KimSeeTeo

I enjoyed immensely the intellectual discussions here on all aspects of what had gone wrong. I thank Richard for pointing out that Kay has responded to my post on the AIP, and since it's day time working hours, it's hard for me to turn to both sides for reply, in particular with exact thoughts to criss cross with all esteemed professionals. I shall get to there as well. Actually that was my first time joining the AIP Forum, though I had joined AIP first before NAP, way back in 2005.

Back to the needed info., if the Computer says so, the many rejected votes, then someone must explain or find a way to explain why. I feel that the computer programmer and technician from the outside professional company, in charge surely could do that. But not during the tight time constraints since in about 2 hours the Convention had to conduct at least 4 senior officers elections and then 7 regional elections. Even if we feel here the need to analyse what went wrong, I am not sure if the leaders saw that in the same perspective. Bear in mind, the Organization is already 94 years old, and every year there is a convention and so many elections, yet the ambiguity like this kind could still crop up, not once, but at least twice, one in 2014, as stated.

Preciously, the technician did explain before elections, as in 2014 when I was present, that if a voter hit the keypads to early or too late on the given time of say 3 mins, it could be deemed as a rejected vote. All must listen and watch the giant screen on 3-2-1 countdown and go, then hit the button on the keypad. Anyone can cancel a vote and re key in, if still within time. 

But since the computer technology is now so advanced today, that some others had pointed to me, about the modern pc system and advanced software could in fact, weed out all kinds of possible attempts to do wrong. Or else, it turned out to be a blank. There should be zero reject votes in the pc systems, and there are even good systems which advertise about this key feature. This is because it could be at most the defect inherent in the voting mechanism itself, beyond human exercise of a vote, and should just fall outside of our basic parliamentary procedure, in my view.

In addition, the Bylaws of that organization, need to be revised to take this vital point into consideration, just to exclude all rejects in the count toward the Majority Vote. In particular for this Organization at the annual convention, almost 98% I feel were proxy votes, {except for those few delegates at large who vote for themselves) which represent clubs and not other natural persons. The Robert is supposed to make all decisions more certain, more logical, with more common sense and more in line with all the other leadership's universal values. This could be an exceptional consideration.

In today's context, a deliberative assembly will now have to involve conceptually  a matrix of ordinary votes, proxy votes, technology and variation range of effects resulting therein, which maybe testing us even beyond our 11th Edition, now.

As for the outcome of all these discussions, and feedback, I have to wait for what the Board of Directors would explain in their annual meeting summary reports. 

Until then, just be happy. Cheers.

Cheers.