Memo re: TAFF 1986-1987
From: P&TNH
To: Candidates, nominators, fannish news mediaJeanne Gomoll is the winner of the 1986-1987 TAFF race. Over the next two or three weeks we'll be assembling a final issue of TAFFLUVIA which will present all the details, including a list of the North Americans (and possibly Europeans) who voted, and a full financial report. This will go to everyone who voted on this side of the Atlantic. meanwhile, just to get the basic information in circulation, mailing this flyer to the people most closely concerned with the election.
It'll be a while before we can provide an exact financial report on our term as administrators, since the Fund will get tapped to pay for that upcoming TAFFLUVIA, to say nothing of the phone expenses involved with tying off this race and transmitting essential administratorly details (read: 7 cartons of auctionable kipple) to Jeanne. However, we can predict with some confidence that the amount we ultimately turn over to her will be at least $4800, possibly as much as $5000. Fandom has been generous during our term of office. more details to follow as we collate them into comprehensible form; film at eleven. For the moment, let's have the voting breakdown:
FIRST BALLOT: Bill Bowers Brian Earl Brown Mike Glicksohn Jeanne Gomoll Robert Lichtman Hold Over Funds Australia (7): 1 0 0 4 2 0 Europe (80): 4 3 20 42 11 0 North America (232): 26 25 57 86 35 3 TOTAL (319): 31 28 77 132 48 3 Since the leading candidate didn't receive a majority of the 319 votes cast, a second ballot was necessary. As in any preferential-ballot system, the choice with the fewest overall votes (in this case the ever-unpopular Hold Over Funds) is eliminated. In addition, in TAFF we also eliminate all candidates who fail to receive at least 20% of the first-ballot votes cast on one or both sides of the Atlantic. Neither Bowers, Brown, nor Lichtman got 20% of the first-ballot vote on either side, so all three are eliminated prior to the second ballot, leaving Mike Glicksohn and Jeanne Gomoll to split the remaining valid preferences on ballots whose first preference was for any of the four choices eliminated. Thus, the second ballot looks like this:
SECOND BALLOT: Mike Glicksohn Jeanne Gomoll Total from above 77 132 European preferences picked up: + 6 + 11 NA & Australian preferences picked up: + 29 + 59 SECOND (and final) BALLOT TOTAL: 112 202 "No further preference", or "no preference" as it's usually referred to, is the name for ballots on which voters failed to indicate any preference beyond those candidates who were eliminated before the final runoff. Thus, a voter who voted for Brian Earl Brown in first place, Robert Lichtman in second place, and Hold Over Funds in third place, and then didn't mark their ballot any further, would have his or her ballot land in the "no further preference" category in this particular race. Also note that, while on the first ballot 160 votes would have been needed in order to win (over 50% of the 319 votes cast), on the second ballot only 158 votes were necessary (over 50% of 314). The five "no further preference" ballots cease to be part of that set out of which the winner must obtain a majority. Translation, it's generally a good idea to fill your ballot out entirely, O slans.
We've decided that the upcoming TAFFLUVIA will also present a breakdown of the voting treated as if the recently-ratified 20% rule were not in operation. This will provide a one-time illustration of differing mathematics of the old and new systems, making the transition a little more comprehensible. It should not be construed as setting a precedent for voters and administrators to keep trackimg both systems at once (avert!). Note that the old-style breakdown, presented below for your select edification, results in a bottom line identical to the result yielded by the 20%-rule-system employed in the official results on the preceding page. The 20% rule was designed to discourage a disproportionately unilateral sort of campaigning pattern, and should have no substantial effect on the majority of TAFF elections yet to come. Viz., below. For first -- ballot figures, please refer to the first chart on the other side of this sheet.
SECOND BALLOT: Bill Bowers Brian Earl Brown Mike Glicksohn Jeanne Gomoll Robert Lichtman Hold Over Funds TOTAL (319): 31 28 77 132 48 3 (Redistributing H.O.F.) Eur + 0
NA + 0Eur + 0
NA + 2Eur + 0
NA + 0Eur + 0
NA + 0Eur + 0
NA + 031 30 77 132 48 [& 1 "no further preference"]
THIRD BALLOT: Bill Bowers Brian Earl Brown Mike Glicksohn Jeanne Gomoll Robert Lichtman Hold Over Funds (Redistributing Brown): Eur + 0
NA + 5Eur + 0
NA + 0Eur + 0
NA + 0Eur + 0
NA + 036 77 132 48 [& 1 "no further preference"]
FOURTH BALLOT: Bill Bowers Brian Earl Brown Mike Glicksohn Jeanne Gomoll Robert Lichtman Hold Over Funds (Redistributing Bowers): Eur + 2
NA + 3Eur + 0
NA + 12Eur + 1
NA + 782 144 6 [& 2 "no further preference"]
FIFTH BALLOT: Bill Bowers Brian Earl Brown Mike Glicksohn Jeanne Gomoll Robert Lichtman Hold Over Funds (Redistributing Lichtman): Eur + 2
NA + 11Eur + 10
NA + 37112 202 [& 5 "no further preference"]
Three final notes on the above. First, note that the "no further preference" amounts given in brackets are cumulative; each successive one includes those in the set of brackets above it. Second, don't be confused by the way we've separated European and North American/Australian redistributions; this is for your interest and information only, and not necessary to the operation of the system; i.e., we could have simply given them as their own subtotals. Third and finally, note that the code "NA" refers to North American and Australian ballots as they redistribute themselves through the system; it was convenient to do it this way, since the North American administrators received all of the votes cast from Australia (quite by accident -- nothing in the rules mandates this).
We leave you with the following questions, all of which merit serious inquiry and wide-ranging analysis:
- What happened to the irrepressable urge to fannishly write in silly votes? Where were the ballots TAFF normally receives for Peter Vorzimer, Francisco Franco, and Charlie the Tuna? The right to cast silly votes is the right to be free! (Or so we've been solemnly informed.)
- What cosmically-attuned mental processes enabled dozens of fans to take scissors in hand and detach the bottom third of the TAFF ballot before sending it to us, carefully following the dotted line just above the words "Send the entire ballot -- do not detach"?
- If "details of the voting" are a sacred charge that must at all costs be Kept Secret, how does TAFF ever manage to announce a winner? (You'll note that every time a TAFF winner has been hitherto announced, one of the TAFF administrators has subsequently had to leave office. O the shame. Woe.) The Amazing Criswell says, think about it.