I don't know if this has been discussed before, but i'm wondering if a shake up of the charity nominations process is needed?
I know all charities are worthy, but these big national charities get millions in donations every single year, so what we donate is a drop in the ocean to them (yes, they'll still appreciate it and be very thankful, i know that)
But we have tiny independent charities who survive on very small budgets, that will never have a chance against the 'big names'. People seem to vote for the more 'popular' charities, names they're familiar with, especially if they don't frequent the community and read how much certain charities mean to people.
So am i alone in thinking that the big well known charities should be excluded from future nominations, so the smaller charities have a fighting chance, or does anyone else feel the same as me?
All thoughts on this are very welcome.
This makes a lot of sense @natty_noo but I suppose some big charities like Cancer research, still need every penny they can get and it affects us all. However, I would be happy if gg decided to do this as we donate ourselves as a family anyway.
When it comes to nominating a charity, there will always be disharmony in the ranks.
The problem is that the "worth" of any particular charity is very subjective; it is understandable, let's say, that those who have been affected in any way by cancer might support an appropriate charity while animal lovers may favour different charities.
If we stick to a "blind nomination" process, then it is possible that small local charities won't get a look in.
Ideally, taking payback via PayPal gives individuals the opportunity to then pass on the money where they wish and I am sure that quite a lot of us do it this way. At least we get our own choice.
I really am not sure that you will ever find a way that pleases all of the people all of the time - but then we know that isn't possible !!
My opinion on charity votes is once you have won , that charity should not be able to win again full stop .
Also maybe the people who give payback to charity should have the option to choose one of the winners
not the worst idea in the world there are enough charities out there for that to work