Has a meeting location been chosen for the Feb 22 meeting?

I’m glad to see this change being recommended. I hope it passes.

I kind of struggle with this. I would hate to disenfranchise new members, but it is not exactly difficult to create new accounts that looks legitimate for purposes of multiple voting. I’m assuming at this point that no one actually checks the personal information collected when registering for the site, so it would be very easy to create sock puppets which would not be detectable. This statistical abnormality tends to throw the whole election/referendum process into question, which is definitely not a good thing. Maybe we just need more scrutiny in the membership process instead, restricting membership rights until the submitted information can be confirmed? While I can’t say what is right for us, other organizations do things like:

– Making sure the name/address/phone all match (or at least don’t not match)
– Human checking of submitted information (looking for obvious fake info)
– IP address checks
– Allowing sponsorship of new members by existing members and increasing scrutiny for unsponsored new members
– Dues (I know no one wants that)
– In person only sign ups
– Allowing only one account per email

To be honest, I really wish this wasn’t necessary, and maybe it really isn’t. I would like to believe that we are all here as friends for the same purpose (to promote geocaching in Wisconsin) and all share a common bond through the sport. With that in mind, if I were voting, I would vote against restricting voting and for a more rigorous membership process (whatever that might entail). As a great man once said in a different context, “Trust, but verify”. If we know all our members are “real”, there won’t be any issues with elections and referendums.

Ok, in case this helps (maybe it doesn’t?) …

I took the list of 43 members that added January 2008 (not 2009, but 2008) … I randomliy picked 20 of them … of those 20, this is the current “accomplishments” …

4 of them have posted at least once to the WGA
So I consider them “real”, of the the remaining 16:

6 of them do NOT show up on GC.Com with their stated GC.com name.
3 of them have GC.Com accounts but have never found a cache.
7 of them have GC.Com accounts and have logged cache find activity.

So in my opinion at least 6 of the 20 don’t really seem to show any physical signs of being ligitimate cachers. While 3 more of the 20 are “borderline” ligitimate or maybe are “fence sitters”. Leaving 11 of 20 as people/teams I can safely say are actually stand-alone cachers/teams.

Personally, I don’t see why people would “sign up” to be members unless they either have found caches or truely plan on taking the plunge into caching. So based on my personal feelings out of 20 sign-ups 11 are legitimate and 9 are “suspect”. Now the “suspect” are likely some unknown mix of “double voters” and “inactive newbies”, it would likely not be possible to figure out how many we have of each.

However, should an “inactive newbie” … someone that signed up over a year ago and has never cached (as near as we can tell) … should they get a vote? … just how much do they know about the candiates or the WGA organization?

Disclaimer … this whole issue is not a super big deal to me nor anything I thought about much before today … I’m just finding the whole thing statistically interesting to ponder 🙂

@EnergySaver wrote:

One thing that might be interesting to check out … of those 40+ new members in January … how many of them seem to “stick around” after voting. In other words, then ones that appeared a little more than a year ago as adds in January … how many of them have “chimed in” in the Forums in the months to follow, or started showing other signs of actually existing as a destinct individual/team (such as finding caches under the newly appearing name).

It happens…I’m one: 1/18/2008. I think I voted in last year’s election because I read the candidates’ corner, mainly because I wanted to see what went on in the WGA. I’m not sure if I voted for a full slate, though.

If there were 40+ who joined last January, only five are listed now with the 1/2008 date (re-sort by date joined). I’m assuming that if you don’t renew your membership, you are dropped from the list.

NOTE: If we require knowledge of candidates and issues before a vote is cast, not too many people would be voting in this country…

NOTE: There is now registration in Wisconsin, although you can register at the polls when you go to vote. ID is required, and information is eventually checked.

Guess I’m sitting on the fence on this one. Voter irregularities have more impact when the voting population is small, although the above-mentioned MN senate race and the 2000 presidential election are two cases where huge voter turnouts produced very tight races.

Jeremy, Thank you for your response. It is exactly what I was thinking, I DON’T feel that this is a necessary change that needs to be made. as was stated previous, I can vote for President on the day that I register, and as a matter of fact, I had moved this year, so I did…

I can’t see alienating members that join just for the purpose of voting. I know we have numerous members, that don’t log into the forums, but vote at each election. This is what is important, probaly more so than posting useless things in the Forums (Hey, I resemble that remark !!!:-) )

I feel that our resources as board members can be enhanced by doing more things for our members, and not alienating them after they join.

IF, there was PROOF of cheating/Multiple Votes, and the Like, than we may have to put the Votes under more scrutiny, but I by no means think this is going to have to happen.

My 2 Cents.