Skip to content

Liberry Jernel on ALA Election Results

LJ has a feed called Breaking News I just subscribed to for their, um, breaking news. I wish they called it LJ Breaking News or Library Journal Breaking News or even Breaking News What Comes From That Which Is Not American Libraries, because Breaking News is just a twee generic. Even CNN isn’t quite that solipsistic; it’s CNN Breaking News. Does LJ think the only news in my life (not to mention my aggregator) is about libraries… and comes from Reed Elsevier?

But anyhoo… my point was that LJ’s article on the ALA election is a little misleading. It states: “The third online election conducted by the American Library Association (ALA) finally began to fulfill the promise of electronic voting: 14,690 people voted in the recent election … The 13,600 votes cast for president contrasts with 9,999 in 2005 and 11,944 in 2004.”

Correctamundo, LJ (or should I call you BN?), but the 2006 turnout also contrasts with the turnout in 2003, which had a total of 9,844 ballots, and was typical of the poor turnout for the previous decade. 2004, the first year of e-balloting, was a big bump, while 2005 was a puzzling fizzle. I still suspect–and we will never know–that a significant number of ballots for 2005 may have been parked but never fully submitted.

In any event, it’s nice to see turnout up. Should be higher, glad more are participating. Ye who worried that a least-favored person might be elected: participate and vote. That’s how it works!

Posted on this day, other years: