Thanks for your comments.
Comments below. Bottom line: I cannot accept your proposal for Adcom
replacement unless it is modified in some way to meet the objections set out
below. We all agree, I'm sure, that the charter committee should go back to
the constituency unified. We don't want to have to debate these issues on
the list. So let's try to find some mutually acceptable compromise.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dany Vandromme"
> I saw the difference between the alternate and the replacement. My feeling
> is that, for a fair vote, all candidature should be equivalent.
> If some ballot have 2 names rather than one, the result will be affected
> anyway by the combination effect (that effect can be + or -), depending if
> the second name will attract or repulse. I am sure that a second name will
> not be neutral.
The "Adcom" replacement method means is that voters have no idea who will
replace the person they vote for. That is much worse, in my opinion. It is
certainly less fair.
> Second, having some ballot with two names and others with one name is not
> fair, even if the second name is not mandatory. I understand that your
I see no "unfairness." Everyone has the same chance to put forward a
replacement candidate. If they choose not to, it is their choice, and voters
can take this into consideration. How is this unfair?
> Last, your proposal will induce an over representation of the 2-names
> region (not in the NC meeting, since we are talking of replacement
> proposal) in the running of the constituency.
No. This is just mistaken on your part. The replacement candidate is not a
formal member of Adcom. See the charter. And besides, as you have noted to
me, anyone can volunteer to be on any committee, and to participate in Adcom
meetings. So if there are two "activists" from one region, that region may
be "overrepresented" with or without this proposal.
Just to show you how meaningless this objection is, both Kent and I are from
the same region. We are both active in Adcom meetings. And yet, we have very
different ideas, and we represent very different groups. So what does it
mean, that NA is "overrepresented?" And does it make any difference whether
or not either of us is a replacement candidate? Both of us will be active
> I keep a strong preference for using the next adcom member as interim,
> before organizing a new election, in which the second has a good chance to
> be elected, if he has shown a good voice, presence and activity as a
> regular member of the constituency.
Let me outline some of the problems with this method. I don't think they
have been discussed enough.
First, when you have a replacement election, it means that people from other
regions already represented on the NC play an unusually large, and unfair
role in selecting the candidate from the unrepresented region. Here's an
example. NCC has a majority of Asia-Pacific organizations. But YJ is already
elected to NC so all those people cannot vote for an AP candidate. That
means they will play an overwhelming role in selecting the EU, LAC and NA
candidates. Unless there is a replacement candidate, replacement elections
completely redistribute voter power within the constituency.
Second, one consequence of the above is that people who should resign may
not resign, in order to avoid the loss of power or position. Kathy was
willing to resign because she knew she was not capable of meeting the
obligations and thought I would replace her. It would have been pretty easy
just to hang on to the position. I am not saying that she would do that, but
lots of people might do it. And that is definitely bad for the NCC. People
who are unable to perform should resign immediately, and the replacement
system makes it more likely that they will do so.
Third: YJ got over 40 votes in the last election. You, Dany, as next in line
in Adcom, got 18 votes from completely different people. If YJ resigned,
someone who got less than half as many votes from completely different
people takes her seat on the NC. This just doesn't seem right to me.
However, if YJ and her constituency don't care, and YJ runs for election
without a replacement candidate, then it is ok, because her voters know that
she will be replaced by the next Adcom member in the event of a resignation.
So my proposal just gives constituency members more consistent
So I cannot accept the Adcom replacement method. Let's come up with a
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 18 2000 - 10:50:48 PDT