As I write this column, the arguments over what votes count and how votes are counted in Florida have tarnished both political parties. And I thought APA needed election reform!

This issue of Psychiatric News contains information about our excellent slate of candidates for election in 2001. Members are already receiving e-mail messages from candidates and in support of candidates. Candidates often have access to different groups of e-mail addresses that can vary widely in size. On the surface this may seem to give one candidate an advantage over another.

How helpful is it to send multiple, unsolicited messages to members? Our recently completed membership survey may provide some of the answers to this question for future election reform or at least as guides to our candidates. The survey was mailed to all the valid addresses we had for voting members, 30,791. We received 5,021 responses, a return rate of 16.3 percent. Our consultants indicated that a 10 percent return was necessary for a statistically valid result. Our results were tabulated by a scanning process. I am pleased to tell you the response forms contained no chads. For tabulation purposes, our voting membership was divided into four groups—members-in-training, early career psychiatrists, late career psychiatrists, and senior psychiatrists. Since the responses were amazingly consistent across all groups, the numbers I report represent total responses.

Overall, restrictions on campaigning were favored by 80 percent of respondents expressing a preference, including 31 percent desiring more restrictions than those in our current policies. Only 18 percent favored unlimited use of unsolicited e-mail while 44 percent thought it should not be permitted at all, and another 33 percent opined that it should be limited. If unsolicited e-mail contained "Campaigning" in its subject line, one-third of the respondents favored none, and another third indicated that it should be restricted. In summary, the vast majority of members participating in the survey wanted either limited or no unsolicited e-mail election messages.

Sixty-two percent of respondents desire limiting the use of candidates’ and supporters’ financial resources. An additional 16 percent and 20 percent of respondents opined, respectively, that candidates and supporters should not use their financial resources in APA election activities. Fifty-three percent to 54 percent preferred to limit mailings by supporters and candidates. Moreover, 17 percent and 12 percent want no mailings from supporters or candidates, respectively. When the figures are combined, at least two-thirds of the members responding to the survey were against unlimited election activities in these areas.

A majority of respondents supported candidates’ attendance and presentations at professional meetings during the campaign period. Forty-four to 47 percent thought these activities should be restricted or prohibited.

The final questions on the survey asked for members’ opinions about uncontested elections. Unfortunately, the questions were asked in a way that makes it difficult to interpret the responses. Twenty-nine percent of the responses indicated that uncontested elections for any office should not be permitted. Forty percent expressed the same opinion about uncontested elections for president-elect only. Those answers seem straightforward. One possible conclusion that can be drawn is that the remaining respondents, that is, more than 50 percent, favor or are not against some uncontested elections. I wish we had asked these questions more clearly and also indicated that members can run as petition candidates for all elected positions, including those with one initial candidate.

Some members are fearful that the Nominating Committee will have too much power if it can propose one candidate for any office. In prior elections in which there have been petition candidates, these candidates have done well. I recall two petition candidates winning elections for trustee-at-large, and another just missing being elected president-elect. Personally, I would prefer having a single candidate in some elections rather than falsely encouraging a second member who has little chance of success to accept a nomination. Nonetheless, a member who runs by petition does so at his/her own initiative and is not likely to feel set up or crushed by a lopsided defeat.

I applaud all of the candidates running in this election. They deserve your careful consideration.