|
Yes, the software will let anyone vote, but it would be easy to ignore any invalid votes. I don't see why a requirement to participate first would discourage anyone; I even think it might have the opposite effect. This is a small group and I imagine it could seem a tough group to crack, but by saying discuss first, then vote, we'd be making it explicit that we welcome new blood.
In May, as both Bookpossum and BelleZora have discussed, we came very close to having a book selected despite virtually all the likely participants preferring another. No doubt we'd have read it, but it hardly seems reasonable that people who don't participate should drive the selection, and that's the bottom line for me. There have been other months when a vote of only the regulars would have resulted in a different selection. I certainly hope that those who vote are reading and enjoying the discussion, but dare I say it? Perhaps they should read and enjoy the selection of those who are going to be doing the discussing.
We generally have strong slates and the final choice isn't a huge issue, but the disparity in votes for May showed the potential for problems. I'll be frank; I've largely dropped out of the main club for just this reason. Last year, I read many books of limited interest to me and for which I did not vote, only to have those responsible for their selection conspicuous by their absence during the discussion. We're lucky in this club that most feel an obligation to show up for the discussion when they can, even if the vote has gone against them. But I think there's a danger that if the no-shows make the choices, some of the regulars will feel less like putting on a performance. This is a terrific group, and I don't think we can spare anyone!
|