the thing" than one of real substance and validity. I'm beginning to wonder that even if the nominating procedures as written were NOT in place, would the make up of the EC be appreciably different than it is now? Gotta think about that a bit.
Comments?