It's over, loser. Give it up.
Wilma
(Yep, voted for Hanke!)

"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...
Will anybody who voted for Tim Hanke please speak up?

We would like to know why you voted for him, so that we can understand
the significance of this election.

The chess world has been shocked by the election of Tim Hanke. Nobody,
not one person, supported his election campaign. So far, not one
person has come forward to say that he voted for Hanke.

There have even been suggestions that the vote was rigged or the
ballot box stuffed.

Yet, Hanke was one of the top vote getters in almost every region
across the US, so these conspiracy theories have to be discounted.

On December 17, 2002, Hanke posted a message entitled "I am packing my
bags ... " in which he stated that he was dropping out of chess
politics. Yet, only three weeks later, Hanke announced that he was
running for election.

Hanke did not seem to be taking his campaign seriously. He often made
racist, sexist and even pornographic remarks. One of his quotes was,
"Bugger the Chinese".

His campaign platform consisted of dismantling the USCF. He campaigned
to uncouple Chess Life from the USCF and to expel scholastic members
from the USCF, ideas which nobody interested in the future of the USCF
would favor.

Everybody, including probably Hanke himself, expected him to finish
last. Nobody thought he would be elected.

Here are some possible reasons why Hanke was elected. However, we will
not know the answer until the voters who voted for him speak up:

1. Hanke talks more than anybody else. Not only is he one of the most
active posters to this group, but he was posting regularly to e-mail
groups before these newsgroups even existed. Therefore, Hanke was much
better known than most people realized.

2. Hanke often attacked FIDE President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, calling
Kirsan a murderer. This gave Hanke the anti-Kirsan vote.

3. Leroy Dubeck, in announcing Steve Doyle as a write-in candidate,
sent out a letter calling for votes for Hanke as well as Doyle. It is
unlikely that Dubeck knew what Hanke really stood for.

4. Nobody took Hanke seriously as a candidate and therefore nobody
attacked him. By contrast, I was attacked more than any other
candidate. I was attacked by Jim Eade in a letter to the voters, the
only letter sent out in this entire campaign. John Fernandez, Bruce
Draney, George John, Stan Booz, Tom Klem, Richard Peterson and several
others attacked me relentlessly. Bill Goichberg posted a website
attacking me. They attacked me because they thought that I might win.
They never thought that Hanke would win, and so they left him alone.

This is only the beginning of a list of possible reasons why Hanke was
elected. However, this is all speculation. Nobody really knows. This
is why I would like to hear from people who actually voted for Hanke,
so that they can tell us why they voted for him.

Sam Sloan

Well King Sloan,

YOu'd better just go quietly (like you had remained during the time you
were "in hiding" right after the votes came out...and yes, you WERE hiding
because you happened to post on every other newsgroup you belong to during
that time), because no one agrees with you and it just gives more fuel to
our infinite collection of "Sam jokes". :-P

M.H.

In article , wrote:

Will anybody who voted for Tim Hanke please speak up?

We would like to know why you voted for him, so that we can understand
the significance of this election.

The chess world has been shocked by the election of Tim Hanke. Nobody,
not one person, supported his election campaign. So far, not one
person has come forward to say that he voted for Hanke.

There have even been suggestions that the vote was rigged or the
ballot box stuffed.

Yet, Hanke was one of the top vote getters in almost every region
across the US, so these conspiracy theories have to be discounted.

On December 17, 2002, Hanke posted a message entitled "I am packing my
bags ... " in which he stated that he was dropping out of chess
politics. Yet, only three weeks later, Hanke announced that he was
running for election.

Hanke did not seem to be taking his campaign seriously. He often made
racist, sexist and even pornographic remarks. One of his quotes was,
"Bugger the Chinese".

His campaign platform consisted of dismantling the USCF. He campaigned
to uncouple Chess Life from the USCF and to expel scholastic members
from the USCF, ideas which nobody interested in the future of the USCF
would favor.

Everybody, including probably Hanke himself, expected him to finish
last. Nobody thought he would be elected.

Here are some possible reasons why Hanke was elected. However, we will
not know the answer until the voters who voted for him speak up:

1. Hanke talks more than anybody else. Not only is he one of the most
active posters to this group, but he was posting regularly to e-mail
groups before these newsgroups even existed. Therefore, Hanke was much
better known than most people realized.

2. Hanke often attacked FIDE President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, calling
Kirsan a murderer. This gave Hanke the anti-Kirsan vote.

3. Leroy Dubeck, in announcing Steve Doyle as a write-in candidate,
sent out a letter calling for votes for Hanke as well as Doyle. It is
unlikely that Dubeck knew what Hanke really stood for.

4. Nobody took Hanke seriously as a candidate and therefore nobody
attacked him. By contrast, I was attacked more than any other
candidate. I was attacked by Jim Eade in a letter to the voters, the
only letter sent out in this entire campaign. John Fernandez, Bruce
Draney, George John, Stan Booz, Tom Klem, Richard Peterson and several
others attacked me relentlessly. Bill Goichberg posted a website
attacking me. They attacked me because they thought that I might win.
They never thought that Hanke would win, and so they left him alone.

This is only the beginning of a list of possible reasons why Hanke was
elected. However, this is all speculation. Nobody really knows. This
is why I would like to hear from people who actually voted for Hanke,
so that they can tell us why they voted for him.

Sam Sloan

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 07:32:53 GMT, "Wilma"
wrote:

It's over, loser. Give it up.
Wilma
(Yep, voted for Hanke!)

Does anybody else find it remarkable that just about the only person
who ownes up to having voted for Hanke is an anonymous poster?

Sam Sloan

In article , wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 07:32:53 GMT, "Wilma"
wrote:

It's over, loser. Give it up.
Wilma
(Yep, voted for Hanke!)

Does anybody else find it remarkable that just about the only person
who ownes up to having voted for Hanke is an anonymous poster?

Sam Sloan

WHOA...you need to get a life. You are a hanging chad on the face of
humanity. ;-)

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.

"Tim Hanke" wrote in message . net...
"Bill Smythe" wrote ...
"Sam Sloan" wrote:
Will anybody who voted for Tim Hanke please speak up?

Well, I didn't vote for Hanke, but I'll speak up anyway. However, I shall
do only on RGCP, not RGCM, in a desperate attempt to get you to do the
same,
Sam.

I think most of us were mildly stunned, but not deeply shocked, by Hanke's
victory. And most of us see that, at least, Hanke's ability to call 'em
as
he sees 'em is refreshing, perhaps even much-needed.

.... Here are some possible reasons why Hanke was elected. ....
.... Hanke talks more than anybody else. ....

Maybe so. If so, that may bode well for future elections. Other things
being equal, those who communicate ought to finish ahead of those who do
not.

.... Hanke often attacked FIDE President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov ....

That could be a factor. If so, it's slightly refreshing, but not a huge
big
deal by itself.

.... Leroy Dubeck, in announcing Steve Doyle as a write-in candidate,
sent out a letter calling for votes for Hanke as well as Doyle. ....

I doubt very much whether Dubeck's support would have helped Hanke. The
"black" faction still isn't all that popular, after all. The
Dubeck-helped-Hanke argument falls especially flat when you notice that
Hanke's margin of victory over the highest non-winning vote-getter (182
votes) was larger than Doyle's total (161 votes).

.... I was attacked more than any other candidate. ....

I'm sure that's a great ego stroke for yourself, but I'm betting those who
"attacked" you were, instead, simply trying to correct the various
numerous
errors you always make in every topic you ever write about.

.... I would like to hear from people who actually voted for Hanke,
so that they can tell us why they voted for him. ....

This would, indeed, be interesting fodder. We finally agree on something.

Bill Smythe

Bill,

There are several reasons I won and I know what they are, even if Sam is
mystified. Some of the reasons have to do with the game theory factors
applicable to an election of this type, and other reasons are related to
specific things I did. I am not going to discuss any of the reasons I won.
It would be like telling everybody my favorite chess opening variations. :-)

I don't mean to imply I knew I would win, because I certainly didn't. The
result surprised me, though I always gave myself better odds than the
prognosticators.

By the way, did anyone notice I majored in political science at Harvard? ;-)
I laid that information right out in plain view:
http://www.timothyhanke.net/Campaign2003/personal.htm
This may be my first national chess election, but I didn't just fall off the
turnip truck in front of USCF HQ. :-)

I will share some of my thoughts as follows.

When I analyzed the election, I knew I could not beat Beatriz. It simply was
not possible, or at least I didn't see how it was possible.

I was puzzled about Schultz. All the pundits said he was invincible, which
almost convinced me they were right, but I was hearing so many negative
comments about him at my own chess club that my intuition told me he could
be beat. Mind you, I didn't try to influence the players at my own chess
club: I never brought up the subject of the election, and I never asked any
of the players for their vote. (I think some of them didn't even know I was
a candidate.) But I overheard two or three players talking about Schultz,
and they weren't too impressed by his long list of famous people who
endorsed him. They wanted to know what he was going to *do*, and they also
thought he was too old.

Despite my doubts about Schultz, I was sure he and Beatriz would both beat
Wagner, Petersen, and Sloan. I was pretty sure I would beat Sloan, but I
didn't know about Wagner and Petersen. I thought I might beat them, but to
be honest, this was based on a serious misjudgment: I expected a much better
turnout in New England. I did win New England easily, but only got a total
of 86 votes--not even 10% of my national total.

Consider why I was confident in New England:

--I had a full-page campaign article and a regular prize-winning column in
Chess Horizons;

--I belonged to the largest club in New England (MetroWest) and I had gotten
all my nominating signatures there and been endorsed by the club president
in front of the membership;

--I ran a club of my own;

--the largest organizer in Massachusetts endorsed me;

--I was elected to the MACA Board in May as a write-in, without even being a
candidate.

Given all these favorable factors, I naively expected to get *hundreds* of
votes in New England. Boy, was I wrong! Apathy, it turned out, played its
usual huge role in this election as in most elections. You may have seen
John Fernandez's post here, in which he tells his sad story of wandering
around for weeks with his ballot in his pocket all filled out and ready to
mail ... but he never actually got to the post office and mailed it. He says
he forgot what the voting deadline was. If that's John Fernandez, who is
supposedly in the top 1% of people who are well-informed about USCF
politics, what can we expect from John Doe who probably barely noticed the
candidate statements in Chess Life, doesn't know any of the candidates, and
has no idea of the campaign issues?

I'm tempted to discuss the game theory aspects of this election, because to
me it is quite interesting and has clear implications for campaign tactics,
but I'm going to resist the temptation. :-)

As Sam scratches his head and ponders the election outcome, maybe he should
consider this possibility: the candidates who finished ahead of him were
better suited to serve on the Executive Board, and the voters noticed this
fact.

To me, the real shock in this election is not that Hanke finished ahead of
four other candidates, but that Sloan finished ahead of *any* other
candidate. Game theory suggests to me why he finished ahead of Petersen, but
I still don't like it.

Tim Hanke

All this being true (and I don't doubt that it is) why do you continue
to escalate the war with Bourbaki and me?

What do you gain? What might you lose?

Mark Houlsby

"Tim Hanke" wrote:
.... Some of the reasons have to do with the game theory factors
applicable to an election of this type ....
.... I'm tempted to discuss the game theory aspects of this election
.....
.... but I'm going to resist the temptation ....
.... Game theory suggests to me why [ X ] finished ahead of [ Y ]
.....

We all await, with baited breath, the moment when you inevitably break down
and explain your game theory theories to us.

Bill Smythe

"Wilma" wrote ...
It's over, loser. Give it up.
Wilma
(Yep, voted for Hanke!)

Wilma,

Thanks. :-) You're my kind of woman.

Tim Hanke

"Bill Smythe" wrote ...

We all await, with baited breath, the moment when you inevitably break
down
and explain your game theory theories to us.

Bill,

The phrase is "bated breath," unless you just ate a bunch of minnows.

Tim Hanke

"Does anybody else find it remarkable that just about the only person who ownes
up to having voted for Hanke is an anonymous poster? (Sam Sloan)
============
Had I been a member, I would have voted for Marinello, Petersen, and Hanke.
I think the fed needs some youth.
Marinello was the only candidate who indicated she'd take a look at the
Metro District thing although I think she had no clue at that time what Metro
District thing really is or what its function is intended to be. Once she gets
a look at it, most likely she'll throw up her hands and flee from it. Hanke
doesn't like it, either. I don't know what Petersen thinks about it...
probably nothing. Petersen is a good guy but probably hardwired to state
association culture... and possibly a Don Schultz hand puppet. I'm not sure
but I think Don got him to run. If both Don and Mike got elected, Don would
double his power on the EB. If Don lost and Mike won, Don would still have
influence via Mike, etc. (RSHaas)