Based on some comments about voting I thought some further analysis of the vote was in order. The following graph numbers were taken from the NAFA voting results of the 5 candidates.
The most telling thing that I can see is the NO votes. Each delegate could vote for 3 candidates but from looking at the “No Votes” line, it is obvious that 19 delegates didn’t vote for a candidate. I don’t know that for sure, but logically you wouldn’t vote for a second or third candidate and not vote for a first.
If you subtract out the 19 that didn’t vote for anyone from the 80 that didn’t select a second candidate, you end up with 61 wasted votes. The question that I have is did the 61 delegates not selecting a second candidate knowing that they could select more than one candidate? It seems likely, if they knew that multiple candidates could be selected they would have.
I think the 3rd row is the most telling. If you subtract out the 19 that didn’t vote and the 80 that didn’t select a second candidate you are left with 146 delegates not selecting a third candidate. This tells me that 146 or more delegates didn’t think 3 of the candidates were worth voting for, why?
Conclusion
I think this tells us that many clubs are displeased with NAFA and its direction. Just add it up. Only 56.81% of the ballots were returned, and granted that is more than half. However, the 344 votes that were not cast for any candidate really tells the story. It comes down to one of three things, the clubs don’t care, the roster of candidates wasn’t appealing, or the delegates didn’t think it would matter if they voted or not. I tend to think it’s the latter. If the clubs thought something would actually change and get better by their vote, they probably would have voted.
It just seems to me that people should be more involved and fired up. I think that much of the problem stems from the Board itself. The leadership stresses secrecy and it stifles excitement and a feeling of worth. The attitude then becomes one of, I don’t care because nothing I do will change anyway.
Larry
Related Post:
5 comments ↓
I just wanted to post several alternative conclusions from analysis of the same data. Your math of the data provided appears correct, but the conclusion is premature. The data available could also show that people are apathetic about the nuts and bolts of operating a sanctioning body, therefore, they didn’t want to vote. It could show that the flyball community is so happy with the current leadership that they didn’t feel the need to make a change. It could show that the amount of information provided for each candidate was so minimal that they did not feel that they could make an educated decision. It could show that because the voting was due a week after Thanksgiving and they just didn’t have to time to put forth the effort. It could show a problem with the voting method, hanging chads, and therefore the results are inaccurate.
The reality is with the data available all that is known is that turnout was low and that there were a significant number of no votes. There is no data available from the voting results that indicate why this occurred. To me the interesting question is why? The major concern should be that it was due to a process problem. The process should not be a significant determining factor in an election’s outcome. Therefore, anyone that had a concern or problem with the process should let the Board of Directors know immediately so these issues can be corrected.
The conclusion that the voting indicates displeasure in the Board is premature at best. It appears that you had a preconceived opinion and interpreted the data to support that opinion. A better conclusion is that a significant number of votes were not cast and that additional research is needed to determine why. Without knowing the real reason for the poor return a good solution can not be found.
Yes, based on the comments that are posted all over this blog and on private comments, I did have a preconceived opinion and I did interpreted the data to support that opinion. I thank you for your alternate opinion and conclusions.
Larry,
I don’t want you to think that I’m accusing you of deliberately skewing number or that your intent was to knowing mislead anyone. A while back I took a statistics class, the author of the textbook spend half a chapter warning about inadvertently making this type of error. It is an easy trap to fall into especially when you are passionate about an issue.
My concern regarding NAFA and the Board right now is that they have become so worried about the new competition that knee jerk reactionary decision may cause unintended problems.
I am a free market capitalist. Therefore, I’m ecstatic to see U-FLI enter the flyball marketplace. Nothing causes laziness like a monopoly, with competition comes new ideas and a better product for the consumer, every time. However, sometimes businesses become so concerned with the competition that they bow to the consumers every little whim causing the product to suffer in the long-term. NAFA is going through some competition pains that they never had to deal with before.
Currently NAFA appears to be reacting to the loudest voices. The squeaky wheel is getting the oil. See the proposed rule change for jump heights. The BoD received a number of proposals for changing the factor which set the jump heights so a delegate vote is going to occur. My concern is that the outcome for this rule change is going to be determined on supposition and emotions without substantiated reasons for either alternative. If there is any hard data that indicates that the jump heights is causing or contributing to health problems for our dogs, than I’m on board the rule should be changed. However, if the rule change is being proposed because some clubs can’t find, train, or just don’t want to deal with a height dog, the rule should not be changed. This would be like me proposing a rule change to the PGA, that because I can’t hit a driver as straight or as long as Tiger Woods, drivers should no longer be allowed on the tour. In reality without the driver it is no longer golf, the game would be completely changed. Without height dogs, flyball is no longer flyball.
If NAFA wants to be the leader of the flyball market they need to lead not react. I would argue for research from the consumer on what the reasons are for proposing the rule change. When I asked a member of the Board for the reason, I was told that the only reason was because it has been proposed by several people. I believe that we should also know what outcome is expected from the rule change, and have some supporting data that shows this outcome will be achieved.
Mike
Mike, I have played flyball for a long time, in California, for the first few years, I saw alot of teams jumping 16 inches, height dogs were not really thought of - that is just what we did. Regions 1 and 2 were the forfronts of “creating” the designer height dogs, and implementing height dog breeds. So, to say flyball is not flyball without height dogs is inaccurate. I think in the UK they only jump 16?
My problem now with this new proposal, is it is a bandaid for the problem they don’t want to deal with - developing or creating a new way to measure altogether. Measuring inaccuracies have been an issue since teams started getting faster and faster, and using heights dogs bred for the sport. I can’t believe that this has never been the top priority. They (NAFA board) were quick to implement revoking height cards, but, fall on the “this is how everyone else measures” laurels. That argument is tired and worn out! No other dog sport org is having the “issues” with manipulating stands like NAFA does.
I am not saying to follow U-FLI - but how about having a forum with the NAFA judges and see what they think? Do any of them have any ideas that might be explored?
Jackie
Great posts, Mike! It’s like you read my mind! Regarding the proposal to change the subtraction from 4 inches to 5 inches, I REALLY don’t want this to happen either unless someone can present evidence that dogs are getting injured. Honestly, I don’t see it - especially if dogs are conditioned for this sport. As far as looking at other ways to measure, this is such a tricky subject. Yes - the way NAFA measures is the standard for all other dog sports. The only problem is, the range we’re looking at with these measurements is tiny - an inch! That can make a huge difference in an individual dog’s speed. Don’t other dog sports have a wider range so the measurements don’t necessarily have to be so precise unless a dog happens to be borderline? Maybe that’s where the problem is - that we’re using a method where it’s difficult to get precise measurements, yet we need these measurements to be exactly that. Personally, tho, I don’t have any answers to that. I don’t think the U-Fli way, although easy and precise, is the answer for NAFA. My borderjack is 15-1/8 inches tall - measures for 11″ jumps in NAFA. She measured at 7″ for UFLI! That’s a huge disparity. But, I love that difference between the two. NAFA, to me, offers more challenges in developing those height dogs and keeping these little guys so important to the game. I didn’t get that from UFLI at all. A few teams were just running 4 border collies over 10 or 11 inches. But I had a great time seeing Pirate fly down those lanes and posting her fastest times to date! I just hope others, like me, will appreciate the differences between the 2 organizations and not make changes based on a few squeaky wheels.
Kathy
Leave a Comment