Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
Hall of Merit
— A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best

Monday, June 18, 2007

What to do about a late ballot?

Subject of this thread changed due to the issues discussed in the thread.

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 18, 2007 at 03:32 AM | 80 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 19, 2007 at 02:05 AM (#2408867)
Congratulations to Nolan, Rich and Rollie!

Now, that was a close election!
   2. Chris Fluit Posted: June 19, 2007 at 02:08 AM (#2408875)
Wow! I thought this one was going to be between Randolph and Redding. I had no idea that Fingers was that close.
   3. DavidFoss Posted: June 19, 2007 at 02:08 AM (#2408877)
WHOA!!!!
   4. Willie Mays Hayes Posted: June 19, 2007 at 02:11 AM (#2408884)
Interested to get some feedback from the two who had Fingers (presumably) above Gossage....
   5. Willie Mays Hayes Posted: June 19, 2007 at 02:13 AM (#2408891)
And as I recheck the ballot, it was only Patrick W who had Rollie over the Goose. I'd love some more explanation, since there's not much on his ballot.
   6. OCF Posted: June 19, 2007 at 02:14 AM (#2408895)
It's my fault. I had been carrying Fingers in the low 20's, with a line that implied I would reconsider him when Gossage became available. That moment came, I realized how strong the consensus for Gossage was, and I took another look at Fingers - and he looked better than I remembered. I put him 14th on my ballot, and that was enough. Without me, he would have finished behind Redding.

---

Highest possible consensus score +7. Average consensus score -7.6 - a fairly ordinary year, these days. The biggest issue on where you placed in the consensus ranks was what you did with Gossage.

Mark Shirk: +1
Howie Menckel: +1
ronw: 0
Esteban Rivera: 0
Chris Fluit: -1
Sean Gilman: -1
Got Melky: -3
John Murphy: -3
Jim Sp: -3
Mike Webber: -3
Juan V: -3
...
OCF: -4
...
Chris Cobb: -5
...
'zop: -6 (median)
...
Rusty Priske: -12
Mark Donelson: -13
Dan R: -13
Thane of Bagarth: -14
Patrick W: -14
Rob Wood: -16
Eric Chalek: -20
karlmagnus: -22
EricC: -23
yest: -24

So both Eric C.'s visited the lower portion of the list.
   7. jimd Posted: June 19, 2007 at 02:14 AM (#2408896)
I thought this one was going to be between Randolph and Redding.

Me too. I had Randolph and Redding tied, and read the "tiebreaker rule" post on the ballot thread. I sent John a tiebreaker workup showing Randolph as the winner. He informed me my totals were slightly off and they were resolving a different tie. What are the chances of that?
   8. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 19, 2007 at 02:18 AM (#2408911)
Guys, hold up - this is NOT official.

I sent the following email to John at 6:30 - unfortunately, I sent it to his old email address by mistake:
ohn - I was going to vote when I got home (which should have been
soon). But something came up at work that I have to deal with.

I really want to vote though. Can you delay the results? I should
probably be home by about 8-9 p.m. my time - 9-10 p.m. your time. I
should have voted earlier but I didn't . . .

Give me a ring if there's an issue . . . XXX -XXX-XXXX (removed from this post). . . Joe

Thanks/sorry.

*************

Guys in a situation like this I STRONGLY believe in counting the ballots of all who want to vote, as opposed to sticking to some arbitrary deadline. Especially when a note was sent ahead of time asking for an extension due to an extenuating circumstance. I would have phoned in the ballot, but I didn't have John's cell phone number.
   9. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: June 19, 2007 at 02:21 AM (#2408921)
Well, I was going on about not wanting to rush Randolph in. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it...Willie was #15 on my ballot, Rollie #31.

I can't really complain, Fingers was likely going to make it eventually in any case. It just shows that the HoM electorate values relievers a little more than I do. There isn't going to be a definitive right answer on that.

Interestingly, Willie gained 2 ballots this year (including mine), Rollie gained 5. And looking at the number of 14th and 15th place votes, that probably had little to do with who did or didn't vote this year.
   10. Howie Menckel Posted: June 19, 2007 at 02:31 AM (#2408945)
all-time 'votes points' thru 2000 - those still eligible in 2001 election are in CAPS. electees are not in caps.
Van Haltren can take the lead by 2005.... congrats to Duffy for joining the 25,000-pt club, and he has a shot to overtake Van Haltren at the buzzer.. Browning outpolls both of them but is mired in 4th.... CJones the 11th member of the 15,000-pt club.... Ryan, with 25 more pts, finally staggers past long-elected Thompson for 18th place... Grimes the only active player in the 30s...

TOP 50, ALL-TIME
Beckley............... 25856
VAN HALTREN.... 25257.5
DUFFY............ 25069.5
BROWNING... 22891.5
Childs.............. 18484
Griffith............. 17924
Waddell........... 17596
WELCH.......... 17218
Jennings........... 16976
REDDING...... 15543

CJONES.......... 15032
Sisler................. 13892
BRESNAHAN..13765
Pike.................. 13399
TLEACH......... 13396
Sewell.............. 12769
Mendez........... 12555
RYAN............ 12368.5
Thompson....... 12349
Roush............ 12005

Bennett........... 11503
Moore............ 10904
Rixey.............. 10789
Caruthers....... 10704
Beckwith.......... 9896
CRAVATH......9668
HStovey...........9576
WALTERS......9104
Mackey............8930
DOYLE...........8783

Start..............8378.5
McGinnity......8232
GRIMES.......8175
DPearce........8073
McVey.........7985.5
FGrant.........7969.5
Kiner............7746
Suttles............7690
NFox.............7587
Trouppe........7494

WFerrell...........7259
BMONROE....7085
BJOHNSON.......7002
CBell................6968
OMS...............6909
Galvin.............6585
Keller..............6424
Sheckard.........6377
MCGRAW.....6288
Minoso............6131

Others in active top 50
Schang 6104, Williamson 5970, Willis 4730, Dean 4295, Joss 4247, Elliott 4110, BTaylor 3584, Bridges 3408, FChance 3361, McCormick 3148x, SRice 2978, CMays 2956, Traynor 2919, Cicotte 2868, Tiernan 2686x, NCash 2610, Cepeda 2577, FJones 2523, Rizzuto 2445, Veach 2199, TPerez 2077, GJBurns 2043, Klein 2011, Mullane 1979, Brock 1954, Stephens 1890, Dunlap 1883, Poles 1842x, Hooper 1792x, Lombardi 1783, EHoward 1774, MGriffin 1726.5x, Tiant 1544


(next 4: Lundy 1535x, BoBonds 1515, Bancroft 1374, DTrout 1356)
   11. Howie Menckel Posted: June 19, 2007 at 02:38 AM (#2408948)
I would strongly say that we follow the very clear note that the voting would end at 8 pm sharp (without even thinking about who is helped or hurt).

I bet there isn't a single person in the voting class who could NOT have voted sometime this week.
And if there was, then they should have done the work during the 14-DAY ballot discussion, and thus only need to post it when the voting began.
Hell, sometimes guys post BEFORE the vote begins, and it gets transferred.

21 days. We all get busy, no one's life is THAT hectic, and if it is, they have more to worry about than having their ballot counted.

Don't anyone take it personally, i just think all of this is obvious.
   12. Delorians Posted: June 19, 2007 at 02:42 AM (#2408954)
Guys in a situation like this I STRONGLY believe in counting the ballots of all who want to vote, as opposed to sticking to some arbitrary deadline.

The 2000 SCOTUS would disagree....
   13. Howie Menckel Posted: June 19, 2007 at 02:43 AM (#2408956)
I'm exiting all of this at least til tomorrow, for my own sanity.
   14. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 19, 2007 at 02:45 AM (#2408960)
Is it Joe Gordon all over again?
   15. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 19, 2007 at 02:46 AM (#2408962)
Everyone, please ignore the first 10 comments, and start from #11.

Just kidding, sort of.

First, it's the year 2000, so it is kind of fitting that our election is extremely controversial. Considering the Y2K software bugs from a few days ago and all. And just wait until 10 months from now when Gore and Bush go it, this won't be considered a controversy anymore.

Anyway, what happened is that my ballot was late due to extenuating circumstances. However there was also a communication issue between John and I (in my haste, I sent the email to his old address). But the ballot was counted. This flipped the election from Fingers winning on the second tie-breaker to Randolph winning by one point (I had Randolph 5th and Fingers 6th on my ballot).

Please let 'er rip if you feel this was an incorrect decision given the circumstances.

In a way I'm somewhat disappointed, because I met Gossage and Fingers at the Jacksonville airport in 1998. I believe they were both their for a golf trip (they had their clubs). I spotted Fingers because of the mustache. We were both headed towards the rental car booths. I was going to leave him alone, but then Gossage came out of nowhere.

Being a good Yankee fan, I had to go up and thank him for the memories and all. They were both very nice to me and I have both of their autographs on the same business card. So having them both inducted the same year would have made for a pretty cool piece of HoM memoribilia!
   16. Chris Fluit Posted: June 19, 2007 at 02:47 AM (#2408964)
World Series, Pennant and Division Winning Teams Without a Hall of Merit player 1871-1990/ best candidate

1871 NA- Philadelphia Athletics/ Levi Meyerle
1884 UA- St. Louis Maroons/ Fred Dunlap
1888 AA- St. Louis Browns/ Tip O'Neill
1890 AA- Louisville Colonels/ ?
1914 NL- Boston Braves/ Rabbit Maranville
1917 NL- New York Giants/ George Burns
1918 NL- Chicago Cubs/ Hippo Vaughn
1926 ECL- Atlantic City Bacharach Giants/ Dick Lundy
1927 ECL- Atlantic City Bacharach Giants/ Dick Lundy
1932 EWL- Baltimore Black Sox/ Dick Lundy
1938 NAL- Memphis Red Sox/ Larry Brown
1939 NL- Cincinnati Reds/ Bucky Walters
1940 NL- Cincinnati Reds/ Bucky Walters
1943 NAL- Birmingham Black Barons/ Artie Wilson
1944 NL- St. Louis Browns/ Vern Stephens
1944 NAL- Birmingham Black Barons/ Artie Wilson
1948 NAL- Birmingham Black Barons/ Artie Wilson
1949 NAL- Baltimore Elite Giants/ Leon Day
1950 NAL- Indianapolis Clowns/ ?
1976 AL- New York Yankees/ Willie Randolph
1981 AL- Oakland Athletics/ Rickey Henderson*
1981 NL- Los Angeles Dodgers/ Ron Cey
1983 NL- Los Angeles Dodgers/ Fernando Valenzuela*
1984 NL- Chicago Cubs/ Dennis Eckersley*
1985 AL- Toronto Blue Jays/ Dave Stieb
1985 NL- Los Angeles Dodgers/ Orel Hershiser*
1985 NL- St. Louis Cardinals/ Ozzie Smith*
1987 AL- Toronto Blue Jays/ Dave Stieb
1987 NL- San Francisco Giants/ Will Clark*
1987 NL- St. Louis Cardinals/ Ozzie Smith*
1988 AL- Oakland Athletics/ Dennis Eckersley*
1989 AL- Oakland Athletics/ Dennis Eckersley*
1989 NL- Chicago Cubs/ Ryne Sandberg*
1990 AL- Oakland Athletics/ Dennis Eckersley*
1990 NL- Cincinnati Reds/ Barry Larkin*
1990 NL- Pittsburgh Pirates/ Barry Bonds*

*best candidate not yet eligible for HoM

This year we knocked the following off the list:
1984 NL- San Diego Padres/ Rich Gossage
1986 NL- Houston Astros/ Nolan Ryan
1989 NL- San Francisco Giants/ Rich Gossage

And other recent inductees have taken care of:
1945 NAL- Cleveland Buckeyes/ Quincy Trouppe
1947 NAL- Cleveland Buckeyes/ Quincy Trouppe
1975 AL- Boston Red Sox/ Dwight Evans
1976 AL- Kansas City Royals/ George Brett
1977 AL- Kansas City Royals/ George Brett
1978 AL- Kansas City Royals/ George Brett
1980 AL- Kansas City Royals/ George Brett
1981 AL- Kansas City Royals/ George Brett
1981 AL- Milwaukee Brewers/ Robin Yount
1981 NL- Montreal Expos/ Gary Carter
1982 NL- St. Louis Cardinals/ Keith Hernandez
1983 AL- Chicago White Sox/ Carlton Fisk
1984 AL- Detroit Tigers/ Darrell Evans
1984 AL- Kansas City Royals/ George Brett
1985 AL- Kansas City Royals/ George Brett
1986 AL- Boston Red Sox/ Dwight Evans
1986 NL- New York Mets/ Keith Hernandez
1987 AL- Detroit Tigers/ Darrell Evans
1987 AL- Minnesota Twins/ Bert Blyleven
1988 AL- Boston Red Sox/ Dwight Evans
1988 NL- New York Mets/ Keith Hernandez
1990 AL- Boston Red Sox/ Dwight Evans
   17. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 19, 2007 at 02:50 AM (#2408966)
The results have been updated.
   18. sunnyday2 Posted: June 19, 2007 at 02:52 AM (#2408970)
Did we count both of rico's ballots?

Did we count 'zop's ballot?
   19. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 19, 2007 at 02:53 AM (#2408971)
As for the reasoning I think it's simple.

Intent was there to get the ballot in. Attempts were made to mitigate the circumstances. Things didn't work out.

But in the end, it's more important to count the ballot than to stick to the arbitrary deadline, when the circumstances are reasonable. To me it's honestly that simple.

The Joe Gordon thing was different. I completely forgot about the election that day. I don't even think I commented on it until the next day, when I realized I had forgot to vote. At that point what's done was done. It was no longer 'reasonable' to count the ballot.

But this is different, for the reasons mentioned above. My vote was not in any way strategic, it was consistent with my previous ballots, having Randolph just barely above Fingers. I strongly support both candidates, so there is no issue there.

In the interest of full disclosure, Randolph is one of my all-time favorite players. But that has absolutely nothing to do with this. I told John (via IM) I wanted my ballot counted before he answered my question about whether or not it would have mattered. If it wouldn't have mattered, I think that's more of a reason to not count it. The fact that it matters means it should be included.
   20. ronw Posted: June 19, 2007 at 02:54 AM (#2408973)
As a ballot-counter, I'm in Howie's camp. I don't like the precedent that was set with admitting the late ballot.

Note that the only reason this was an issue is because of the delay between the conclusion of the results and the posting of those results. Joe Gordon had the exact same thing happen to him, where Dimino's ballot would have tipped the scale in his favor a year early, but by the time Dimino posted his ballot, it was too late. Now, because we decided to delay the posting, Dimino's ballot was admitted.


I voted for Randolph at #14, and Fingers is nowhere near my ballot, but I think that the decision to allow Dimino's ballot was a bit too arbitrary and was made by too few people. I suggest a quick poll of all of the voters to determine whether to allow Dimino's late vote.

I vote no.
   21. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 19, 2007 at 02:54 AM (#2408974)
Did we count both of rico's ballots?

Did we count 'zop's ballot?


I counted one ballot for each, Marc.
   22. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: June 19, 2007 at 02:58 AM (#2408976)
So, change those numbers in post #10 to 3 for Willie and 6 for Rollie, not that it matters.

I would lean towards not counting Joe's ballot, but if John would have accepted it if he had received the e-mail on time, then I'm OK with it. (And I say this as someone still a little miffed that his perfect attendance was ruined because somebody moved up the 1900 deadline, although it's my own fault for not keeping up with the discussion during the week. Then again, it's been 100 years, maybe I should let it go.) And the honest truth is that with the number of backlog spots we have coming up, and very little competition for Fingers entering the ballot, he's going to get in anyway.

God, I'm going to catch so much crap over this in the Lounge tomorrow...
   23. Chris Fluit Posted: June 19, 2007 at 03:00 AM (#2408980)
I had Randolph way ahead of Fingers (4th to 15th) and I think this stinks.

Sure, the deadline is arbitrary. It could be 7 pm or 9pm or anything else other than 8 pm. But it is 8 pm. And once the deadline is set, it is fair to all voters to stick to that deadline. No matter what time the deadline is set, there will always be voters who wait until the last minute and there will always be voters who sometimes wait until past the last minute. Sure, Joe, something unexpected came up Monday night. But all of your other things- moving, the race- were things you knew about well in advance. You could have posted last Wednesday and there would be no problem or no controversy. I realize you're the commissioner and I'm a relatively new guy, but we would not stretch the rules like this for anybody else and I think that the rules that apply to everybody else should apply to you as well. Otherwise, the rules become as arbitrary as the deadline.
   24. DavidFoss Posted: June 19, 2007 at 03:01 AM (#2408983)
I suggest a quick poll of all of the voters to determine whether to allow Dimino's late vote.

I vote no as well. I'm grateful to Joe for helping to create such a great project that's lasted for so long, but he's been ostensibly been commissioner in absentia for over 75 elections and I think he's getting special treatment.

I suppose its moot and Randolph would've been inducted anyways, but I don't like the way this played out.
   25. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 19, 2007 at 03:01 AM (#2408985)
BTW, I would like to add that the decision would not have been different if the results had been posted at 8. They also would not have been different if someone else had asked for a (short) extension.

Again - the goal here is to get it right (meaning count all the votes), not to be a slave to an very arbitrary rule that is solely their for administrative purposes.
   26. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 19, 2007 at 03:04 AM (#2408990)
I voted for Randolph at #14, and Fingers is nowhere near my ballot, but I think that the decision to allow Dimino's ballot was a bit too arbitrary and was made by too few people.


I wasn't involved in the decision. I did inform Joe that this wouldn't go smoothly. Looks like I was right. :-)
   27. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 19, 2007 at 03:05 AM (#2408991)
Anyway, what happened is that my ballot was late due to extenuating circumstances. However there was also a communication issue between John and I (in my haste, I sent the email to his old address). But the ballot was counted. This flipped the election from Fingers winning on the second tie-breaker to Randolph winning by one point (I had Randolph 5th and Fingers 6th on my ballot).

Please let 'er rip if you feel this was an incorrect decision given the circumstances.


Well, i'm not going to rip, but I want to offer some observations.

1) Howie's right that Joe had 14 days to formulate a ballot and seven more to post it. He has also had more time than that to anticipate the date of the vote since we scheduled this vote in February (or one of those cold months earlier this year).

2) Joe is the commish, which makes this very dodgy.

3) There are a few lines of thought about the miscommunication in my opinion:
a) that Joe made a good faith effort to communicate his desire to be given some kind of extension
b) that Joe may not have made every available effort (he could have posted in this space as well or used John's member profile to ensure his email went through or emailed one other HOM ballot counter to triangulate the message), though we have no way of knowing what means were at his disposal since the rest of us were not there.
c) that given we know the election schedule well in advance, the nature of the effort may not make any difference.

4) One issue of importance is the legitimacy of our decision-making process, particularly as it is designed to mimic that of the HOF. I do not know precisely what the HOF's policy says about when ballots are to be returned and whether extensions can be granted. I also don't know whether things like "postmarked by" are good enough or whether "arrive by" is their standard. Or if they simply take late ballots, I mean they don't announce the vote for a couple months, I think.


Unfortunately, the only experience sort of like this that I've been through offhand was fantasyball waiver deadline where someone sent the email at 1 minute before the deadline but the email didn't arrive to the tranny czar until two hours later, prompting much hoohah when the late(?) emailer's waiverwire bid would have won the big catch of the week. I don't know what the ultimate result was, but there was no good way to resolve the issue. Which brings up #5:

5) No matter what happens here, it's possible someone comes away very sore about the whole thing. We should tread carefully and avoid allowing personal character judgements to invade any part of the discussion of the issue.

Anyway, I got no suggestions for action, just observations, sorry.
   28. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 19, 2007 at 03:07 AM (#2408992)
"but he's been ostensibly been commissioner in absentia for over 75 elections"


Somewhat true, but a bit harsh? It comes and goes in waves. A lot has happened over the last 5 years, and especially the last few months. I have literally no time right now. I thought I would have time tonight, and something very unexpected and unavoidable came up. I wouldn't say that I've been in absentia for 75 years. maybe 30 years combined at various points over the 70.

"and I think he's getting special treatment."

Absolutely 100% not true. I would have made this decision in the past.

If anything on the Gordon case, my ballot wasn't counted because of my position in the project and not wanted to appear to play favorites. I would imagine my comments at the time said that the ballot should have been counted, but I didn't want to make waves.

If any regular were to send a note to me or John an hour and a half before the ballots were due asking for a little extra time, I would absolutely say count the ballot, without any question at all. It wouldn't be more than a second of consideration for me.
   29. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 19, 2007 at 03:10 AM (#2408994)
Also on the absentia comment, I've tried to poke in every few days, I've made some quick comments recently, etc.. If I'd have known that something would come up tonight, I would have spent my (limited) time late Saturday night doing the ballot instead of answered Paul W's questions and getting him a list of relievers, for example.
   30. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 19, 2007 at 03:10 AM (#2408995)
"but he's been ostensibly been commissioner in absentia for over 75 elections"

I agree, that's a little harsh. Besides this is not a referendum on Joe's general commishiness, this is about his ballot and the decision to count it or not.
   31. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 19, 2007 at 03:13 AM (#2408998)
but he's been ostensibly been commissioner in absentia for over 75 elections"

I agree, that's a little harsh. Besides this is not a referendum on Joe's general commishiness, this is about his ballot and the decision to count it or not.


I agree with Eric. Whatever the merits of Joe's decision, I honestly don't think it was done selfishly.
   32. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 19, 2007 at 03:13 AM (#2408999)
Should we take the results down for now, until the issue is 'settled'?

If they stay up much longer (like tomorrow a.m., when everyone wakes up), then we can't turn back.

Should the results come down and we change the thread to 'what to do about a late ballot?'

Not a facetious question.
   33. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 19, 2007 at 03:14 AM (#2409000)
6) A vital test of the staying power of any institution is its ability to remedy internal conflicts. So let's take this slowly.
   34. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 19, 2007 at 03:15 AM (#2409002)
Should we take the results down for now, until the issue is 'settled'?

If they stay up much longer (like tomorrow a.m., when everyone wakes up), then we can't turn back.

Should the results come down and we change the thread to 'what to do about a late ballot?'

Not a facetious question.


Probably a good idea, Joe.
   35. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: June 19, 2007 at 03:16 AM (#2409004)
Cross-posted from "Our Constitution"

Looking it over, the Constitution does lean in favor of leniency. It says the ballot committee has the authority to reject late ballots. That would imply that late ballots would be accepted unless there was a reason not to.

I'll ask the obvious question: Is there a ballot committee? Or have we let the Commish serve as the de facto committee?

In any case, after looking at this, I'll say that I definitely vote to accept Joe's ballot.
   36. Paul Wendt Posted: June 19, 2007 at 03:17 AM (#2409005)
*best candidate not yet eligible for HoM

Henderson is a stronger candidate than Eckersley, strong enough that it is certain those teams will be represented.

Not so the '81 and '83 Dodgers with their hopes resting on Ron Cey and Fernando.
   37. OCF Posted: June 19, 2007 at 03:20 AM (#2409009)
Now time for a re-do of post #6. I'm not expressing an opinion here - but it makes sense to me that the consensus scores should reflect the expressed opinions of the electorate, whether or not the ballots count. (I think I did that once before, although I can't remember when.)

And what happened to our other habitual last-minute voter, KJOK?

Highest possible consensus score is still +7. Average slips to -7.7

Howie Menckel: +1
Mark Shirk: +1
ronw: 0
Chris Fluit: 0
Esteban Rivera: -1
Sean Gilman: -2
Got Melky: -3
Jim Sp: -3
John Murphy: -3
Juan V: -3
Mike Webber: -3
...
OCF: -4
...
Chris Cobb: -4
...
'zop: -6
Brent: -6 (median)
andrew siegel: -6 (median)
Adam Schafer: -6
...
Joe Dimino: -10
...
Rusty Priske: -12
Mark Donelson: -13
Dan R: -13
Thane of Bagarth: -14
Patrick W: -14
Rob Wood: -16
Eric Chalek: -20
karlmagnus: -22
EricC: -23
yest: -24
   38. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 19, 2007 at 03:22 AM (#2409011)
We are going to take the results down for now while we discuss this.

I won't be able to discuss during the day tomorrow, but I'll read everything when I get home.

But I would like to add that we've honored extension requests in the past, though I don't have the time to find them right now. I'm fairly certain we've never denied such a request.
   39. Chris Fluit Posted: June 19, 2007 at 03:23 AM (#2409012)
36. Paul Wendt Posted: June 18, 2007 at 11:17 PM (#2409005)
*best candidate not yet eligible for HoM

Henderson is a stronger candidate than Eckersley, strong enough that it is certain those teams will be represented.


I listed Eckersley ahead of Henderson because he'll be eligible first and will likely make Henderson's presence on those teams a moot point.
   40. Arrieta, Gentile Arrieta Posted: June 19, 2007 at 03:24 AM (#2409014)
If I couldn't get my ballot in on time for whatever reason, I wouldn't even try to have it counted.

The decision smacks of favoritism, whether or not there was any. There's been a lot of posts over the years about this possibly becoming an important institution someday. A lot of it's pipe dreams but still: how seriously would these results be taken by an outside observer because it looks like The Boss managed to get the rules bent?
   41. DavidFoss Posted: June 19, 2007 at 03:27 AM (#2409018)
Somewhat true, but a bit harsh?

Yeah, I suppoe that was a bit harsh, but I just had to get it out there. :-)

No personal worries here, just voicing an opinion. No matter what the decision is here, I'll be back to my normal self in all of the other threads. :-)
   42. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 19, 2007 at 03:28 AM (#2409020)
If we're going constitutional on this, we might need to ask whether Joe's ballot is technically late.

Scenario 1) If Joe is saying that his contacting John constitutes a de facto extension, then his ballot is not late, it's merely given an extension of ontimeliness.

Scenario 2) If Joe is saying the ballot is, indeed, late, then the ballot committe should have the ability to reject it (or not). [this then suggests that the request for extension is not granted immediately upon asking for it.]

In other words, does the mere intention to ask for an extension constitute an extension, even if the extender doesn't get the message? If it does not and there is no extension granted, then the ballot committee (whoever they are) can act in accordance with the rules as Devin has noted. Which chicken-and-eggishly gets back to whether Joe consitutes a committe of one for extensions in balloting or as a ballot committee.
   43. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: June 19, 2007 at 03:30 AM (#2409023)
I vote very strongly in favor of counting the ballot. What matters is having the most complete participation possible, particularly from established and respected voters.
   44. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: June 19, 2007 at 03:31 AM (#2409024)
The person whose ballot is in question should not be the one to decide if it counts or not, especially since it changes the results of the election.

A few years ago, all employees of the state of Illinois had to take an online ethics exams. One point the exam, which was pretty much just common sense stuff, drilled into you was that part of a conflict of interest was the appearance of a conflict of interest. I really don't care what Joe's intent is, it's a terrible idea to allow the ballot under these circumstances.
   45. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 19, 2007 at 03:32 AM (#2409025)
We should shift this discussion to the Constitution thread.
   46. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 19, 2007 at 03:37 AM (#2409029)
Eric, I'll respond to #42 on the Constitution thread.

Dan R - I'm glad at least one person out there is on the same wave-length as me, I'm not crazy.

Dag Nabbit - Constitution thread.
   47. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 19, 2007 at 03:38 AM (#2409030)
Sorry if this turns into a double post, I posted right before the thread switched titles and it ate it.

If post #35 from Devin is the criteria to use, then it seems to me a helpful determination is whether Joe's ballot is on time or late.

-Joe's ballot posted after 8 PM.
-Joe attempted to make his intention for an extension known.
-Joe was not able to actually communicate that intention to anyone.

Which means this:

Scenario 1) If Joe, as commish (and ballot committe?) felt that his intention (which was not successfully communicated to John) constituted an extension, his ballot is not late, it falls under the extension.

Scenario 2) If Joe is required to have actually informed someone of the extension, and failed to do so, then his ballot is late and can be remanded to the ballot committee for examination.

So.
-Can Joe accept his own extension request without successfully communicating it to anyone? In which case, valid vote.
-Or does the lack of successful communication mean his ballot is late and goes to a committe whose participants are not currently known? (are they?)
-Could the lack of successful communication even mean that his request is still pending?
   48. DavidFoss Posted: June 19, 2007 at 03:38 AM (#2409031)
Somewhat true, but a bit harsh

Yeah, I suppose it was a bit harsh. :-)

I just had to get my opinion out there.

No "personal" worries here. I realize this is a delicate issue and I'll be OK with whatever the final decision is and I'll be back to my normal self in all the other threads. :-)
   49. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 19, 2007 at 03:39 AM (#2409034)
Doubled up indeed, sorry guys. At least I reformulated for the second one!
   50. DavidFoss Posted: June 19, 2007 at 03:40 AM (#2409036)
double post... sorry... thought the post was lost in the thread rename...
   51. Mark Donelson Posted: June 19, 2007 at 03:41 AM (#2409039)
The person whose ballot is in question should not be the one to decide if it counts or not, especially since it changes the results of the election.

Yes, I think it's Joe's commishness that's the problem here.

I don't actually feel particularly strongly either way on the subject of counting the ballot or not; the decision seems to depend on whether we listen to the lenient wording of the Constitution or the harsh wording of Grandma's warning on the ballot thread.

But it does seem to me that Joe has the power to make this problem disappear if he wants to, by simply withdrawing his own ballot. That almost certainly wouldn't change the final HOM population, and would avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest (and in such things, appearances do matter, often more than intention). I'd encourage him to take the high road on this, since he and he alone right now has the power to dispel what will otherwise almost clearly leave a bad taste in many voters' mouths. (Though not mine, actually.)
   52. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 19, 2007 at 03:44 AM (#2409043)
Agreed with Dag Nabbit in post #44.
   53. Paul Wendt Posted: June 19, 2007 at 03:44 AM (#2409044)
39. Chris Fluit Posted: June 18, 2007 at 11:23 PM (#2409012)
36. Paul Wendt Posted: June 18, 2007 at 11:17 PM (#2409005)

*best candidate not yet eligible for HoM

Henderson is a stronger candidate than Eckersley, strong enough that it is certain those teams will be represented.

I listed Eckersley ahead of Henderson because he'll be eligible first and will likely make Henderson's presence on those teams a moot point.
<<

Wow, 19 new articles between #16 and 36.
Chris F, we need to memorize this exchange so we can reproduce it if the thread disappears into cyberspace.
   54. Mike Webber Posted: June 19, 2007 at 03:45 AM (#2409046)
Since I meant to vote for George Brett last year, and missed the deadline, can I turn in my votes now?
:>
   55. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 19, 2007 at 03:47 AM (#2409048)
Since I meant to vote for George Brett last year

I bet you got hades for that one, Webber. ; )
   56. Esteban Rivera Posted: June 19, 2007 at 03:52 AM (#2409051)
As the "Oh yeah, he votes here too"/speaks rarely guy, and having seen all the permutations of this argument since the Spalding-Sutton post-election argument of 1906, I just have one question:

If this were my ballot (or a similar "vocal" voter), would we be having this discussion?

Answer honestly.
   57. Adam Schafer Posted: June 19, 2007 at 03:56 AM (#2409053)
To keep things on the up and up, I honestly feel that as commish Joe shouldn't have any say in the matter other than pleading his case. It is his project though, so he has the power to do as he will. However, who SHOULD have the say? Do we take it to a popular vote? Then it would be the Finger's supporters vs. the non-Fingers supporters in the popular vote. Is that fair either? Trying to leave Joe out of this as much as possible, I do personally feel that he had the best point, should we not let all voices be heard in a close vote to get the most accurate results? It's not like Joe just all of the sudden put Fingers on the ballot for the very first time and that was the deciding factor. He has been consistent there. I hear the other side of the argument too. A deadline is a deadline and we've had a lot of days prior to now to have got our ballot in. All in all, my own strongest feeling on the matter is that his vote should stand. I am borderline on that stance though. It's late, I'm rambling, I'll shut up now.
   58. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 19, 2007 at 03:57 AM (#2409055)
CONSTITUTION THREAD guys. Please. Thanks!
   59. Chris Cobb Posted: June 19, 2007 at 04:07 AM (#2409058)
Three points, a question, and two tentative proposals.

1) I agree with the comments that the Constitution clearly favors counting ballots over maintaining a very strict deadline. The Constitution says that ballot corrections can in fact be submitted and will be accepted up until the results are posted, even if the deadline has passed.

2) The Constitution was probably written with the idea that more than 24 hours would typically pass between the end of the voting and the posting of results. There were times when we waited more than a day, as I recall. The automation of the process, and John's devoted work in bringing results up quickly, makes the "give" in the system less than was intended. We enjoy the quick turnaround, and I wouldn't want to go back to the old way, but I think it's important to remember past practice in this matter.

3) Even though Joe's action is in keeping with the spirit of the ConstitutionI, it seems to me unlikely that anyone but Joe would have requested an extension of this kind. That makes the situation dicey, since it's hard for me to see how this could not have the appearance de facto of the Commissioner exercising special privilege. If a similar extension has been granted to anyone else in the past, however, then that precedent would indicate that Joe's attempt to request a short extension is not an excercise of special privilege and should be honored.

So the question: is this extension unprecedented, or is it not?

If there is precedent, then let's accept Joe's ballot and move on.

If there is not precedent, then Joe is the one with authority to decide in these matters, since we have no ballot committee. However, his exercise of authority to have his ballot accepted in an unprecendented way would mevertheless have an appearance of impropriety. I am certain that (1) Joe's intentions are entirely honorable, (2) his actions are in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution, and (3) it is finally his decision to make about whether the ballot is counted. Unless there is a precedent, though, I would advise him to either (1) withdraw his ballot voluntarily to avoid the appearance of impropriety or (2) recuse himself in this case by putting the question to a formal vote of the electorate, to be taken, say, in the next 24 hours, with everyone who cast a ballot in the 2000 election eligible to vote.
   60. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: June 19, 2007 at 04:18 AM (#2409066)
Cross-posted to Constituion thread

All right, if we're going to get legalistic about this (maybe we're not, but I want to say this anyway). Not that I'm a lawyer.

The Constituion has been available for everyone to read and comment on since the foundation of the Hall of Merit. If anyone had any objections to the wording of the Consitution on ballot issues, or any questions about the existence of the ballot committee, they had the opportunity to raise them. To my knowledge, no one has done so.

The rules were available for everyone to read, and as members of the community of the Hall of Merit, I think there is an implied obligation to do so. I am reasonably sure that when someone mentions that they have an interest in voting, Joe or John advises them to check the Constitution thread. So, if people object to the rules, it is a little late to say so after their application has come into question.

On the other hand, the rules also specify that there is a deadline for voting, and it's Joe's responsibility to be aware of that and get his vote in before the deadline. And while the role of Ballot Committee may have devolved onto Joe by the inaction of everyone, it has also been the case that the day-to-day decisions have been given to the custody of John, and he has always stated the view that the deadline was more final in case of close elections.

My view, as I said earlier, is that the Constitution seems to call for leniency, and that it should be the ultimate authority. While John and Joe should have worked out their differences on the late ballot issue, that didn't happen, and we can't change that now.

Having said that, given the issue of a percieved conflict of interest, the best thing for everyone might be for the "no count"ers and Joe to take it to a neutral arbitrator, if they can find someone willing to fill the role. (And yes, I know how silly this sounds, but I think the important thing here is for everyone to feel they were treated fairly.)

If most everyone is willing to agree to a vote of the electorate as Chris Cobb suggests, that would be an easier solution, as long as everyone feels confident that nobody's voting with the results in mind.
   61. sunnyday2 Posted: June 19, 2007 at 05:04 AM (#2409092)
Scenario: Joe is out, Fingers is in. Randolph goes forward to 2001 where he is compared to Lou Whitaker. Everyone comes to their senses and drops Willie off their ballots, some forever.

Far-fetched?
   62. sunnyday2 Posted: June 19, 2007 at 05:06 AM (#2409093)
Seriously.

John wrote that no ballots would be accepted after 8 p.m.

Do we know for sure that somebody didn't read that and say, shoot, I can't make it by 8, and so they didn't vote. If they had known that John didn't really mean it, maybe they would have voted at 8:45. Do we know for sure that didn't happen?
   63. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 19, 2007 at 05:13 AM (#2409095)
All they would have had to have done marc, as others have done in the past, is send John an email and ask for an extension. John would have asked me and it would have been granted.

It's happened before. I guess I should track all of this, but it isn't a business, it's a group of friends working on a project.
   64. Mark Donelson Posted: June 19, 2007 at 05:39 AM (#2409103)
it isn't a business, it's a group of friends working on a project.

True, but it's a project we were all hoping to have taken seriously by the likes of the living electees, among others. Which does inevitably mean that appearances are important. (Admittedly, we haven't had much luck with getting the Santos and Torres and Griches and Blylevens to pay attention, that I know of, but unless we've given up that goal, I think stuff like this can hurt.)
   65. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 19, 2007 at 11:23 AM (#2409187)
In the past, there have only been two ways that I would allow a ballot after the deadline (within reason, of course). The first one would be in a runaway election where the ballot in question wouldn't affect anything and wouldn't upset anyone. The second one would be in an e-mail in advance asking for a delay (like I did for Dan in the above post).

Though I didn't get his e-mail since he e-mailed an old, dead address of mine, I believe him when he said he did this so I would allow it in this case.

With that said, the solution would be to get the ballot in way in advance of the deadline. I honestly don't understand the last second postings every single week.


I posted this in the Constitution thread, but it probably belongs here even more.
   66. Willie Mays Hayes Posted: June 19, 2007 at 12:31 PM (#2409204)
I had Randolph way ahead of Fingers (4th to 15th) and I think this stinks.

Sure, the deadline is arbitrary. It could be 7 pm or 9pm or anything else other than 8 pm. But it is 8 pm. And once the deadline is set, it is fair to all voters to stick to that deadline. No matter what time the deadline is set, there will always be voters who wait until the last minute and there will always be voters who sometimes wait until past the last minute. Sure, Joe, something unexpected came up Monday night. But all of your other things- moving, the race- were things you knew about well in advance. You could have posted last Wednesday and there would be no problem or no controversy. I realize you're the commissioner and I'm a relatively new guy, but we would not stretch the rules like this for anybody else and I think that the rules that apply to everybody else should apply to you as well. Otherwise, the rules become as arbitrary as the deadline.


Chris Fluit and I might be the same person - I had this response nearly typed out verbatim before I saw his comment. Only difference is our relative placings of willie and Rollie, as Rollie isn't (wasn't?) near my ballot.
   67. Guapo Posted: June 19, 2007 at 01:35 PM (#2409250)
My unsolicited proposed solution to your problem:

(1) You extend the 2000 ballot deadline to 8 PM ET, today, Tuesday June 19. That way you get to count Joe's ballot and you also offer an extension to anyone else who didn't get their vote in on time, to obtain the fullest results and avoid the appearance of impropriety or favoritism.

(2) You amend the Constitution going forward to provide that if you don't have your ballot posted on the ballot thread, post-stamped before the established deadline, the ballot won't be counted. No extensions offered unless offered to the entire group.
   68. Juan V Posted: June 19, 2007 at 02:09 PM (#2409307)
My two cents:

The current rules are here for a reason. But I think that, in tight elections like this, some flexibilty would be appropiate.
   69. rawagman Posted: June 19, 2007 at 02:21 PM (#2409321)
I have been offline for much of that past two weeks. So I only think I know what's going on.
With the heavy assumption that I do, here's what I think we should do:
1) Allow Joe's ballot to stand - as well - extend the invitation to all regular and semi-regular voters who missed this election to cast their ballot as well.
2) For all future elections, change cut off time to midnight EST - it seems to me to make more sense - less arbitrary.
3) Turn all future elections into secret ballots. As those who vote (too?) late are privy to the general election trends, who is to say that one or two voters, over time, have not been influenced by the votes that came before theirs. Have these ballots sent to 3-5 members of a committee who will compare results at the end before announcing the totals. The ballots will still require explanations and will be posted in full after the results have been verified.

4) Ask yourselves one question - do you trust Joe? Do you beleive he is a man of integrity? Do you beleive in the spirit of the law or the letter of the law? The answers to these questions should help us see the proper path to head down.
   70. karlmagnus Posted: June 19, 2007 at 03:00 PM (#2409361)
I have no particular axe to grind in this election, unlike 1998, but I don't think there's any rational basis for ballots submitted after 8pm Monday to be counted, especially when John has formally closed the voting. Rules are rules, especially in a very close election; if you want it to count, vote early. Otherwise there will be continual uncertainty in every election and hard feelings about close ones.


Also there is NO WAY the results should have been taken down. This is NOT a close decision it is a clear breach of the rules. Nor should the deadline be 12.00 which is impossibly inconvenient for people with a real-world schedule.

I have to say it makes me very angry that this is even in question.
   71. dan b Posted: June 19, 2007 at 03:11 PM (#2409371)
This may be a first, but I agree completely with karlmagnus, post #70. Late is late.
   72. dan b Posted: June 19, 2007 at 03:23 PM (#2409384)
It would be interesting to compare Randolph and Whitaker in 2001.
   73. sunnyday2 Posted: June 19, 2007 at 03:51 PM (#2409416)
Maybe we can get Scalia and Thomas to weigh in.
   74. Scoriano Flitcraft Posted: June 19, 2007 at 04:14 PM (#2409440)
As I am ignorant of the existing rules and constitution on voting and on disputes, feel free to ignore or adapt this as you like.

I would consider having a respected and available subcommittee of five or so active participants excluding Joe decide how to clarify the rule to make the intent of the rule clear. Joe should be available to the committee for what he thinks the intent was, but with no role for him in the decision-making. (I think it is important for Joe to step back and stop advocating his position so that those who are feeling aggrieved or disappointed are not tempted to suspect favoritism or worse in this case in a way that might sour them and others on the entire project.)

You might even consider bringing in complete outsiders to constitute the committee.

After the committee agrees on the rule clarification in writing, put it up for a vote requiring majority or even 2/3 approval of those voting.

Then apply the rule as clarified to the situation.

The committee should also propose what the rule should be going forward, and if that is a change, it should be approved pursuant to whatever protocol the constitution requires or, if none, majority or 2/3 approval.

Leave enough time to formulate these plans, study the issues offline as much as possible and publish clear rules on the timing of each step as far in advance as possible, including the future votes for these matters, with no late votes permitted on these matters absent a long email/site outage.
   75. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 19, 2007 at 07:24 PM (#2409679)
Please see post 226 on the Constitution thread - breaking news as it were . . .
   76. Juan V Posted: June 19, 2007 at 07:47 PM (#2409712)
So... where do we stand?
   77. Rick A. Posted: June 20, 2007 at 12:48 AM (#2410148)
John,

Not sure if this has been said yet, since I didn't get to read this whole thread, but...

I copied the election results to my flash drive last night to read it at work today and compare it to my ongoing ballot computations. (Since I can't get BTF at work)

I noticed that there was I had a discrepancy with the results.

I had Bob Johnson with 211 pts rather than 195.
I also had Tommy John with 77 pts rather than 93.

I checked with the ballot thread and this is what I found.
Bob Johnson had 2 5th place votes(DL from MN and Andrew M)
Tommy John had 0 5th place votes.

The result thread had each with one 5th place vote.
   78. Rick A. Posted: June 20, 2007 at 01:35 AM (#2410235)
BTW. That was before Joe's ballot was counted.
   79. OCF Posted: June 20, 2007 at 02:13 AM (#2410281)
Rick - that's what John and I were talking about last night. You're right, and I'm sure that will be fixed when it comes back.
   80. KJOK Posted: June 20, 2007 at 04:09 AM (#2410522)
And what happened to our other habitual last-minute voter, KJOK?


Well, I thought I was too late. However, I would have been AHEAD of Joe D., so maybe I can still vote? ;>)

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Forsch 10 From Navarone (Dayn)
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.5075 seconds
49 querie(s) executed