Odd odds OSTA presidents in Ohio - MATH OR POLITICS?

There are 4 zones in Ohio. What are the odds are president will come from a certain zone in any year? A sixth grader would say one in four.

What are the odds there could be 2 from the same zone in back to back years? A seventh grader might say one in four times one in four or .25 X .25 or 1 in 16.

Hmmmm then the question becomes how does the same zone have 3 presidents in 5 years? A political science professor may say that depends on behind the scene politics and it aint math.

 

STat Man STan, I think Jimmy the Greek's job is still open in Vegas. Roger C.

 

The sixth-grader would be making two rookie mistakes.

1. He or she is assuming the selection of a president of the OSTA is random, like picking a suit out of deck of cards, unrelated, for example, to the qualifications of the candidates, how many from each zone were running for the office, and so on.

2. Even if it were random, which is clearly is not, the odds that there would be back-to-back winners is one in four.

Again, even were this random, there are long runs in such lists which are surprising to everyone. It is a common demonstration of instructors of statistics and probability. The class is divided into two groups.

1. Each member of one group tries to construct a "random" sequence by writing one down, making it appear as "random" as possible.

2. Each member of the other group constructs a "random" sequence by a truly random process like drawing cards, flipping coins, consulting the random generator on a website, that sort of thing.

The instructor can easily tell how each list was constructed by just looking at them. If there are not long strings of one sort of outcome, the list is the result of trying to make it "random." If there are lots of long, "unexpected" duplications like four diamonds in a row, it is a "randomly generated" list.

There is no reason to think a sixth-grader (or almost anyone else) knows this.

The result is that there would nothing odd at all about back-to-back presidents from the same zone even if the ballots were drawn out of a hat, the winner being the name on the first ballot drawn.

N1H1

 

There are only 4 zones in Ohio with 2 Directors from each zone. However, there is also one additional Director (Director at Large) elected on an annual basis during the Ohio State shoot. The Director at Large can come from any of the 4 zones and is eligible to become President of the O.S.T.A. If memory serves (and anymore that is a big IF), Tad Johnson was a Director at Large when he was elected as the O.S.T.A. President.

 

How do you know it is not at random?

 

The odds of picking both presidents correctly prior to the first president being elected are much different odds than 1 in 4. It is only 1 in 4 after the first president has been picked.

 

I believe it is the NUMBER of shooters voting in each zone, Certain Zones have more shooters than others and has more votes, But what if that Director DID NOT VOTE THE WAY HIS ZONE VOTED, That's where a Problem would exist. Do You All Agree? Some Zones do not have more than one person to vote for so that zone Delegate is a SHOO IN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gary Bryant...........................Dr.longshot

 

inteldell, you wrote:

"The odds of picking both presidents correctly prior to the first president being elected are much different odds than 1 in 4. It is only 1 in 4 after the first president has been picked."

This is not the case. The statement was not about "before the first president has been picked." It is after he has been picked and served. Look at what SmS wrote:

"What are the odds there could be 2 from the same zone in back to back years?"

In the way that probability speaks about this, a "conditional probability,"

"What is the probability of B given A?"

"A", in this case, is that a sitting Delegate is from zone "N."

Restated: ""What are the odds of another Delegate being elected from zone N given that the sitting Delegate was chosen from zone N?"."

This is easy; there are four possible outcomes.

1. N followed by N

2. N followed by M

3. N followed by O.

4. N followed by P.

There are four possible outcomes, one of which is N followed by N.

Thus the probability of any on of the four, were this really a random event, is P=0.25.

N1H1

 

inteldell, you wrote:

"How do you know it is not at random?"

One of the the requirements of random selection is that every member of the potentionaly-selected cohort has a equal chance of being selected. Drawing cards is random because after a fair shuffle, every card has a equal chance of being drawn. If a fair coin is flipped, either heads or tails is equally likely. If a fair die is thrown, any of the six faces has an equal chance of ending up on top.

In the OSTA election case, only those nominated can be selected. If there are not an equal number of nominated candidates from each zone, this absolutely fundamental requirement of randomness has been violated and whatever happens downstream is not and cannot be random.

If the "fitness to serve" is a factor in voting, an absolutely fundamental requirement of randomness has been violated and whatever happens downstream is not and cannot be random.

If the voters tend to favor someone from "their" zone, an absolutely fundamental requirement of randomness has been violated and whatever happens downstream is not and cannot be random.

N1H1

 

My statement was about picking both correctly prior to the event of the first and second being picked. Predicting O event and P event on a given date. The original poster is commenting on the same, implying I think political forces on both events. If political forces are on both events then the odds on each should be relevent.

That being said we assume event U does not occur randomly because of events O which would have had a probability of 1 in 4 which is multiplied by the same for event P. .25 X .25 jmho

 

Gary, clearly your point that the number of voters from each zone at the Annual Meeting, assuming there is a relationship between the home of the voter and the home of the candidate, is well taken. I admit, when I did this asked shooters at my own and close-by clubs to vote for for me. And they did; I won 20 or so elections without a defeat; only once with any votes cast against me at all.

I don't know how they do it in Ohio, (but I do know the By-laws and Rulebook and know what's required by the ATA). I have to think that you do not understand the voting process at all. It's the members that vote, not the Directors. So there is no question of Directors following the wishes of their constituents; the constituents are there to make their wishes known personally.

N1H1

 

President is voted in by the directors in Ohio.

What am I missing? Delegates are voted by the members.

We should tho try to figure what the odds are that a person that thinks the delegate should not have to answer to questions publicly could get elected in any state.

Let Miller be an example regardless of the odds. This could happen in your state.
----------------------------

N1H1 - - are saying OH is not following the by-laws?

 

intelidel:

"My statement was about picking both correctly prior to the event of the first and second being picked."

Your math is correct for that case. But not for the case made by SMS was

"What are the odds there could be 2 from the same zone in back to back years?"

In this case, it is not prior to the picking of the first winner, it is after.

Had he asked , "What are the odds there could be 2 from zone N zone in back to back years?" you would be right. But he does not say that; he does not specify the zone. The probability of some candidate being picked from a zone is P=1.0.

The conditional probability of event B given event A when the probability of event a is 1.0 is the same as the probility of event B.

If you think that "political forces" are not determining outcome of elections in the OSTA (and every other state) you haven't been paing attention. The confluence of political forces determines the outcome of every election everywhere.

H1

 

Selts, I think you should go back to first post by "Just Joe" in that other completely misleading thread.

"The implied answer from the OSTA President is that the delegate does not have to answer that question at a regular OSTA meeting. Also implied was that I should meet with the delegate in private."

Implied answers are not evidence; they are the judgements of the writer.

We don't know what was said. We don't know what your words "have to answer" mean. What if he doesn't know? How could he know about expenses when he will not get the financial report until the 8th of August?

We are free adults. When I had a say in the organization I tried to answer question I know the answer to. If someone had told me I "had to answer" I'd have told him ask someone who knew the answer. In 25 years of this I never, ever ran across anyone who thought I "had to answer" and if this is common in Ohio you have more problems than the with the ATA.

Specifically, what did the OSTA President actually say? What words were used? Exactly, not implied? People here seem to have accepted on no evidence at all, that he implied the"delegate does not have to answer that question at a regular OSTA meeting." It's a simple question. Some readers here were there. Did the President actually say that and will you say so and sign your real name to it?

Was it also implied that Just Joe (if in fact he or she was the questioner) "should meet with the delegate in private?" What were the exact words used that implied this to Just Joe? Will yoiu sign our name to it?

N1H1

 

OK, I see now from the OSTA Constitution that the President is elected by the Board of Directors. If I were an Ohio shooter and didn't like this, it would be at the top of my list for things to change. It's your association, not the ATA, that's your problem. In Minnesota and every Annual Membership meeting I've been to, and that's a lot of them, the members do it.

N1H1

 

Yes, the directors nominate and vote for Pres and Vice Pres. So it is not random, it is who can/will do the job based on the directors opinion. I can tell you right now that I will never be Pres or Vice, as I do taxes for a living, and a lot of the planning that happens for the state shoot happens during Jan-April. I could not do the position justice, as my attention is to my business. We choose based on what we have seen each individual contribute. The job of both pres and vice are work load heavy.

 

I agree that the Ohio Shooters should vote for the OSTA President Position, this would do away with the Good Ole Boy Club selecting the President, Like the Present ATA President is elected, by getting In line..

Getting in Line does not Qualify you to be a PRESIDENT Of Annything, Or Any Company, to achieve smooth increase of Sales, or increase of Membership.

The ATA Good Old Boy Club got us SPARTA, Illinois ATA HALL of FAME, and Two time 2 yard Reductions w/o asking State Delegates for a vote on it

Gary Bryant.................................................Dr.longshot Yours in Sport

 

At the Present Time the ATA does as it Pleases w/o consent of Delegates

GB.............................................DLS

 

DR. N1H1, told us the delegates work for and only are to have the ATA in mind. they are to do what ever they think is best for the ATA regardless what the shooters from their state think. This is according to the bylaws. If you want to explore changing the bylaws, I'm sure there are many members that would assist you.
The delegates are only there for window dressing. They do as they are told. I have not received an answer from N1H1 as to who writes up the agenda at the meeting of the B.O.D. That may hold the key to the problem. Roger C.

 

The agenda for the meeting is in the rulebook. You should know that, Roger.

N1H1

 

Come on now Neil, you know there is an agenda that must be followed. And there is the one that is presented to the B.O.D. YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT. I asked who makes up the one that is presented to the board to vote on. Beating around the bush is not an answer. Roger C.

 

Roger, I wonder you and your Arizona Connection can write so knowingly about the interaction of the EC and the BOD; you two have never served a second as a member of either entity. I, in contrast, was a Delegate for 20+ years and on the EC for six.

You two simply don't know what you are talking about. My votes (and actions) ran in direct contradiction to the wishes of several then-sitting EC's and and yet I moved in to replace them.

As an EC member and President, I never told anyone how to vote. In the case of the target year change, I did openly ask them for their votes, (and got them, much to the relief of Ohio shooters and without me they could never, ever, in a million years, have done it) but aside from that I just made the case for one side or another (if I leaned one way or another as I sometimes did, sometimes didn't) and counted the votes. Who voted which way never crossed my mind.

The BOD is well aware that whatever group of voting VP's is on the EC will change 20% in December, 100% in half a decade, and all they have to do is try again as often as they need to get what they want done, done.

You just don't know what you are talking about. You have never been there; I was for a quarter century.

N1H1

 

Neil, I did not think it took that long to decimate a very viable and honorable establishment. wow 25 YRS. Surely after that much service you know who sets up the agenda. Can you answer this question? Do you think the ATA is on the right track to regain the stature it once had?
My AZ. connections feel that the shooters are being short changed by the leaders of the ATA. And have been for the last 20 or more years. When you are running a member based organization, that member ship should not be ignored when making decisions. Are you saying the agenda is spelled out in the rule book. Is the agenda the same for every meeting? If that is the case, why not just play a recording. I'm just looking for a couple of straight answers, Roger C.