Secret Ballots and That WG Funding Vote

Here’s another couple questions posed to candidates this past spring:
Did you vote in favor of casting the secret vote re: funding the extra days for the AMC at the WG? Why? (Note: I am not asking what your vote on the funding itself was.) And for those that were not on the AMC at the time, would you have voted in favor of casting the secret vote as per above had you been on the AMC at the time? Why?

No, I did not vote “yes” on the motion to make that a secret ballot.

The entire AMC votes to approve AG bids. When the AMC awarded the 2010 AG, they voted 14-6 to hold the discussion in closed session. Those voting against the closed session were Lederman, McBean, Kinder, Kuyper, O'Connor, and Crawford. Do you think the AG bid discussion should have been held in closed session? Why or why not?

Well, obviously I didn’t think it should have been discussed in closed session, although I didn’t feel very strongly in that particular case.

Secret ballots are useful if the voting is about a specific personal issue that may result in a slap to someone. For example, if we’re voting to remove Gertrude from office, I don’t want Gertrude to know if I vote to keep her or to can her—if I knew that she was going to know how I voted, I’d be less able to vote based purely on what I think is best for Mensa and more likely to allow my value of her friendship (or our enmity) to influence my choice. In the case of the AG bids, it’s hard to talk candidly and possibly critically about projects that members have put so much of themselves into when those members are in the room and their hearts are on their sleeves where we can see them. It’s kind of like always having the firing squad include one blank bullet. If someone is likely to get hurt by the outcome, then a measure of privacy in the implementation seems reasonable.

But on other things, I don’t have a problem being open. The argument that a secret ballot lets us vote based on how we really feel rather based on political considerations doesn’t make sense to me. In a representative body, we should be voting based on political considerations. If the folks I’m representing want me to vote X, then that’s how I should vote. If I consistently vote in opposition to what the majority of members prefer, I won’t get re-elected/appointed; which is as it should be. As it happened, for that particular issue I polled my constituency—the Editors and Webmasters, as well as members of my Local Group, to find out their thoughts on the extra nights at the WG. Even though the majority thought that the AMC should be in attendance all five days and that our expenses should be covered accordingly, once at the table I attempted a compromise: if you read the minutes of that meeting, I moved to amend the original motion to say that the AMC would get only the gala banquet paid for in addition to the normal 3 nights and meals.