I would have been somewhat surprised if we had climbed above say 25%. Mike, If I may bore you for a moment of analysis...

In an election of this kind with the numbers involved and the requirement that voting take more effort than just raising your hand a large turnout is unrealistic. And it isn't all apathy.

There are members who are passive, they pay their dues, recieve their mags, maybe make it to a convention one time. Chipping is not the center of their universe, the issues so many of us fret over daily, do not enter their thoughts. They do not know the persons running, don't know who is on the board now, and they presume everything will continue as it had before. Which is just fine with them.

The rabid chippers you see on this board are a fairly small lot. Take a look at the top ten, it only requires a few hundred views to be among the top 10 (and many people may go back more than once). The top ten posters make up about a quarter of the posts, I'll bet the top 30 make up half the posts. If they aren't active here, or the club site, then the election seemed like a mundane event.

But even among the more active members, this election particularly was unappealing. I was surprised to learn that their were contraditory amendments, but never saw any discussion here on the board, so am ot surprised that the amendments advocated by the board were overwhelmingly excepted. Most of the amedmets were clerical changes, and almost any member would support those changes because others had so clearly put the effort, and there would be no reason to not respect ther efforts. I have to believe my email to Eric regarding questions on minor points would have been interesting to but a handful of members.

The most controversial issue was the creation of a special designation allowing older members to become life members at a reduced rate. I find it unrealistic to think an uprising of young bucks would sideline such an issue. The number who would benefit is fairly small. It would take leadership to challenge such a provision, and who among the younger crowd (and I include the 40 somethings like you and me) would have the clout to lead, yet would not be supportive of such a provision? So the Constitutional issues wouldn't stir up the membership, they are primarily clerical as far as the passive member is concerned.

Away from the boards and get togethers of fairly active members, I amunaware of Joe doing any campaigning. So the only campaigning that was done was that in the mag (no Joe) and home mailings (no Joe). So who had reason to think that Joe was a serious cadidate among passive members? Of active members, Joe seemed to go out of his way to provoke a negative response, ad was disrespectful to so many. His post in this chain seems to suggest he considered it all one big lark, which only goes to show he was never serious. I don't know anybody who thought Joe had any hope whatsoever.

The Secretary race was sincerely disputed. We had two quality people, both care about the club, both have a history of committment. They both ran their races with class, and made it a hard decision for any member. I agree with the poster who suggested that Joe may have hindered Jim, but to his credit Jim never whined about that, and never hesitated to challenge Joe publicly. I think the fact that the winners had approached the process as a group, and promoted each other as well themselves, put Follis on the outside looking in. I suggest folks go back and read some of the ideas Jim had and included in his entry to the club mag. He had some good ideas that should be considered by the club as a whole and the new board. But the Secretary's race is not the one which will generate fire in an election.

The other races were not disputed, they were not on the ballot. No fire there. Personally, I'd like to see them on the ballot anyway, but that isn't how it was done, and would not have had any real impact on the election anyway.

I suspect that most members join not because they are obsessed (like you and I), but because they are interested. That iterest may vary over time, and the politics of the club, or the interaction of hot spots like this board are not their interest.

I belong to several other organizations (not chip related). I belong to a couple because I like their magazines, one because several buddies are passionate, and I find myself interested when around them, my interest falls off when I am away from them. I also belong to groups that are professional based, deal with causes or political issues I have strong views on (you may be surprised which ones), or are related to my faith. I am by no means obsessive in these organizations like I am about chipping. Don't tell the Pope.

In a smaller group, every member's active participation is vital to survival. When you have a couple thousand current members, it is unrealistic to believe that they all are committed in the same way, or for the same reasons. If you are the type of person who grabs a chip or an ashtray or whatever when you visit a casino, and really enjoy the stories in the club magazine so you pay the dues, but that is the extent of your involvement in the hobby, then how are you really effected by the election?

Let me be clear, I would love to see more fanatics like me. I think the issues were important and the election was important. I would like to see a larger voter turnout. But I think I understand the folks who are passive members of our club, that is what they are looking for, and they get it, God Bless'em.

I'm not sure that if we had a truly disputed election (say at least two, if not more, strong candidates for each office) and the issues were clear and there was strong vocal support for more than one side of each issue, that it would be better for the group. We may have a larger turnout, but would the discussion be respectful, or in the heat of battle would harsh words that may not be able to be forgotten spew forth.

Let us say the election for President was between Brian Cashman and Mike Heron. Both quality guys, and good friends of mine. I find it inconceivable that either of these gentlemen would be any less classy than Follis in the election we just had, there would be a lot of discussion and the vote could go either way, but the election would not fire up the passives, and inevitably those that felt very strongly for one of them (or against one of them) would speak up and perhaps (even unintetionally) create a flap.

What if the candidates are somewhat more controversial (not really the best word for what I mean) or maybe outspoken (say you and I) were challenging each other in an election. I think you and I are fairly well liked (generally, at least a little, by some ). But we have both been known to take strong positions on the board, and there will be those who challenge us, and we would certainly challenge each other. While we have a friendship beyond this board which would keep us civil and respectful (maybe ), what if we didn't?

If an election became heated, and the discussion was at times severely vitriolic, then while generating the type of heat that would motivate more voters, would it also not turn off some of the passive members who see the club as a nice sidelight to their daily life?

I ask many questions, and I realize their are are may answers (or none), but while I'd like to see a greater voter tournout, I am not surprised at the numbers.