Okay, so you'll stop writing me about it, the results of the USCF executive board elections are in. So will some knowledgeable personages capable of succinct and coherent expression please tell the rest of us what these results mean? Universal health care? Flat tax? Dark square on the right side? Public tarring and feathering of anyone in the organization with a lawyer on speed dial?
I'm still vaguely horrified that the USCF has a 'one member one vote' system in the first place. A large, largely disinterested base of hobbyists simply aren't going to take the time and effort, even supposing sufficient information about the candidates were easily available. OMOV is also a massive and generally fruitless diversion of time and resources for a small organization. The USCF isn't a co-op.
BORING
What voting system are you advocating for then?
I'm vaguely horrified that anyone thinks one person one vote is a fruitless diversion of time...in a small organization. How can paid members of an organization be excluded from running the body they pay for? I thought this was the essence of democracy- the best form of governance despite it's faults.
I hope I voted for universal health care and the tarring and feathering thing, but I'm not sure.
All the same, it seems strange to have Mig complain about 'too much' democracy. That argument about the ignorant masses sounds a little George Eliot, and makes me want to become a Chartist.
Mig - I am HORRIFIED that you are critical of one person one vote! And you are running "theotherrussia.org" for Garry Kasparov?!
You should know that MIG works for a very democratic movement, where there most likely is no place for “one member one vote.”
The idea that people should decide for themselves is outdated. People just don’t know what is good for them!
well that was quick Mig, from dead on to lost in the outfield somewhere. There's no guarantee a small oligarchy will run things any better (even if they're not corrupt).
it'd true people don't know what's best most of the time, this of course includes the usual strongman leader types (or juntas) who are the alternative to OMOV.
"A large, largely disinterested base of hobbyists simply aren't going to take the time and effort, even supposing sufficient information about the candidates were easily available."
Hmm, this IS sounding a lot like democracy. Substitute "citizens" for "hobbyists". Risque stuff Mig! Would you apply the same principles in Russia?
The problem with one-person-one-vote is that far too often those people are ill-informed and - worse yet - simply don't vote. The USCF vote turnout was like 11%! That makes it easy to make an election go however you want. The solution is relatively simply but impractical - if you don't vote, you lose your membership. :)
Well seeing I'm a stupid idiot who doesn't deserve to vote maybe my vote should not count. And I guess the whole Revolitinary War and Civil War were just a waste of time and lives...but then yout would not be able to preach your facsist beliefs so freely. My last visit to your site Goebbels.
You haven’t been following this blog much anyway, have you?
"The USCF vote turnout was like 11%! That makes it easy to make an election go however you want." (TwinFeats)
What's wrong with that? If there are two candidates for one position, then each has the same opportunity to get a majority of that 11%. Don't you think each of them is trying "to make an election go however you want" (to use your words), namely, by winning more votes than their opponent?
What's wrong with that?
Anyone who thinks that democracy is the best (or event a "good") form of government should read Cicero's work "On Mob Rule".
Democracy is horrible precisely because it leads to pandering for ill-informed votes. Cicero knew this 2000 years prior.
Representational democracy (with a little "d") is much better and was the original model for the US govt. (elected representatives and the Electoral College).
It was also the original USCF model -- USCF was an organization of state federations (not individual members).
FIDE is like that today -- an organization of national federations, not individual players.
The outcome of the USCF election is that the current majority remains the majority -- that the other parties to the legal matters do not take control of the board.
Fascism is the new democracy , Darwinism the new religion , but please do not include FIDE on any list of democratic entities .
I am shocked to hear that Susan Polgar is suing the organization and not the particular members of that organization , i guess is the right procedure ,but it shouldnt be that way...
Give them a chessboard and a bible and hire new people.
I'm disappointed in Mig and his dismissal of the USCF membership. The folks I know put a lot of energy into researching who to vote for. Low turnout isn't all bad, either, if the disinterested are self-selecting not to participate.
I do not think this USCF election result can be interesting as the Susan Polgar Blog, normally voluble about USCF matters, has made no mention of it.
Silence is eloquent.
As I wrote on the USCF forums, 11% is actually a pretty high turnout. I claimed it was close to the turnout in many school board elections, and not much below the turnout in some big-city mayoral and city council elections.
I was wrong: those civic elections usually draw much LESS than 11% of eligible voters. (According to USCF EB member Randy Bauer. And on this particular topic, take issue with him at your own risk... that is, expect to look like you look when you argue with a GM about chess positions.)
So, USCF members seem to care about how their organization is run, far more than parents (on average) care about how their kids' schools are run.
"So will some knowledgeable personages capable of succinct and coherent expression please tell the rest of us what these results mean?"
The ineffectual, entrenched slate of candidates burdened with conflicts of interest kicked the butts of the slate of lackeys to the narcissistic megalomaniac. The upshot: SNAFU
I like it. It will do for now. But remember, I also liked "BORING". However, yours is more expressive.
Am voting for the tar and feathering. Will need universal health care to remove the tar, and the feathering likely to cause outbreak of another avian influenza, or make me sneeze a lot anyway.
Most publicly held companies allow stockholders to vote for each candidate independently for the board of directors. By rotating each board members term year of election, you remove most of the volatility in election cycles. Very similar to the Senate in not every Senator is re-elected every 2 year election cycle like the House. The standard vote of no-confidence could remove one or more members if something came about that required it(kinda of like this current mess). Haven't read the by-laws of USCF so cant say if this would be conducive form of operations that might work better. FWIW.
It's unbelievable how ignorant so many members of this forum are, attacking Mig about anti-democracy.
First of all, democracy = mob rule. It is a horrible system, and this is the exact reason why the USCF's one-member-one-vote system is so bad.
For those of you throwing around 'goebels' (notice that whenever an ignoramus cannot proceed in an argument, he/she always resorts to some 'nazi' insult), please note that the United States is NOT a democracy. In fact, go Google 'republic' and go understand why a democracy is actually a very bad system to choose a leader (or group of leaders).
The previous system the USCF used was when there were certain representatives of each region (a bit like congressmen and senators) that voted for the president and executive board of the USCF. Why is this better? Well, for one, anyone who is a region representative is someone who is involved in chess, travels in chess circles, and already has an educated knowledge base on the candidates or at least has the methods to correctly discern the candidates. In the one-member-one-vote system, anyone who read a one-paragraph 'promise' of a candidate can then vote - an uneducated, unresearched decision. And this is when you end up with fringe candidates coming to power, such as Sam Sloan.
Robert White - I take it you're volunteering to give up your right as a citizen to vote? What next, the Constitution? The Bill of Rights? Better yet, why don't you move out of the USA? Go to Russia or Canada or anywhere else? What's stopping you?
noyb -
It looks like you can't respond intelligently to Mr. White. You've already proven that you can't keep up with me and quite a few others. And now Mr. White, by simply stating his point of view, has turned you into a weakling who spouts dribbly spit like "Why don't you move out of the USA?"
The problem with the previous system that Mr. White mentioned was that, unlike the election of congressmen and senators, there was no system in place to ensure that the regional representatives: 1) were representative of the USCF members of the region in question,
2) had any obligation to protect the interests of the USCF members of the region in question, and
3) were elected by the USCF members of the region in question.
While the old system would likely never made the unfortunate decision to elect Sloan to the board, it was open to backroom deals and secret agreements designed to favor those in power.
Robert White's argument is fatally flawed as the previous USCF boards, elected under his preferred system, were not exactly renowned for accountability and efficiency either. Complaints about financial and other malfeseance in the USCF are neither recent nor the result of OMOV.
noyb, it is time to educate you (again).
There is no 'right to vote' in the US constitution. The right to 'vote' is a right granted in some states, local jurisdictions, but not by the US constitution. There are many reasons for this, same as I had already mentioned. I personally believe that only property owners should vote in US elections, which will prevent government-dependent 'citizens' voting themselves government payouts. But that's another topic. Point being, there is no right to vote in the US, and there isn't one in the US, a private not-for-profit organization.
silenceindaylight,
I'm not sure how the representatives (or delegates, as I remember they were called) were elected. Maybe voted in by their state federations? Or maybe appointed. Not sure, but this is a good topic to research and find out. I know a few former delegates and next time I speak to one I will inquire. But this may take a while :)
You are right; this system was perhaps susceptible to back-room deals. However, I think even with a few possible back-room deals, it was a better system than the one-member-one-vote system. Mob rule always goes to the wrong direction, historically speaking. Other methods, though not perfect, seem to have a better chance of producing positive results.
"there was no system in place to ensure that the regional representatives: 1) were representative of the USCF members of the region in question,
2) had any obligation to protect the interests of the USCF members of the region in question, and
3) were elected by the USCF members of the region in question." (silenceindaylight)
point 1: You mean some kind of test to ensure that the representative actually represented the USCF members in that region? How about just being a representative? Doesn't that indicate that the representative is representing those who wish to be represented? If the represented do not like the represntation being performed by their representative, they can get another representative to represent them.
point 2: Well, if their representative did not represent them the way they wanted to be represented, the represented would get another represntative to represent them.
point 3: I agree. Nobody knew where these people came from. All of a sudden, they were there, claiming to be a represntative representing a bunch of people who wanted to be represented. Where did they come from?
By the way, I don't agree with Mr. White, but I think he has good ideas and could be a good representative somewhere.
HardyBerger,
You are right, the previous USCF boards, elected under 'my preferred system' had problems as well. However, we didn't have members elected to the board that placed lawsuits against the USCF in excess of $10million, driving the federation completely bankrupt. Polgar, Sloan - these are fringe candidates. We didn't have craziness like this under the old system.
I mean, stop for a moment and think of the hatred one must have for the USCF, and the desire to destroy it, to sue it for millions of dollars. And realize that 2 distinct individuals like this have been elected to the board in the last 3 years under the one-member-one-vote system.
Remember, when comparing political systems, government methods, etc - they are all bad. You're always deciding which one is the lesser of the evils. The old delegate system in the USCF is the lesser of the evil, IMHO.
Another flaw in Robert White's latest argument: While Sloan couldn't have gotten in under the pre-OMOV system, Polgar surely could have. She (via Truong) is no stranger to behind-the-scenes politicking. The various chess and media events they've put together, some with external sponsorship, would have given them plenty of opportunity to curry favor with other affiliates (organizers) who chose the delegates under the old system.
For God's sake, this ain't the freaking constitutional convention, folks. There is absolutely nothing in Mig's remarks that is remotely relevant to democracy or political governance of any sort. No need to argue political science or civics, let alone banish people to foreign countries based on their views of the USCF. This is NOT a matter of political philosophy. Rather, this is a question of corporate/organizational governance, a subject that has received a huge amount of focus among major and minor not-for-profits in recent years. There are countless governance models of major membership organizations that have excellent reputations, e.g. AARP, and many that have suffered some fiasco or other and, in the aftermath, used these trials by fire to reexamined their governance top to bottom to prevent recurrence of problems, e.g. The Nature Conservancy. All evidence suggests that the USCF is oblivious to the revolution in not-for-profit governance.
Robert White - You amuse me.
1st - I have a degree in Political Science. You are a gnat compared to me intellectually on this subject.
2nd - I never stated that the Constitution provides a right to vote. Come on out of your fantasy world and into the light.
Luke -
"It looks like you can't respond intelligently to Mr. White. You've already proven that you can't keep up with me and quite a few others. And now Mr. White, by simply stating his point of view, has turned you into a weakling who spouts dribbly spit like "Why don't you move out of the USA?"
What are you, 13 years old? I sense a serious insecurity on your part. Keep up with you? That's the funniest thing I've ever read on this blog, and there has been some funny stuff here! I take back what I said about RW moving out of the USA. YOU move out of the USA.
"What are you, 13 years old?" (noyb)
"YOU move out of the USA." (noyb)
Good stuff noyb, really sharp. Did you learn this in your political science school?
Even though you claim to be amused by him, Mr. White is running circles around you. He's not right about everything, but he's got you beat pretty bad. Give up.
calvin amari makes the best point here. I fully agree!
noyb,
"1st - I have a degree in Political Science. You are a gnat compared to me intellectually on this subject."
Maybe I am a gnat. But I wonder what your political science degree has to do with governance of the USCF, a not-for-profit private organization? Also, you have made a few statements that show that you are unable to use your college knowledge correctly, and instead you are relying on emotional outbursts, such as "leave the USA" - pretty weak argument, considering we are all gnats compared to you.
"2nd - I never stated that the Constitution provides a right to vote. Come on out of your fantasy world and into the light."
Here you discredit yourself completely. You did actually state that earlier in this thread. Allow me to copy and paste what you said:
"Robert White - I take it you're volunteering to give up your right as a citizen to vote?"
Here you claim that as a citizen one has the right to vote. Perhaps you didn't mean that the constitution provided this right but some other entity? Allow me to inform you again: there is no right to vote for US citizens. Any voting rights in existence are state (or local government) rights which may or may not require citizenship.
I'm surprised that with a political science degree you didn't know this. They teach this in basic American government classes.
flyonthewall,
You are right, Polgar could have been elected in the old system. But not Sloan. Now, I don't know extensively the whole story, but I had the impression that Sloan was the one who was the start of all of these problems between the USCF/Sloan/Polgar.
But I could be wrong.
Again, you are right, flyonthewall, that the old system would not have prevented someone like Polgar from coming to power. But like I said, the old system wasn't good. Just better than the current one.
I must correct the just prior commentary.
Sloan is the *victim* here -- not the perpetrator.
He was the one who was impersonated 4,000+ times by some other party.
Sloan launched his lawsuit only after evidence came out to show who the likely perpetrator was.
That's important to keep in mind - his legal action was designed to force the organization to recognize that other parties had harmed him.
Sam Sloan may be many things, but a USCF-hater he is not. He is seeking vindication, not money.
please don't think Sloan is an angel, try Google. on THIS occasion, maybe the victim of these particular acts, but it is NOT that simple, two to tango?
chesspride,
I acknowledge that perhaps USCF wronged Mr. Sloan by not properly vindicating him in the impersonation deal. But please observe the following points relating to your point:
1) USCF could not have yet vindicated Mr. Sloan because as much as we all sorta know that Truong is guilty in the impersonation issue, Truong has not yet been convicted, and therefore the case is still open. Officially, as it now stands, Sloan is still the accused suspect (not convicted, but the suspect) and his status as such has not changed. Therefore, the USCF cannot legally come out and declare him innocent, as it has not yet been legally determined that Sloan is innocent and Truong is guilty. Before you respond with "well, innocent until proven guilty, why is Sloan then treated as guilty, regardless of Truong's case?". The answer is simple. Yes, innocent until proven guilty in a court of law and in the criminal justice system, but not in the rules and regulations of a private (or public) entity such as a company, federation, profit or not-for-profit. Still, Sloan is not deemed guilty, but the issue just has been frozen until further notice.
2) Even if the above point were not true - the point is this: Sloan is suing the USCF in order to push them to vindicate them (as you have declared). This is a reasonable course of action, if the USCF were an entity Sloan didn't care about. The point is that the USCF is being slowly killed off by this. Is the price of Sloan's vindication worth the death of the USCF? I think not. If sloan loved the USCF, he would walk away. He stated to all, "I did not make those statements." Those that know and trust Sloan would believe him. Those that wouldn't believe him probably don't care much for him anyway, and their opinion of him wouldn't change. Yes, he would walk away, perhaps in shame, for the sake of the USCF. That's what love is. If Sloan loved the USCF, he would sacrifice his honor for the sake of thousands of people to whom the USCF is of utmost importance. So, if Sloan ever serves on the board again, it shall be known that we have a board member who's desire in helping the USCF ends exactly at the point of self-interest and self-preservation. And the same goes for Polgar.
So, to sum it up. A patriot of chess will walk away humbly for the thousands of others. A self-serving, self centered jerk will think only of him (or her)-self, and do whatever is necessary to defend his/her honor, despite the wreck this may cause for thousands of others.
I hope my point has been made clear.
Mr. White:
Unfortunately, your point is not clear at all.
Sloan is the victim because some other party (let's avoid naming this party for now) impersonated him 4,000+ times.
He asked (begged) the organization to investigate. They refused.
Now it comes to light that the organization's own computer folks generated a report that shows that Sloan was correct -- that he was victimized.
Regardless of the identity of the perpetrator, Sloan fully expected the organization to say "We are sorry that we didn't take your claims seriously."
That sort of apology doesn't require any name of the real perpetrator.
Sloan isn't guilty of anything here -- he was abused by the perpetrator and by the organization.
Sam is very much pro-USCF -- I am 100% confident that he doesn't want a penny. He wants that apology and a genuine one at that.
He may be a bit out there on other things...but on this set of issues, he is correct.
Any voting system can throw up sub-optimal outcomes or be "rigged" - quite a lot of economic theory on this and of course, many real-life examples.
Sports bodies (Fifa, Fide, IOC) are more vulnerable than most nations to poor voting outcomes for several reasons. Sad but not surprising if USCF is also an example.
"Sam is very much pro-USCF -- I am 100% confident that he doesn't want a penny. He wants that apology and a genuine one at that.
He may be a bit out there on other things...but on this set of issues, he is correct."
But and the end, the USCF is not apologizing, and Sloan is continuing his lawsuit, draining the USCF of money, so the end result is that no matter how you slice it, Sloan's desire for a 'genuine apology' is worth more to him than the existence and well-being of the USCF. He is basically saying, "screw all of those members who will have to now endure worse service, a Chess Life with less pages, employees who have to be cut loose or work less hours, etc etc" - all so he can get his apology. So for Mr. Sloan, the #1 person is Mr. Sloan. Mr. Sloan is more important than the USCF, than its members, and its employees (some of who now have a financial burden because of cutbacks).
So, at the end, my point still stands. Mr. Sloan, like Mrs. Polgar, is self-centered and self-serving. He needs to get what he wants (apology) at the cost of whatever it takes, regardless how many others must suffer or sacrifice to punish those few Mr. Sloan is upset at.
~not~ impressive at all.
¨Sloan's desire for a 'genuine apology' is worth more to him than the existence and well-being of the USCF.¨
That is a preposterous statement , same aply to those who wont apologize to him.
And for the record: i do not like Susan Polgar ´s forum at all .
Apparently the best way to deal with this situations is to fire those who are implicated on criminal acts and hire new people .
Mr. White,
I am not commenting on any facts or personal opinions you expressed in this thread. I am only commenting on your logic.
Imagine a chess game between Sloan (white) and USCF (black). Black's position is difficult, almost lost, with virtually no chance to draw. White needs only a draw to finish 1st in the competition. Black knows that a draw offer will be accepted by White. Yet, Black declines to offer White the draw he needs, choosing to suffer in that hopeless game.
White has two options:
1. continue to torture Black until victory or Black' draw offer; or
2. resign (and loss 1st place in the competition) in a winning position.
Can it be said that White is self-centered and self-serving because he chooses option 1 ?
If Black (USCF) loves chess and care about its well-being, they should make that draw offer.
(BTW, I highly appreciate your politeness towards fellow posters.)
No need for complicated analogies, if the guy was wronged, he has full right to recourse to the courts if those who wronged him refuse to apologize. If he was not wronged the court will throw out the case and he will be out of pocket.
The whole thing just drags the name of US chess in the mud, it sounds like kindergarten stuff.
Hi Mr. Lee,
First, thank for the kind words at the end of your post. I feel there is never a need to be rude to anyone, as we are all just fans of the great game and this is entertainment for all of us, even these debates and forums, etc.
To counter your point, which you nicely laid out in the chess example, allow me to add the following to make your analogy apply to the real life situation. Imagine if white wins, not only does he receive first place in the tournament, but black will a) lose his life or b) lose his home or c) have his children taken away or d) be bankrupted. Not sure which of these could be a decent analogy for the damage the USCF gets in defending a 10-million dollar lawsuit over the course of a few years, but either way, you get the point. If black loses, a lot is lost, and the player playing black is not the only one who suffers. His family will suffer as well. And he has a huge family.
Now white, on the other hand, doesn't win the world championship tournament and a million dollars. No, this is simply some tornado tournament, and first place isn't money, just a small trophy indicating that he was, indeed, first.
So, considering everything that is at stake, does white really play for the win? Sure, it would be legal. But no good man in that situation would play on.
By the way, before you think my analogy to your analogy is extreme, realize that the USCF comes nowhere close to having $10million, even in assets. So if Sloan were to win, he would completely wipe out the USCF. Even if the judge awarded just 2.5 million, it would probably bankrupt the USCF. So really, the picture becomes more gruesome: if white draws or even loses, he just doesn't get the trophy. If white wins, black will lose his life. Wow. Honestly, as white, i wouldn't want to win at that point. I'd take a draw and walk away. So would 99.99% of most people. But not Sloan, and not Polgar. Because they are a different breed of people.
I congratulate you for your bravery but we really don´t know if you would really do that given the oportunity , do we?
IMO your begging would be a lot more effective if directed to the judge , not to the (alleged)victim .
This is much like the logic riddle of the killer in the woods (One killer , one wife , husband on one side and lover on the other side), anyone heard of it?
L
Hmmm, Luke was the killer, Thomas the wife and Greg Koster the husband?