Re: [ncc-charter] why the replacement method is better.

From: Kent Crispin (
Date: Sun Aug 20 2000 - 18:18:36 PDT

  • Next message: Dany Vandromme: "Re: [ncc-charter] why the replacement method is better."

    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

    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                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 20 2000 - 18:18:59 PDT