I was recently included on an email list discussing the election, I responded by saying:
I know you're correct D....., and no matter how this election was/is tallied up, Col just ain't got the numbers. So Michael and Paul are returned to the board, and I'll extend them my congratulations and best wishes when I see them.
But I still have a problem with the fact that the people who chose the first place getter, got a second vote for the runner up, when no one else did. I know it's the way it's being done. But that doesn't mean it's right, in my opinion. I mean to say, "OK guys. One man one vote. Except if you vote for the right bloke in the first place, you'll get to have your second pick counted too. But if you don't pick the right bloke first up, you won't get a second pick."
I know it's the way it is, and I'm not going to go charging off tilting at windmills. But I'm having a bit of trouble getting my head around that one...
Keep the sunny side up,
Wayne.
Then Don Ramsay responded by saying:
Wayne,
Probably easier to think of it as two elections for two positions. Each member should effectively get two votes - one vote for each position on the Board.
Regards
Don
My thanks go to Don. Looking at it that way makes it work for me.
Now I understand and empathize with what David P and Turbz are saying above. But the fact remains, in this election, by the rules we're using, Paul and Michael won their seats on the board fair and square and Col didn't get elected. Personally, I salute all three men for having the balls to put their hats in the ring...