Matt Nemmers wrote:

I voted for Tim Hanke.

I voted for Hanke because he speaks his mind about the issues and didn't
back down when faced with opposition, some of which was fairly intense from
the likes of Dr. Blair and Sam Sloan.

I voted for Hanke because he's a fresh face with new, interesting ideas and
isn't one of those guys who've sat in power-positions in the USCF and
accomplished little, if anything, execpt to make poor business decisions.

I voted for Hanke because I believe he's got the best interests of chess and
the USCF at heart, without regards to personal profit or professional gain.
Hanke has no agenda other than to clean up the USCF.

I voted for Hanke because he's not the bleeding-heart PC commando so many
politicians try to be. Hanke pulls no punches....I like that.

I voted for Hanke because he stuck around RGCP and answered questions
directed at him honestly, instead of disappearing like Sloan did weeks
before the election -- probably hoping nobody was reading his past posts or
his website.

I voted for Hanke because he's a stand-up guy with good ol' fashioned
American values.

And finally, I voted for Hanke -- and actively encouraged Iowa chessplayers
to vote for Hanke -- because he's NOT Sam Sloan.

Sloan can spout off all the conspiracy theories he wants, but the bottom
line is this: He lost. Again. I'm not sure if he'll ever wake up and
realize he's never going to make it to the Board (and save himself $250),
but he certainly makes this kind of thing entertaining, don't he?

Well said. I too, voted for Hanke for many of the reasons you've
just cited. I think Tim Hanke scored well in the articles that
appeared in Chess Life, and I think this is also the reason that
anyone at all voted for Sam Sloan. It the average voter had read
Sloan's posts here, and had visited his web site, Sloan would have
received far fewer votes than he did.