Re: [kent@songbird.com: draft application]

Kent Crispin (kent@songbird.com)
Tue, 15 Dec 1998 23:46:26 -0800

On Wed, Dec 16, 1998 at 12:22:39AM -0500, Michael Sondow wrote:
> Kent Crispin a écrit:
> > Clarification: He is right about the DNSO electing NC members. His
> > second statement is, however, incorrect. Concretely, imagine the At
> > Large had 95% of the DNSO members. According to his second
> > statement, they could determine the entire NC membership. But of
> > course, they don't get to nominate candidates in the other
> > constituencies, so their choices are limited.
>
> They may not nominate candidates in the other constitutencies, but they
> could, by the force of their numbers, decide which candidates are
> elected, and thus see to it that those are elected who favor their
> policies.

There may very well be *no* nominees that favor their policies --
they can only vote for who is nominated, and there is no guarantee
that they will get a nominee that favors their position. Nominees in
general will tend reflect the positions of the constituency that
nominates them.

[...]

> > There is no perfect solution -- given enough money and evil, any
> > system will fail. Democracy only works if there are more good
> > people than bad people.
>
> Why make it easier for a bad outcome and at the same time complicate the
> election procedure? Why not just have each constituency choose its own
> NC members? I can't see what the use is in having all DNSO members vote
> for all candidates.

You may well be right. But there is a flip side you may not be
considering: by having a scheme where all members vote on all
candidates, you are more likely to get candidates that represent a
broader point of view. The scheme you propose is a recipe for
Balkanization.
>
> It's not a matter of good and bad people. All people want to see the
> things which are good for them come to pass. Those with the money,
> power, and numbers to influence decisions in their favor will use those
> things. There need to be mechanisms that offset these natural
> tendencies. Limited candidacies and equal representation help. Majority
> voting of the entire membership for all NC seats doesn't help.

In my opinion it *does* help. It obviously makes candidates more
responsive to the concerns of the the *entire* DNSO, and less
responsive to the concerns of narrow factions. This mechanism
provides an incentive for candidates to respond to the concerns of
other constituencies than those that nominated them. THIS IS A GOOD
THING.

In fact, having the entire DNSO vote on all candidates is a mechanism
to counteract the exact problem you descibe. Think for a moment,
will you: If the At Large is the largest, most diverse group, this
mechanism will tend to make nominees from other constituencies
consider the concerns of the At Large group far more than in the
scheme you propose. 

-- 
Kent Crispin, PAB Chair				"Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com				lonesome." -- Mark Twain