A Chess forum. ChessBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ChessBanter forum » Chess Newsgroups » rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The Defeat of Don Schultz and the Reds



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 18th 03, 05:56 AM
ASCACHESS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Defeat of Don Schultz and the Reds

OK, Don got elected but was only third in the voting.
I mean after all, one of the Reds had to get elected since four of the six were
Red.

In fact, the whole red team was a dismal failure including the family dog
(Sam).
As a team, they finished 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th.

In fact, if another semi-reasonable candidate had run, I am quite sure Don
would be sitting out the next four years.

The role of the RGCP cannot be underestimated in getting out the word on Red
Management. With the USCF organ Chess Life acting as permanent smokescreen for
Don and the Reds, the voting membership had to find other avenues to learn what
was really happening, then word of mouth took over.

For those that kept up via the RGCP and spread the word, we can all say thank
you.
Oh for one more decent candidate.

Richard Peterson
  #2  
Old July 18th 03, 06:37 AM
RSHaas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Defeat of Don Schultz and the Reds

"In fact, if another semi-reasonable candidate had run, I am quite sure Don
would be sitting out the next four years." (Rp)
=============
I wonder what would happen if some fool came out of the woodwork and ran on
the Mensa model (Metro District) ticket? Oops, sorry, you did say
semi-reasonable, didn't you?
But.. by 2005 there should be enough dead or nearly dead areas that voters
in such places might brighten at the faint prospect that the fool had a scheme
to revive and/or sustain activity by redirecting a portion of their high
national dues back to their local areas. (RSHaas)

  #3  
Old July 18th 03, 10:41 AM
WPraeder
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Defeat of Don Schultz and the Reds

I think you have a point. Beatriz and Hanke were the two that were the most
separate from any prior political affiliation, and they got the most votes.

I think that tells us something.

John Fernandez


John,

Good food for thought, therefore what efforts should be made to attract and
encourage a stronger and less affiliated pool of candidates for the 2005
election?

Regards,
Wayne Praeder
http://members.aol.com/govote/nextsteps.htm


  #4  
Old July 18th 03, 11:13 AM
John Fernandez
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Defeat of Don Schultz and the Reds

Wayne Praeder wrote:

Good food for thought, therefore what efforts should be made to attract and
encourage a stronger and less affiliated pool of candidates for the 2005
election?


We've got to get younger. I believe the average age of the current EB is 70,
and the youngest member is Camaratta at 59.

Hanke and Beatriz DRAMATICALLY cut the average age of the board. Heck, Doyle
could have done this as well.

I'm curious as to the average age of our delegates. 55 would be erring on the
young side I think.

John Fernandez
  #6  
Old July 18th 03, 07:02 PM
John Fernandez
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Defeat of Don Schultz and the Reds

I suspect that most of the voters do not keep up with chess politics
on rgcp and voted largely based on the candidates' statements in
ChessLife.

KidDon


I think you underestimate the newsgroups and desperately overestimate the Chess
Life.

John Fernandez

  #7  
Old July 19th 03, 11:29 AM
RMille9601
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Defeat of Don Schultz and the Reds

So how many people reading this forum really voted. Seems like a lot of posters
are not current members.

Russell Miller, Chelan WA (I sent in a ballot but have no way of know if it was
counted so far)
  #8  
Old July 19th 03, 01:09 PM
Briarroot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Defeat of Don Schultz and the Reds

RMille9601 wrote:

So how many people reading this forum really voted. Seems like a lot of posters
are not current members.

Russell Miller, Chelan WA (I sent in a ballot but have no way of know if it was
counted so far)


I voted for Hanke, Schultz, and Wagner.
  #9  
Old July 19th 03, 05:08 PM
Tim Hanke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Defeat of Don Schultz and the Reds

"WPraeder" wrote ...
Many of us have heard the stories about how under the old system

candidates
would spend between $2,000 to $5,000 to be elected to the Policy Board. We

also
heard the claims that under OMOV it would become much more expensive for

the
candidates to run for the Executive Board. So much so in fact, that only

the
rich would be able to afford to run for office. Beatriz Marinello and Tim

Hanke
have previously shared their intentions about what they were spending to

to be
elected. Since Beatriz, Tim, and Don frequent this forum would any of them

be
willing to share with us how much they actually spent on this election?

Regards,
Wayne Praeder


Wayne,

I spent only the initial $250 filing fee to be a candidate. I mailed no
letters or postcards, made no phone calls, made no special visits to chess
tournaments or other events, and incurred no other campaign-related expenses
that I can think of.

I posted several campaign-related pages to my personal website,
http://www.timothyhanke.net, but this did not increase the small fee I was
already paying to the web hosting company.

Tim Hanke


  #10  
Old July 19th 03, 09:57 PM
Spam Scone
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Defeat of Don Schultz and the Reds

"Tim Hanke" wrote in message ...
"WPraeder" wrote ...
Many of us have heard the stories about how under the old system

candidates
would spend between $2,000 to $5,000 to be elected to the Policy Board. We

also
heard the claims that under OMOV it would become much more expensive for

the
candidates to run for the Executive Board. So much so in fact, that only

the
rich would be able to afford to run for office. Beatriz Marinello and Tim

Hanke
have previously shared their intentions about what they were spending to

to be
elected. Since Beatriz, Tim, and Don frequent this forum would any of them

be
willing to share with us how much they actually spent on this election?
Regards,
Wayne Praeder


Wayne,
I spent only the initial $250 filing fee to be a candidate. I mailed no
letters or postcards, made no phone calls, made no special visits to chess
tournaments or other events, and incurred no other campaign-related expenses
that I can think of.
I posted several campaign-related pages to my personal website,
http://www.timothyhanke.net, but this did not increase the small fee I was
already paying to the web hosting company.
Tim Hanke


Mr. Hanke also had, for free, a full page ad in Chess Horizons, one of
the best chess magazines in the USA.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2017 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.