----- Original Message -----
From: "Dany Vandromme"
> > The "Adcom" replacement method means is that voters have no idea who
> > replace the person they vote for. That is much worse, in my opinion. It
> > certainly less fair.
> No. Any voter will have the insurance that, even the interim rep will be
> issued from the election process. Each voter votes for 1 rep, same for all
> voters of the constituency. The result is the expression of the
This idea would work better if all members could vote for more than one NC
member. Would you like to explore this possibility?
Your proposed Adcom succession method is not the "expression of the
constituency." It simply means that people who have very little support can
end up on the NC. And it means that replacement elections are biased,
because in one case we vote for five candidates and in replacement elections
we vote for one candidate. And as Vany has pointed out, in various ways the
replacement election will undo the results of the first election.
> I still disagree with you on that. To have or not a "replacement" is not
> seen as the same chance for everyone. Ask Zakarya for instance, whether it
> is as trivial for AF than for NA to go that way!
This is a very interesting statement. Zakaria's country, .MR, cast a total
of 18 votes in the last NCC election. All of the USA organizations combined
cast a total of 19 votes. It is hard to believe that a single country
capable of mounting such a large voting bloc in NCC is unable to provide a
single replacement candidate.
No, I don't believe it: in NCC any candidate is in an equal position to find
a suitable replacement. And don't you think that if Zakaria must resign,
that the voters who elected him will be happier if his replacement is from
Africa and picked by him rather than, say, the US?
But suppose that there is a problem finding a replacement. There is no
requirement to provide a replacement candidate. The Adcom succession method
can be used.
You need to explain to me why the Adcom succession method is acceptable to
you in one instance and not in the other. I think that will be a very
difficult explanation to make, but perhaps you can do it.
> > The replacement candidate is not a
> > formal member of Adcom. See the charter. And besides, as you have noted
> > me, anyone can volunteer to be on any committee, and to participate in
> > meetings. So if there are two "activists" from one region, that region
> > be "overrepresented" with or without this proposal.
You did not answer this. I take it you have conceded this point. Good, we
can drop this.
> With the vote process, a candidate has the possibility to convince voters
> from other regions that he may be a better rep than others. The
> geographical diversity is applied on the result of the vote, not on the
> vote itself, hopefully.Do not forget that the vote is destinated to bring
> representatives of the whole constituency, not of a specific geo region.
I agree, in fact I have from the FIRST NCC charter advocated a vote
distribution method that allowed all members to vote for more than one NC
candidate (6 votes, 3 votes), in order to encourage people to take an
interest in candidates outside their region. (I note that as soon as I
agreed with this idea, Kent dropped it.)
But this is totally irrelevant to the issue of replacement candidates.
The main point of the replacement candidate is that the balance of power in
an election with five candidates is completely different from an election
with one candidate. In an election with one candidate, the outcome will be
determined by whichever faction has a simple majority -- this is true
whether the faction is a geographic region or some other. In an election
with five candidates, the votes are distributed more widely, it is harder to
dominate, the results will be more diverse. So the replacement candidate
allows the results of the five-candidate election to be preserved.
I have not heard a single comment that overcomes this objection.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 20 2000 - 17:07:47 PDT