In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"Leo" wrote in message
.. .
Paul,

Fully agreed - I found the survey quite by accident when I was looking
up sonething on the RAC web site in August, otherwise I would not have
missed it too..

Was it advertised in the magazine? If so, I don'rt recall seeing it!

Hopefully, the ARRL won't try to pull the same stunt....whatever way
the vote goes, it should fairly represent the wishes of the Amateur
community, not a small (and perhaps biased??) sampling.

73, Leo

Given that:

1) the ARRL's membership represents 25% of US licensees

1A) NCI's membership represents 0.5% of US amateur licensees..

and

2) that the membership is HEAVILY stacked with long-time
hams

How do you know? Without membership data, this is pure speculation on your
part.

(Techs have stayed away in droves - in my view because
they correctly have viewd ARRL's Morse policy as designed
to keep them off of HF)

Again, pure speculation. Without membership data, it's impossible to know how
many members are of any license class. Even harder to discern is why some are
members and some aren't. For example, I have heard many Techs say things like:

- "$39 is too much money for the magazine"
- "The ARRL is a national organization, and my focus is local and regional"
- "QST is too technical"
- "QST isn't technical enough"
- "There's not enough stuff about what I'm interested in"

ARRL's Morse code test policy is derived from what members want. If enough
nocodetest hams join and elect directors who support their views, the policy
will change.

I would, even giving the ARRL credit for the best of intentions,
submit that any survey of ARRL membership is unlikely to be
TRULY representative of the views of the majority of US hams.

I submit that any survey of NCI membership is unlikely to be
TRULY representative of the views of the majority of US hams.

73 de Jim, N2EY