Tuesday Afternoon Elections

[mariemeyer]

Since the year lists first appeared the outcome of synodical elections have been the work of one faction within the LCMS.  The results were and continue to be 95% predictable.

Do any LCMS historians know when the first lists were distributed?  I know they were evident in the early 1970s; maybe the late sixties.

In any event, it's not a history of which we can be proud.

Marie Meyer

[prsauer]

The nice thing about the restrooms here is that it gives me a chance to warm my fingers in the hot water of the sink - they tend to sieze up in the extreme cold of the convention center as the power of the Ethiopian food to warm has apparently begun to wear off - that is my excuse for all spelling and grammar errors anyway.

We are now on to:

LCEF BOD Ordained/Commissioned
Haupt 53
Bahn 46

The United List candidate (not incumbent) wins

LCEF Layperson
Elshoz 42, 62
Anderson, 29, 21
Peltier 18, 15
Melchert 10

The united list and incumbent wins this one. For those concerned about these sort of things Anderson is the other united list candidate, though not an incumbent, and its a first ballot win for Anderson with 56 % of the vote.

[D. Engebretson]

Since the year lists first appeared the outcome of synodical elections have been the work of one faction within the LCMS.  The results were and continue to be 95% predictable.

Do any LCMS historians know when the first lists were distributed?  I know they were evident in the early 1970s; maybe the late sixties.

In any event, it's not a history of which we can be proud.

Marie Meyer

When I was at the 2004 convention there were lists and papers handed out daily outside the convention hall by both the United List and Jesus First. I believe that both elections and resolutions that year leaned more heavily toward Jesus First. 

[prsauer]

Concordia St. Louis Regents - Ordained
Senkbeil (UL/I) 67
Knippa 33

Concordia- STL Regents - Lay #1 (Just switching up the way I am listing names here - to add some suspense.
Edmond (UL - floor nominee) 29, 42, 53
Hegland 24, 24.7, 47
Johnson (UL) 12, x, x
Schlueter 20, 22.4,x
Weingarth 13, x, x

United List and floor nominee wins the first slot

Concordia - STL Regents - Lay #2
Hegland
Johnson
Schlueter
Weingarth

And an upset -  Hagland with the win over the united list candidate.

[prsauer]

Missed the numbers on that. Was engaged in a series of remembrances of Berthold von Schenk with some ALPB folks...

[John_Hannah]

Since the year lists first appeared the outcome of synodical elections have been the work of one faction within the LCMS.  The results were and continue to be 95% predictable.

Do any LCMS historians know when the first lists were distributed?  I know they were evident in the early 1970s; maybe the late sixties.

In any event, it's not a history of which we can be proud.

Marie Meyer

It has been from way, way back. The fallacy is not in the appearance of such a list but in the "false democracy" that supposes that any delegate can be even remotely acquainted with the hundreds of nominees for a hundred jobs.

Reform of that should have occurred a long time ago. Until i does occur we will have the United List and maybe someday "counter United List" which will help delegates really know their candidates just as well as the United List does now.   

Peace, JOHN

[Mark Brown]

Does anyone have any idea about the geographical diversity of the united list?  I know that some of the slots are geographical in nature and so don't matter, but I'm just wondering if the list shows any geographical bias beyond simply where Lutherans are thicker on the ground?

[Harry Edmon]

Concordia St. Louis Regents - Ordained
Senkbeil (UL/I) 67
Knippa 33

Concordia- STL Regents - Lay #1 (Just switching up the way I am listing names here - to add some suspense.
Edmond (UL - floor nominee) 29, 42, 53
Hegland 24, 24.7, 47
Johnson (UL) 12, x, x
Schlueter 20, 22.4,x
Weingarth 13, x, x

United List and floor nominee wins the first slot

Concordia - STL Regents - Lay #2
Hegland
Johnson
Schlueter
Weingarth

And an upset -  Hagland with the win over the united list candidate.

That's my boy!   And it is still "Edmon"!   Since Paul has a Ph.D. in Astrophysics telescopes will now be issued to all students.

[Harry Edmon]

Does anyone have any idea about the geographical diversity of the united list?  I know that some of the slots are geographical in nature and so don't matter, but I'm just wondering if the list shows any geographical bias beyond simply where Lutherans are thicker on the ground?

One thing I noticed, almost no one from the Northwest District.    No surprise there.

[mariemeyer]

Since the year lists first appeared the outcome of synodical elections have been the work of one faction within the LCMS.  The results were and continue to be 95% predictable.

Do any LCMS historians know when the first lists were distributed?  I know they were evident in the early 1970s; maybe the late sixties.

In any event, it's not a history of which we can be proud.

Marie Meyer

When I was at the 2004 convention there were lists and papers handed out daily outside the convention hall by both the United List and Jesus First. I believe that both elections and resolutions that year leaned more heavily toward Jesus First.

 
 
I have attended seven conventions. Each time lists were distributed by the two factions of our synod.  The 2004 convention was more balanced than those that preceded it and those that followed. Memory tells me that even then the majority of persons elected were on the Balance/United list.   

[Jeremy Loesch]

Marie, a pastor from St. Louis sent out a voting list as a countrr to the UL. All his recommendations were ignored. I received the united list. I also talked with other pastors and with some laymen to formulate my opinion. I will admit to voting for people I knew.

Jeremy

[Dave Benke]

First option:  No lists
Second option: Two lists organized in advance
Third option:  One list.

In terms of denominational health, third is least healthy, second is not healthy, first is healthy. 



Dave Benke

[John_Hannah]

First option:  No lists
Second option: Two lists organized in advance
Third option:  One list.

In terms of denominational health, third is least healthy, second is not healthy, first is healthy. 



Dave Benke

Still. How can any delegate (especially a lay delegate) know much of anything about hundreds of candidates for a about a hundred positions. It's a ridiculous challenge when you actually have do it. (I've been there three times beginning in 1969; it was no different then. I've been skeptical for a long time.)

There has to be a better way to fill these positions.

Peace, JOHN

[peter_speckhard]

First option:  No lists
Second option: Two lists organized in advance
Third option:  One list.

In terms of denominational health, third is least healthy, second is not healthy, first is healthy. 

Dave Benke

How would anyone vote without any input from people "in the know," which is all a list really is? A pastor might have a chance at having at least heard of one or more of the people on many of the various ballots (though "heard of" is a long way from "know anything relevant about") but lay delegates from every circuit in the nation being presented with a list of six or eight names and being asked to determine which one will sit on the board of a Concordia-- that seems like we may as well draw straws; most of the voters may as well be playing eeny meeny miny mo. So a voter has several options. He can not vote, which sort of defeats the purpose. He can vote randomly, which also sort of defeats the purpose. Or he can ask people he trusts to give him some input, which is what a voters' guide is.

I use voters' guides all the time. When I moved to Indiana I was faced with all kinds of elections for state and local offices and hadn't heard of anyone on the ballot. So I went by party affiliation, which is noted on the ballot and is essentially just a voters' guide or approved list, and in the case of primaries I went with the Indiana or Lake County Right to Life recommendations.

The problem with lists, of course, which are really just endorsements, is that they remain on the record after the election is over. You might find it harder to work with people who win if you publicly endorsed the person running against them. So it is dangerous to be too public about your endorsements.

[prsauer]

That's my boy!   And it is still "Edmon"!   Since Paul has a Ph.D. in Astrophysics telescopes will now be issued to all students.

Sorry about that. Is he up for any other election? I just need one more chance to get it right.

In my defense these names and numbers don't stay on the screen long...