AntiPolygraph.org Message Board

Dear Mr. McCloughan,

As your opponent in the race for American Polygraph Association president-elect, I challenge you to debate me here -- on an open forum that is accessible to all -- so that we may better equip the APA electorate in making an informed decision about who should lead the association.

In a recent edition of the American Polygraph Association magazine, APA president Walt Goodson lamented that the limitations of the current election system -- by which candidates submit a statement not exceeding 500 words for publication in the APA magazine (and on its web site) -- is a grossly inadequate method of communicating campaign messages that may be complex, audience-specific, and multifaceted.

Given your history of vigorous and passionate posts here on www.antipolygraph.org --  see https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=408.msg1903#msg1903).%A0 -- you have demonstrated a willingness to venture into "enemy territory" and courageously take the ideological bull by the horns. 

For the sake of the American Polygraph Association's future, please do so again.

To get things rolling here, I will post my own 500-word statement as solicited by the APA per its election rules. Please do the same.

Following that expository exercise, we can expand on our respective platforms, debate a variety of polygraph-oriented issues, and field questions from forum members.

Why do I take these measures?  Because, in the spirit of the APA, I am "dedicated to truth."

Are you, Mr. McCloughan?

Let's find out.

Sincerely,
Daniel Mangan, M.A.

Since completing my initial polygraph training under the great Cleve Backster and joining the American Polygraph Association in 2004, I have come to the conclusion that the polygraph industry has a problem with telling the truth about the "test."

As current events continue to show, polygraph is notoriously unreliable, plagued with structural frailties, and easily defeated (or confounded) by following simple instructions freely available on the Internet.

That's reality.

If polygraph were a medical procedure I doubt many doctors would use it, for fear of being sued.

Effective polygraph has precious little to do with science; it relies solely on examiner expertise. All of the model policies, industry insider research and wishful thinking in the world will never change that.

A little history... In 1997, the APA proffered a flattering report – The Validity and Reliability of Polygraph Testing – that spawned a lasting perception of near-perfect accuracy. Here's an excerpt:

The American Polygraph Association has a compendium of research studies available on the validity and reliability of polygraph testing. The 80 research projects listed...involved 6,380 polygraph examinations or sets of charts from examinations. Researchers conducted 12 studies of the validity of field examinations, following 2,174 field examinations, providing an average accuracy of 98%.

Incredibly, the APA stuck to its 98% accuracy claim until 2011 – ten years after the devastating NAS report condemned polygraph as lacking solid scientific underpinnings – when the APA published a home-grown meta-analytic survey showing 89% accuracy.

Beyond its continued claims of "evidence based" high accuracy, the APA should address these other troubling issues: victimization of innocent parties via false results; a lack of research on examiner vulnerability to countermeasures; and, potentially harmful discrimination within the APA.

Consequently, I am running for APA president elect on this remedial platform:

1. A bill of rights – similar in spirit to those found in the medical and mental health fields -- for polygraph test subjects, designed to elevate informed consent and avoid potential harms

2. Open-book research, including an ongoing countermeasure challenge series integral to APA seminars, designed to reveal polygraph's real-world accuracy and expose the wide variations in examiner competence

3. Equality for all APA members regarding access to political and educational opportunities, thereby reducing the inequities of a de facto caste society

Realistically, polygraph is mainly about money. While there will always be opportunists in our field, the principled professional will lead by example. That means living up to the recently (and strangely) abandoned APA goal to "Serve the cause of truth with integrity, objectivity and fairness to all persons." 

It is time to eradicate the APA's self-made legacy of unrealistic expectations, and be forthright about the risks, realities and limitations of polygraph "testing." As president elect, I will work tirelessly to bring truth, honesty and accountability to the APA, and to the entire polygraph profession. Please join me.

To contact me, or view my qualifications, visit www.polygraphman.com. I invite your inquiries.

Congratulations on your strong and principled statement, Dan, as well as for your challenge to Mr. McCloughan. 

Now that you have thrown down the gauntlet, I fully expect Jamie (as I knew him through private conversations) to pick it up. Not only did he participate in vigorous debate with George and I, he challenged George (and I later chimed in) to the debate.

As a younger man, not only was Jamie willing to debate, he was more importantly, curious, and as a result discussed concealed information testing with me and upon my recommendation, spoke (I believe) with David Lykken about same in the latter years of David's life.  This may well be the most important qualification Jamie possesses in seeking the executive position he aspires to.

I hope the aforementioned boldness and curiosity has not wained in the intervening years and as he has become involved in the bureaucracy of the APA.  I look forward to a vigorous debate between the two of you with regard to the issues you raise as well as any Jamie cares to raise.

Good luck to you both...

It has been five days since I emailed my opponent for APA president elect, Jamie McCloughlan, challenging him to debate me here.

Mr. McCloughlan has failed to respond thus far.

However, one of the APA politicos who was copied on my challenge to Mr. McClouglan had this to say to some fellow APA members:

A proposal that an APA election debate take place on a site dedicated to the end of the polygraph profession is all I need to know about this candidate's judgment.

In my opinion, such a comment only reinforces the APA's reputation for being insular, closed-minded and self-protective.

Dan,

It seems that in the hive mind of the polygraph community, to participate in this forum is thoughtcrime (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Newspeak_words#Thoughtcrime). Such crimethink  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Newspeak_words#Crimethink)is doubleplusungood. You had best cultivate goodthink (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Newspeak_words#Goodthink), lest you become an unperson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Newspeak_words#Unperson). Perhaps it is already too late.

Oh man, that is so true.

Dan,

Perhaps you should point out to your APA politico, that in a free and open debate, electrons flow into and out of this site pretty much as they do on the American Polygraph Association site.

If that is unclear to him/her or he/she continues to shudder or be repulsed at the notion of an open debate here, perhaps you should suggest that the same debate (concerning the issues you have raised (and any others Jamie cares to raise) with full access to the public and with audience questions allowed) be held on the APA site.

Drew,

The American Polygraph Association website does indeed have a message board, but it's not open to the public because reasons.

The APA pulled the plug on its message board a while back.

There is no mechanism for internal discussion.

All that exists is The Word From On High.

Cowardice abounds.  Hopefully Jamie has not evolved from the young man that George and I knew 15 years ago to adopt the apparent close-mindedness of the group he seeks to lead.

George,

No hive mind, and no thoughtcrime.

But nice use of Orwellianisms.

I cannot speak for Jamie or anyone else. I used to enjoy discussing with Dan in public. Privately we only talk about our common interests in loud things. But sadly most or all discussions ended more than a year ago when it became clear that the discussions were not productive and only served as a vehicle for ranting and agenda with little regard for advancement, learning or disseminating knowledge.

I do know that Jamie contacted David Lykken and showed me some email exchange regarding the CIT. To me it was very interesting as the CIT probabilities are scored with multinomial combinatorics that are rather easy to simulate but rather difficult to calculate the exact solution. At that time John Kircher and I also exchanged emails, and in doing so he shared his initial computation of the multinomial, and I shared with him my computations of the multinomial combinatoric solutions for the entire range of CIT outcomes. It was fun.

When Jaimie showed me Lykken's email it was immediately evident that he had briefly described the basic premise and principles of the multinomial solution. I don't know if David Lykken ever completely worked the solution for the distributions of all possible CIT outcomes. As far as I know the full solution might never have been completely worked out until recently, though the principles will be obvious to mathematicians and statisticians who stayed awake during combinatorics lectures. Most published solutions have relied on a simulated distribution for which we now know is quite good and very close to the exact solution.

There is a little used discussion forum for polygraph examiners. Activity has subsided with the introduction of LinkedIn and other services. Dan has access to that and it could serve as a public or secure discussion forum.

In the absence of a favorable response from Jamie, perhaps yourself and Drew Richardson could attempt to engage Dan in a factual discussion about the APA and scientific lie detection. There is much to discuss.

The real question is whether it is possible to focus on the facts with both open minds and scientific curiosity - vs seizing the opportunity for a hateweek of duckspeak.

As always,

.02

rn

Ray, please, spare us the apologist song-and-dance routine.

I suggest you get to McCloughan and advise him to respond to my challenge to engage me here on A-P.

The future of the APA could depend on it.

Raymond,

You are the chairman of the APA's board of directors, right? Could you explain why the APA discontinued its message board?

I am not able to provide an official explanation, and so I can only offer my thoughts.

Message boards have been extremely valuable to the profession. As a result of message boards we have had many many useful and important exchanges. We have developed professional relationships, goals, projects, and knowledge. Equally important, the level of friendship, understanding, and appreciation among polygraph professionals with different backgrounds is much different than it seemed to me when I entered the profession. Some of the most useful and important areas of progress are in part a result of relationships or dialog may have been facilitated my message boards. Whether heavily theoretic, highly technical, dedicatedly practical, just pragmatic all discussions are useful. Even the silly discussions are useful because they help people build understanding and friendships that can make other things possible.

Oddly, the most productive and engaging message boards have been independent of the professional association. I believe this is because they are perceived as professionally safer. Independent forums do not include the same overtones of obligation to policy or hierarchy. Productive discussion sometimes requires the ability to question our assumptions.

Discussion in a forum at the APA website has always been minimal, and mostly limited to professionally safe topics such as announcements and questions about policies.

In my view, interesting and useful discussion will sometimes require the consideration of alternatives, which can make some people feel uneasy if they are looking to the web resources of a professional association for stability. Also, fun stuff that builds deeper relationships will almost never occur in a message board associated with a professional association. Discussion forums at the webspace of a professional association will always have overtones of authority and policy compliance, which tend to limit the degree of creativity and diversity within the discussion.

Out of concern for the importance and usefulness of an independent space for productive discussion we put up a new forum for polygraph examiners a couple of years ago when it became necessary to take down the original forum for technical reasons.

But along with the freedom of an independent forum we also get some chaos in the discussions, and sometimes people are not so nice. We have had opportunities to observe Godwin's law in action (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law), resulting in unfortunate decisions by some articulate folks to refrain from participation, and resulting in limiting the access of others.

In the meantime discussions have also shifted to other more public spaces. Hostility has followed even there. It is my view that the level of agression has resulted in a reduction of useful discussion in those public forums as well.

In an independent discussion forum problems will be moderated by people naturally backing away from further engagement, or by the owners or moderators who regulate and maintain the space. There is no great discomfort with the sensation that the moderation can be an arbitrary or even authoritarian process.

When problems occur in a professional discussion form it becomes someone's responsibility to moderate the problem, and moderation of an "official" forum can bring on even more drama and reactions that start to have professional and political implications. Moderation of a professional forum will require more involved administrative efforts to avoid corruption of association power into the arbitrary or authoritarian hands of whomever does the moderation.

If there is no public discussion forum at the APA website then it is probably only that other options have emerged for productive discussion, and that announcements and policy communications are more appropriately and more effectively communicated in other ways.

.02

RN

Thank you, Raymond. I would have supposed that the APA forum would have been a more appropriate venue for the debate Daniel is proposing, but in view of its having been closed, I can better understand why he proposed debating Jamie on this forum.

I'm also glad that you don't feel that it is taboo to post to this forum, and hope other polygraphers who might wish to participate won't be deterred by fear of ostracism or retaliation.

If there is interest, I would be willing to host and moderate a debate on the upcoming American Polygraph Association elections. This would be done via Google Hangouts and would be streamed live online. Questions for the participants could be submitted in advance, and after the debate, the video would be made available on YouTube. This could be arranged as early as, say, this coming Saturday at 1 PM Eastern time.

My moderation policy would be similar to that applied to this message board. I would not cut off or mute anyone's microphone for saying something with which I disagree. I would, however, discourage personal attacks or ad hominem argumentation. The goal would be to foster civil discourse and afford each participant a full opportunity to express his or her views.

If Daniel, Jamie, or any of the other candidates in the upcoming APA elections would be interested in this, please drop me a line at maschke@antipolygraph.org at your earliest convenience.

In the alternative, the APA could host such an online public debate itself. But I suspect the same concerns about moderation policy that Raymond mentioned in connection with the APA message board would also apply to an online event such as this.

George, that is most generous.

Deal me in for a one-on-one debate with my opponent for APA president elect, Jamie McCloughan.

What say you, "dedicated to truth" APA establishment politicos -- especially Mr. McCloughan. Are you ready to break some new ground?

[cue crickets]

Quote from: George_Maschke on Jun 13, 2016, 07:12 AMIf there is interest, I would be willing to host and moderate a debate on the upcoming American Polygraph Association elections. This would be done via Google Hangouts and would be streamed live online. Questions for the participants could be submitted in advance, and after the debate, the video would be made available on YouTube. This could be arranged as early as, say, this coming Saturday at 1 PM Eastern time.

My moderation policy would be similar to that applied to this message board. I would not cut off or mute anyone's microphone for saying something with which I disagree. I would, however, discourage personal attacks or ad hominem argumentation. The goal would be to foster civil discourse and afford each participant a full opportunity to express his or her views.

If Daniel, Jamie, or any of the other candidates in the upcoming APA elections would be interested in this, please drop me a line at maschke@antipolygraph.org at your earliest convenience.

In the alternative, the APA could host such an online public debate itself. But I suspect the same concerns about moderation policy that Raymond mentioned in connection with the APA message board would also apply to an online event such as this.

  Actually what I proposed was cutting off microphones when attacks become personal or when people started talking over one another.  Drives me nuts when people of that.  Also, no dodging questions from either side.  Answer the question, or be called out on it. 

That went for both people.  It's a debate, not a three ring circus.  If we want a three ring circus, watch a trump/clinton debate.

My offer was for a fair independent, and unbiased debate.  People didn't like that idea. 

With all due respect to everyone here, both sides will only debate, when the rules favor one side over the other.  Starting to learn, that is how things go in this business

If Mr. McCloughan doesn't have the stones to debate me, he should withdraw from the race.

Quote from: the_fighting_irish on Jun 13, 2016, 05:58 PMIf Mr. McCloughan doesn't have the stones to debate me, he should withdraw from the race.

Oh come on Dan.  You know I agree with you so much, but seriously? 

I was working on a deal that could have made it possible.  He is not doing to debate (speculating) when there is nothing in it for him, and in a debate structor which has an appearance (no offense GM, this is how they probably see it) of being biased.  Frankly, you had a way better chance of you letting me arrange it than here.

I personally want to see one happen.  I think it would give the voters a better understanding of the dynamics going on.  Moreover, I think it gives both parties more than 500 words for their platform, and questions can be asked and answered. 

If you think that calling him out like this will work, think again.  It's human nature man, there is nothing in it for him.  Personally, I think it would benefit both of you

most of all it would benefit the members

Joe, I appreciate your interest to facilitate a debate, or even provide a solo platform, to bring more exposure to the APA election process.

But the fact is that www.antipolygraph.org is the Ferrari of polygraph-information web sites. It has masterful administration, worldwide recognition, and a highly regarded history going back more than 15 years.

In other words, www.antipolygraph.org has gravitas -- street cred.

By contrast, your Internet resources are like a wheezing Yugo -- at least audience-wise -- yet you insist on copyright restrictions(!).

Think I'll pass.

Look, Joe... If you can get Mr. McCloughan to participate on your channel, I'm all in. Otherwise, I'll stick with a proven forum that's far better equipped to get the word out.

-----------------------------

Meanwhile, I find it interesting that the "dedicated to truth" APA establishment politicos scatter like cockroaches when faced with the harsh light of scrutiny.

In all fairness, Mr. McCloughan may be busy with the functions and festivities related to the American Association of Police Polygraphists national shindig, which is taking place this week at the Mohegan Sun casino and resort in Connecticut.

As an aside, I'm always amused when polygraph seminars are held at casinos. It seems most fitting, given the crapshoot nature of the "test".

I'm hopeful, that, over the next few weeks, Mr. McCloughan will be man enough to debate the APA-election issues with me -- anywhere on the world wide web for the public to behold.

First, you came to me.  I didn't write that email.  You asked for a debate, took it upon my self to facilitate that you get treated better than I did.  My mistake, I apologize for even trying.  I now totally get why some of the other responses were curmudgeonly.  Maybe I should learn to do the same.  With age comes experience, it's a hard lesson to learn; but like drinking orange juice after brushing your teeth, one that we all have to relearn the hard way. 

I tried to give ya the vocal forum and linked it here.  You had your cake and could have ate it too.   

You say you want the forum, but, it was just handed to you, and linked to here for all to hear.  I am just to a point, where I think you don't want to debate; you want a debate or platform where you have the advantage and control so you can dictate the narrative and agenda.  That is not how debates work.

You aren't even trying anything else to make him want to debate you, other than shooting your mouth off here.  And even then, all you can say is

Quote from: the_fighting_irish on Jun 13, 2016, 05:58 PMIf Mr. McCloughan doesn't have the stones to debate me, he should withdraw from the race.

Seriously?  That is all you have to convince him? 

Dan, what is in it for him to debate you?  That is the real question.  He has this locked up so far as he is concerned.  Even you acknowledge you know you'll lose.  What kinda person runs knowing he is going to lose, and not at least try to pull off an upset?

Oh and as the copyright talk, well never mind. 

Done with this.  Have fun. 

Back to handling real issues and corruption in the industry. When you get done thinking little bugs are tough, come on down and try fighting a gorilla and her trained chimps.  The APA is the least of the Industry's problems.

Quote from: the_fighting_irish on Jun 13, 2016, 11:38 PMThe APA is the least of the Industry's problems

Indeed, the APA has, to a great extent, fueled the polygraph indu$try. Here are some reasons why...

> A fifteen-year claim of 98% accuracy

> Home-grown "Model Policies" that have little in the way of scientific foundation

> Staunch resistance to a bill of rights -- similar in spirit to those in the medical and mental health fields -- for polygraph test-takers, to elevate informed consent and minimize potential harms

> An industry-insider culture that is insular, closed-minded and self-protective

> Continued avoidance of a countermeasure challenge


People, it is time to eradicate the APA's self-made legacy of unrealistic expectations, and be forthright about the risks, realities and limitations of polygraph "testing."

As American Polygraph Association president elect, I will work tirelessly to bring truth, honesty and accountability to the APA, and to the entire polygraph profession. Members, please join me. 

And Mr. McCloughan, should you ever muster the courage to debate me -- preferably out in the open -- I'll be waiting.

You know, I should thank you for not calling in last night.  it seems I hit some sore spots in Texas with what I said, while waiting on you to man up (so to speak) 

I will clarify tonight.  Who knew using this format of media would have gathered the most response I have been looking for over the past two years when people started telling me this was an issue for the courts.

Anyway, have to set up the pod cast.

New for the 2016 American Polygraph Association election cycle is the use of Dropbox, an online file-hosting service.

Dropbox is the APA's chosen venue -- available to its members via the "2016 APA Elections" page on the APA web site -- for posting each candidate's 500-word statement and photo, prior to the electronic elections which run from July 3-9.

Also enabled via Dropbox is a dialogue mechanism, ostensibly for APA members to post comments and/or questions in the run-up to the election proper.

On the Dropbox pages for both myself and my opponent for APA president-elect, Jamie McCloughan, I took the opportunity to post the following comment:

George Maschke has generously offered to facilitate a live debate between me and my opponent for APA president-elect, Jamie McCloughan -- as well as host debates for other APA office seekers.

Such a venue would overcome the limitations imposed by the 500-word candidate statements that appear on the APA web site and in its magazine.

APA politicos Walt Goodson, Skip Webb, and Barry Cushman have expressed a desire to make the candidates more accessible to the APA electorate during the election cycle, so that voters can make a more informed decision.

Well, boys, here's your chance to walk the talk.

Would you endorse such a venue? If not, please explain why.

Learn more here:
https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=5409.msg41005#msg41005

Let's see what the "dedicated to truth" APA administration has to say.

My prediction is they will do anything and everything to avoid, besmirch or discredit such an opportunity.

Should that be the sad outcome, it will be most telling of their true values.

SPECIAL POLYGRAPH EPISODE, PART 2

Seems I have cut a nerve in Texas, Lets see is I can cut a wee deeper

Seems the truth can be hard to swallow in Texas, but now I know I have their attention.  I have had three, very angry phone calls about last nights show.  What was their review, well, lets just say, it was strong.


There was also some discussion on anti trade, and anti competitive issues and that as APA members, I thought this behavior was frowned on.

If they were pissed at what I said last night, well, lets just say I won't be driving a convertible or washing dishes next to the kitchen window anytime soon; especially with the treats I have had in the past from Texas Association of Polygraph members.

Also we I'll be talking about his Dan is actually right about a few things.  I know the texans will be listening.

A fifteen-year claim of 98% accuracy

> Home-grown "Model Policies" that have little in the way of scientific foundation

> Staunch resistance to a bill of rights -- similar in spirit to those in the medical and mental health fields -- for polygraph test-takers, to elevate informed consent and minimize potential harms

> An industry-insider culture that is insular, closed-minded and self-protective

All good points in some way. 


http://www.blogtalkradio.com/maxprovocateur/2016/06/15/special-polygraph-episode...

And now I wait to be served. 

But my questions to Dan and Jammie stand

1.  It's one thing to say you are against anticompetitive behaviors of your members, and lets not deny that it doesn't, because I have evidence otherwise.  What do you plan to do to curb apa members from engaging in anti competitive behavior?  This protects everyone in the industry

2, If we sell polygraph, should the APA, follow suit with AAPP and the Arizona polygraph industry, and require polygraphs for examiners, when necessary to clear ethics investigations?  If you believe polygraph examiners should not be subject to the very tests we sell; why?

Joe, those are two good questions.

In my opinion, the best way to curb the kind of anti-competitive behavior you speak of is through polygraph-consumer education and awareness, as well as through the APA's rigorous endorsement of a comprehensive bill of rights for polygraph test-takers, which could contain specific items geared toward consumer protection vis-a-vis the open market.


As for using polygraph to "clear" ethics issues within the microcosm of the polygraph industry, forget it. Polygraph is without any proven scientific basis. It functions best as a pseudo-scientific contraption (bogus pipeline) that aids the investigation and interrogation process by facilitating admissions.

For almost 95 years (!), the courts have overwhelmingly declared polygraph inadmissible, condemning the "test" as being unreliable.  And for good reason -- it is. Thus, it would make little sense to use polygraph in ethics investigations.

It seems to me that far better remedies would be available through the courts, or perhaps agreeing to binding arbitration with a reputable -- and neutral, obviously --arbiter, wherein the rules of civil procedure are generally followed.

Too close to home.
Too close to home.

Bronze Leaf Dr
Spring Creek Pkwy
75
W. University Dr
West St

Something to think about, Joey

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Brunchberry+Ln,+Plano,+TX+75023/@33.0610308,-96.7577217,700m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x864c22a45a7a44c5:0x3e2c7390230756e2!8m2!3d33.0611117!4d-96.75696?hl=en

Just say when.

lieguy8,

As we used to say in the army, you're a bold motherfucker.

Too bold, in this case.

ATTENTION: I'll pay $1,000 to the first person who conclusively identifies lieguy8.

I can do check, money order, PayPal, electronic transfer, or even arrange a cash hand-off at Caberet Royale in Dallas.

If anyone has any information regarding the identity of lieguy8, please call me directly at 603-801-5179.

Sign me,
Dedicated to Truth

I have a better idea.

Out and about right now, but then they probably know that. When I get home, I am.upping the ante.

No one will like it, but what's good for the goose

Let's get things back on track...

If my opponent for APA president elect -- APA Director Jamie McCloughan -- refuses to debate the issues with me, he should withdraw from the race.

Mr. McCloughan, are you, or are you not, dedicated to truth?

things got quiet here real fast

Yesterday I again emailed my opponent for the office of APA president elect -- APA director Jamie McCloughan -- and asked him point-blank why he won't debate the issues with me.

Mr. McCloughan has yet to respond.

I hope the "dedicated to truth" APA electorate will take note of this continued stonewalling.

The American Polygraph Association 2016 electronic elections -- scheduled to start July 3rd at 0001 hours DST and run through 2359 hours DST on July 9th -- have hit a snag: the independent hosting web site is mysteriously down.

There was a similar false start last year, yet the vendor -- Votenet, based in Arlington VA -- was retained.

Given that we are in the midst of a holiday weekend, speedy resolution would seem rather unlikely.

Is this latest foul-up a mere coincidence, I wonder?

What were the results of the election?

There were 2,472 eligible voters, though it appears that less than 500 APA members actually cast a ballot.

In the race for president elect, McCloughan received 339 votes (75%); I received 116 votes (25%).

Unlike last year, I did no active campaigning (as through email to APA members, for example), other than to post election related topics on a couple of forums.

By the way, APA examiner membership is made up of 1,239 law enforcement examiners, 1,065 private examiners, and 413 government examiners.

Dan, 25% is not trivial.

Dan is it possible for you to find out the members who did not vote? I think all you need to do is write a couple hundred personal letters to them.

Ark, I likely would have won in a landslide if I sent refrigerator magnets bearing the slogan TRUST YOUR CHARTS to a thousand APA members.

But irrespective of the message, there's a logistical problem: The APA does not make a complete member directory available to its membership.

There's a partial member directory on www.polygraph.org, but it's limited to those individuals who pro-actively registered on the site. Last time I looked, that on-line directory contained about 600 names. My hunch is that it's largely the same bunch that actually took the time to vote.

As for identifying the non-voters, all we know is that more than 80% of the APA membership didn't vote.

 :-X