Author Topic: Wednesday Afternoon  (Read 11297 times)

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 19191
    • View Profile
Re: Wednesday Afternoon
« Reply #75 on: July 16, 2016, 05:46:57 PM »
For an inaugural post . . . yes, I knew what The List said, and oftentimes I voted with it. But not always. There was a good handful of times where I scratched my head more than once wondering why The List suggested who it did and voted another way. I suspect it was that way for many more. If everyone with access to it voted it every time, every election would have ended the exact same way. But yes, it is a problem that we have to vote for people we don't know. That's where lists can be helpful. That, and we all know how little time some of us have to actually prepare for a convention . . .
Welcome to the forum. The ride can be bumpy at times, but overall is quite rewarding.

Harvey_Mozolak

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4857
    • View Profile
    • line and letter lettuce
Re: Wednesday Afternoon
« Reply #76 on: July 16, 2016, 06:51:48 PM »
is there any other, if need be even somewhat non-realistic, solutions for those who have to vote for those they do not know enough about....

most of the time in the political voting booth, I do not vote for folks I do not know enough about to have formed an opinion... thereby hoping that those who do will carry the day in their wisdom...  I don't make a fallback vote for a Democrat candidate, if I do not know of or about a person...

would that make any sense?

how do you gut the popularity factor?   or if you have people like Presidential or Bishop candidates speaking... how do you get beyond smooth talkers who are lazy or don't follow through or really do not stand for what they say they stand for in their speeches?  How do you get through what sounds very nicely or deeply or my-way religious and make some allowance for the fact that all the candidates may be baptized believers?

I really like the Judas-replacement by lots method, setting standards and seeking good people, praying and casting some form of lots...  Perhaps that ought to be the case for at least some offices and calls. 

In congregations, pastors have to live with elected clunkers often just because there are not enough people for all the offices and jobs and maybe church bodies ought to have to do the same rather than that try and stream line the candidates they way some want to see them... 

Several years ago, a synod I belonged to were asked to elect board of control members and were given criteria like: a wealthy person, an architect (cause they were having a building program), people like that... I got so mad, I wanted to elect some person who was a thorn in their flesh financially asking all kinds of relevant and irrelevant questions ad nauseum....
Harvey S. Mozolak
my poetry blog is listed below:

http://lineandletterlettuce.blogspot.com

LCMS87

  • Guest
Re: Wednesday Afternoon
« Reply #77 on: July 16, 2016, 11:50:57 PM »

<snip>

Once a fellow member of the CNN inadvertently dropped their list of who they wanted  on the ballot.  It was a brief yes (conservative) or no  (liberal) list. I happened to pick the paper up from the floor so he could be returned to the embarrassed  owner. This mind set was all too common.

<snip>
 

If I were to serve on the nominations committee, I expect I would prepare a list of my thoughts on the various candidates I felt were the best ones for each office.  I would probably keep it confidential as I do my choice when casting a vote, but I would not be embarrassed by having prepared such a list. 

Each time I've been a delegate to the synodical convention, I've prepared a voting list for myself indicating my choice for each office.  At the second convention I was wiser and identified all candidates in each election in my order of preference.  (If my first choice is eliminated, there's no time to decide on a second choice as the election proceeds.)  Someone looking at my list--which I make for myself alone--might well judge that I prefer theological conservatives to liberals.  I don't see that as something of which I have any reason to be ashamed.

<snip>

To the best of my knowledge the 2013 convention was the first time a list was available inside the hall...the United List. 

<snip>

"Inside the hall" in that case refers to a literature table in the convention center but outside of the enormous room in which the convention was being held.  When I heard lists were available "inside the hall" I was surprised and concerned.  When it became clear that the complaint was about something on a literature table in the hallway the sympathy I had for the complaint evaporated.  I don't know how things were handled at previous conventions, but I would distinguish the public areas of the convention center from the hall where credentials are required and electronic communication is restricted.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2016, 11:53:03 PM by LCMS87 »

mariemeyer

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4320
    • View Profile
Re: Wednesday Afternoon
« Reply #78 on: July 17, 2016, 10:16:25 AM »

<snip>

Once a fellow member of the CNN inadvertently dropped their list of who they wanted  on the ballot.  It was a brief yes (conservative) or no  (liberal) list. I happened to pick the paper up from the floor so he could be returned to the embarrassed  owner. This mind set was all too common.

<snip>
 

If I were to serve on the nominations committee, I expect I would prepare a list of my thoughts on the various candidates I felt were the best ones for each office.  I would probably keep it confidential as I do my choice when casting a vote, but I would not be embarrassed by having prepared such a list. 

Each time I've been a delegate to the synodical convention, I've prepared a voting list for myself indicating my choice for each office.  At the second convention I was wiser and identified all candidates in each election in my order of preference.  (If my first choice is eliminated, there's no time to decide on a second choice as the election proceeds.)  Someone looking at my list--which I make for myself alone--might well judge that I prefer theological conservatives to liberals.  I don't see that as something of which I have any reason to be ashamed.

<snip>

To the best of my knowledge the 2013 convention was the first time a list was available inside the hall...the United List. 

<snip>

"Inside the hall" in that case refers to a literature table in the convention center but outside of the enormous room in which the convention was being held.  When I heard lists were available "inside the hall" I was surprised and concerned.  When it became clear that the complaint was about something on a literature table in the hallway the sympathy I had for the complaint evaporated.  I don't know how things were handled at previous conventions, but I would distinguish the public areas of the convention center from the hall where credentials are required and electronic communication is restricted.

Beginning in 2013 the LCMS definition of "inside" the convention center changed.     

Previously the LCMS definition of "inside" the convention center was similar to public elections when "inside" refers to the entire building where the election is held.  Thus, once inside the building the foyer, the bathrooms, the registration area, the verification of voting credentials,  and the voting booth are all areas where electioneering is prohibited. 

Prior to 2013, independent groups distributing election lists or any material pertaining to controversial convention issues had to distribute their publications outside the building. This included groups as diverse as Jesus First and Christian News.   The first table I encountered after registering as a 2013 voting delegate was a table where I was handed the United List.  At  no time did I encounter a similar table within the convention building. When the presence of a table with lists was raised the explanation given delegates did not mention a change in policy.  Strangely, the table in question with other material written by groups associated with the United list remained, but the list itself disappeared. 


Marie Meyer

Randy Bosch

  • Guest
Re: Wednesday Afternoon
« Reply #79 on: July 17, 2016, 01:36:32 PM »
Fortunately, my last experience as a Synod Convention delegate was in 1991 (I think... it was Pittsburg, after all...).  Since I was an alternate called to duty with the primary sidelined by emergency heart surgery, I blessedly did not receive all of the outside propaganda in the mail, and did not encounter any distribution outside the Lawrence Convention Center -- or perhaps I used discretion and did not feel bound to take whatever was thrust at me, like proselytizers at the door.

Lists are a problem in secular politics.  Many "campaign consultants" make their living assembling lists, and hopeful or actual candidates buy into the list (with campaign funds) that has what they believe to be the "star" candidates already assured to be on it.  Too often, this provides a vehicle for Trojan Horse candidates (relative to the issue focus of the specific list), riding in on the coattails of a real or potential "star", incumbent or not.

Still, no one is required to "vote the list" (at least not in the LCMS), and discernment remains a necessary task for a responsible delegate/elector.

I've yet to see a "This.Is.The.List" even when clearly related to my general position on issues of governance that did not contain a few or more candidates clearly unqualified or subversive to a "cause".

There is a logical fallacy (and smear) to be avoided (is it a Fallacy of Composition or a Fallacy of Division), however.  Condemnation of a list leads some to assume that each and every (or perhaps any one) nominee on such a list - many of whom may have been listed without their foreknowledge or approval  - is guilty of being unqualified, self-serving or subversive to the organization simply by being on such a list that is disparaged by knowledgeable commentators in your own gang.

Suggestion: Do your homework.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2016, 01:48:51 PM by Randy Bosch »

Randy Bosch

  • Guest
Re: Wednesday Afternoon
« Reply #80 on: July 17, 2016, 01:42:25 PM »
Still not a fan of lists, but I am reminded that,
The only game you are guaranteed to lose is the one that you decide not to show up and play.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2016, 01:49:29 PM by Randy Bosch »

Robert Johnson

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 762
    • View Profile
Re: Wednesday Afternoon
« Reply #81 on: July 17, 2016, 09:02:43 PM »

A clarification:  The "United List" anonymous folks did not nominate by preparing that list.  They endorsed a selected set of people nominated through the Synodical process.

Why the anonymity?  What are they afraid of?

See above (in their words):

"The identity of the members of the “United List” committee has always been kept confidential, so that pressure is not applied on them, either by bribes or threats, to support persons for office. This principle of confidentiality grew out of our previous experience when, prior to 1992, conflict and verbal fights broke out because certain very vocal individuals disagreed vehemently with choices made by the prevailing conservative groups at the time."

The groups involved in compiling the United List are identified.  The specific individuals representing of these groups are not identified.

I have no respect for people who are politicking anonymously.