First, I should like to thank everyone for their patience in waiting for the results of the rules ballot. It must be common knowledge by now that life has not been entirely a bed of roses. The difficulties have essentially been twofold – leaving aside the vexing (but hopefully not vexed) question of how easy the ballot was to understand.
First, there was undeniably a drafting error in proposition 7 which resulted in a logical inconsistency. Second, and far more important, nobody actually worked out in advance how the votes were to be interpreted – what did a majority on proposition N (x) actually mean? This may sound very silly and with the 20x20 vision of hindsight it was. Having said this, a large number of intelligent and hardworking people (plus myself !) were involved and failed to spot the pitfall.
In between sessions of wiping up the blood, the committee has spent to last few days trying to arrive at a consensus of whether the whole process was fatally flawed, whether we should try to interpolate ‘what we thought voters really meant’, whether – in the words of one member of the committee – things were ‘up for grabs’, or whether the proper answer was something else again.
It was established early on that, so far as virtually all the members of the committee were concerned, what we had to do was to ignore our own prejudices about what the outcome should be but at what was a fair and logical way of counting the votes. At this point, a miracle happened. I was approached by David Allsebrook of Toronto on another matter entirely. In his e-mail he mentioned that he had a legal background and experience in drafting model yacht rules – if we ever needed help, he would be pleased to give it. A few minutes on Google revealed that he was indeed a very eminent lawyer, a former Canadian Soling 1-metre Champion and a member of that class’s rules advisory committee. He has been of tremendous help, bringing rigour to the process and keeping us on the straight and narrow.
It is perhaps unfortunate that Brett has let the cat out of the bag without consulting anyone else. The results as published are correct – however they are not as daft as they may seem. In particular more people voted for 8© than against it, yet the proposition fails. Why? Is this skulduggery, madness or worse?
The outcome is based on David’s advice that
- The instructions on the ballot paper about what to vote for if you voted for something else have no significance. If people want to vote illogically or perversely, that is there right, and we are not entitled to second guess them.
- The Class Charter requires an absolute majority of votes to pass any motion. Since (with the exception of people whose registration is through the AMYA), there is no incentive to de-register, applying this rule to all registered boats would eventually result in any change in the rules being impossible (more people in the graveyards than out). Members must therefore be taken to mean ‘members who voted’. However, within that group the overall majority rule must apply. Since 91 people voted, in order to pass a motion must get 46 votes, even if more people voted Yes’ than ‘No’. In other words, more than half the people who voted must positively want a change. The last-minute change of 8© from ‘pass’ to ‘fail’ was because nobody noticed until the very last moment that it did not pass the 46 vote hurdle.
I do not think that the result is ideal, particularly on proposition 8. It certainly does not reflect my views or that of many people in the UK. I suspect that the same is true in the USA. It has been suggested to me that this is ridiculous and un-democratic – that proposition 8 is all one thing and that the numbers for each sub-proposition are necessarily diluted by the other three. However, at the end of the day there can be only one outcome of proposition 8. Therefore the position is perfectly logical. People did not want any of the proposed changes enough to overcome those who didn’t want them.
Sorry it’s been a bit traumatic and undoubtedly a 4 BA, stainless steel, countersunk, pan-headed cockup. If anyone wants a head to roll, let it be mine. In any event, my special thanks to David Allsebrook, John Amoroso, Flavio Faloci, Animor Dobrovich and the other people at national level who helped conduct the ballot – not forgetting Bill Hagerup and his technical team (Roger Stollery and Earl Boebert) for their hard work in drafting it.
Finally, my thanks to you, the members, for what has generally be a very well-tempered – if slightly trying – exercise.
And, oh yes, Happy Christmas
:zbeer::zbeer::zbeer::zbeer:
