One person, one vote vs. Club vote - Page 1

In the other topic about the upcoming UScA elections someone (okay Rik) said that he believes that UScA should change their policy of each club getting a vote at the GBM to each member of the organization getting a vote.
On face value, and without much thought put in to this, it is hard to disagree with that line of thinking.
Everyone would like to have a vote, I am presently not a member of an official USA club, so I would like my voice to be heard also, but, I think that this, in the long run, can be harmful to the club overall.
Here is why, and Rik, you, having long been a member of the GSDCA, should understand this as well as anyone.
Let's use the GSDCA as an example. It is comprised of a many members that do a lot with their dogs. It is also comprised of many, many members that do nothing with their dogs either because they don't care, don't have time, or are too old to do so. Don't forget, all of these (out of touch) people get to vote. Due to this it is run by a bunch of old, senile people that are all long-time friends and are a little more than out of touch with the reality of what a German Shepherd Dog is supposed to be.
With the one vote per club scenario you will always get a vote from people that are actively a part of a training or showing club. These are the people that should be voting.
What I would like to see is a way of bridgeing this gap for people who are not a member of a UScA club, but, are still training and competing (and I think that there are many of these people). Maybe each region, or state, could elect a delegate (or a few) for the UScA members that are not affiliated with a club, so that my voice and Phil Behun's voice could also be represented at the GBM and in other important votes.
Please add your thoughts and let's try to keep this positive and productive.

Actually just because you belong to a club doesn't mean you're active or any more knowledgeable than someone who isn't.  Exactly what does anyone's age have to do with shit?


Keith Jenkins

You're correct, but, it skews things heavily towards that goal.
People who belong to clubs tend to be much more active in training and "parent club" issues than people that do not belong to a club.
Obviously, there will always be exceptions.

The age thing can become a problem when you have many, many older members who no longer participate in anything that has to do with the "parent club", but, still have equal voting status. This is also true of younger people that remain a member of a "parent club", but, are not actively participating. Both groups easily become out of touch.

The club only vote sounds good in theory.  However, you also have clubs that do not poll their members prior to voting, only one person, or at best a couple people, control the "clubs" vote.

The original club I was in, The other members could care less as long as they got to track,obedience,protection and could trial when needed. That is what most of the memberships concerns are. If you get 1 member 1 vote I think you will find little different in the percentage of people voting. And will it be club members only or at large members also?.

OGBS, it all sounds good in theory. So let's take a look at in another way.

I am a very long time member of the UAW, a very large labor union for those who don't know.

Here is how we elect our leaders. Each local votes for and elects a delegate to attend the meeting. At the meeting any who oppose the powers that be, are put under intense pressure to comply. What this creates are dynasties, with an emperor who rules until he dies or retires and passes on his mantle to his chosen successor. I can not recall one ever being voted out under this method.

I am not anti UScA. Without it and those who founded it, our choice of the GSD might still be very limited here in the U.S. I just disagree that I was not a good member and can no longer participate unless I pledge complete allegiance to them only..

And your thread here is exactly why I make my "windy" opinion known. We should be able to discuss these things like adults. With every person who wants expressing their view or asking questions. Without the constant bullying and people being made to look stupid because their view might be different.

The GSDCA dog is not what it is today because of who voted or didn't vote. It is because this dog is what they wanted. It is what I wanted at one time. If they wanted different, then even the senile would vote for change.

any, best and thanks for presenting your views in an adult manner and asking for mine in the same way.

Rik

 bump

Not in a club and have never been able to vote because of this. I go back to my original statement that the UScA doesn't  want more people to make the sport more popular.  Pick one region and look at how many clubs come and go. I understood the whole thing once I realized this is an organization of clubs not members. So I don't join anymore. People like me who pay for private training are ignored. Why should I join unless I am going to trial that year? Just another fee.

Well it is called the United Schutzhund CLUBS of America.

Going into it unless no one reads, you know up front that it,s the clubs that vote not the members. If your upset that your club didn,t vote go yell at your club President or Training director.



    

the same people comlaining wont be at the GB meeting...this is all internet fodder!