Re: AIS:Delayed Registrations/Introductions (awards)
From: Sandy Ives <rives@home.com>
True, there is no space for write-in HM on the current awards ballot. I have
mentioned this
to several AIS judges; also to the odd hybridizer whose introductions did not
receive
extensive distribution during the first three years of introduction; people who
would benefit
more than most if there was a write-in portion.
This is NOT to say the HM voting is biased or unfair. More unfortunate than
anything.
Hybridizers who become better known through the years probably have a short list
of
their early introductions that 'woulda, coulda, shoulda'.
However, how many AIS judges would use the write-in space if it were provided?
Very few
use the write-in space available for High Commendation voting (admittedly, a
much more
difficult task than voting the HM).
Even if the AIS judges did use the write-in space (and used it correctly), the
effort to have
an HM awarded following three years of introduction would have to be quite
concerted by
a block of even more passionate, committed judges than usual. When I look at
the 1997
results (the bulletin that came to hand), the minimum number of votes required
to obtain
an HM reflect the following:
MDB - 32 (Squiggles)
SDB - 33 (a three way tie between Abba Alias Abba, Widow's Veil, and Pirate's
Patch)
IB - 36 (Darkness)
MTB - 87 (Steffie)
1/4<Arilbred<1/2 - 15 (Old Fashioned Girl)
1/2<Arilbred, Aril - 13 (Omar's Valor)
BB - 34 (a two-way tie between Can Do and Margaret Beaufort)
TB - 29 (a nine-way tie...)
JI - 17 (Blue Embers)
Sib - 34 (Golden Edge)
Spu - 18 (Zamboanga)
LA - 19 (Bayou Dawn)
CA - 8 (What's What)
Species - 14 (Illini Fountain)
Interspecies - 18 (Faded Jeans)
The number of Garden and Active Master judges for that year's voting breaks down
as follows:
Region # Region # Region #
Region #
1 32 2 21 3
20 4 30
5 32 6 48 7
39 8 28
9 22 10 8 11
10 12 16
13 49 14 66 15
31 16 8
17 31 18 65 19
12 20 27
21 30 22 47 23
23 24 22
Overseas ~22
Superficially, almost any region could block vote a deserving iris an HM. Also,
a truly
enterprising judge could gather together a group of like-minded judges
(regardless of region)
who would agree on such a vote (hee hee).
Practically speaking, first that iris would have to be identified as deserving.
Next, the judges
would have to compare that iris to all other eligible iris that are on the
ballot (we are still limited
to a specific number of votes per group). Next, the judges would have to
actually complete
the write-in portion (with correct spelling). Finally, the ballot has to be
received by the Awards
Committee (don't laugh, lots of judges still don't get them mailed in time).
Honestly, I think only the Californian and Species (possibly arils) groups could
be affected by
having a write-in section on the ballot.
That being said, I think space should be provided for HM write-ins. If an iris
has not won an HM,
then it is always eligible. Without space for a write-in vote (say, one per
category), there is no
purpose to this rule. Of course, I do not have to count the results, I only
have to mail in the ballot.
Regards,
Sandy Ives in Ottawa, Canada (on antibiotics again, despite the warmest z4
winter in my memory. Two
inches of white mulch survive.)
--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
Get great offers on top-notch products that match your interests!
Sign up for eLerts at:
<a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/elerts1 ">Click Here</a>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
