On Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 08:06:05PM -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
> 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.
In fact, this is one of the main arguments against YOUR proposal -- that
was the point of the Bush-Quayle example (but of course, the irrelevance
of the vice-presidency is legendary). The support for an alternate is
simply not determinable from the election results. Perhaps an example
closer to home will make the point better: a popular candidate like
Kathy could pick an unpopular person as an alternate, and she would
still be elected.
In other words, your argument that the "running-mate" proposal is more
representative is specious.
The adcom members, on the other hand, have stood for election on their
own merits. They are not riding anyone's coattails.
> 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.
???
In fact, the replacement elections would be between as many candidates
as would stand for the NC position -- there could be a large number.
Moreover, the regions that are not supplying candidates ALREADY HAVE NC
REPS -- they CAN'T elect any more. The election is among candidates
from regions that don't have NC reps. This is precisely fair.
> And as Vany has pointed out, in various ways the
> replacement election will undo the results of the first election.
???
Don't know what you are referring to.
[...]
> No, I don't believe it: in NCC any candidate is in an equal position to find
> a suitable replacement.
That is an assertion of faith. I don't believe it.
> 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?
1) The people who voted for Zakaria will have opportunity to vote, and
if they vote as a block for another candidate, that would still be
decisive.
2) Once again: you assumption is that voting is purely regional, and your
proposal is designed to further that form of factionalism.
> 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 problem is not with adcom succession; the problem is with your
alternates proposal.
[...]
> 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.)
Um. Indeed, I strongly support the idea. However, as you so clearly
point out below, it is IRRELEVANT to our current issue, and consequently
poor form to harp on 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.
Where did this come from? You simply aren't making sense. There are as
many candidates as chose to run, and they can come from three regions --
precisely the three regions that don't already have a NC rep. The other
two regions can't elect ANOTHER NC rep.
You could make an argument that only members from the three regions in
question should vote -- that at least would relate to the issue at
hand. But I think that would be a bad idea. I prefer a system that
minimizes factionalism, not one that attempts to preserve it.
> 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.
The objection has no relationship to reality.
-- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 20 2000 - 18:18:59 PDT