On Sun, 20 Aug 2000, Kent Crispin wrote:
> 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.
Agree with Ken
In all discussions, we seem to forget that in an election, we vote for a
"good" AdCom (and eventually NC rep) member, not for the rep of each one's
Milton is afraid that people with very little (geographical) support would
not be good AdCom (and NC) members. As european, I may feel better
represented by a US lawyer or an African humanist than by a folkloric
As mentionned by Kent, candidates must stand by their own merits first,
not by their region only.
> > 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.
Not applicable in the present case, therefore not relevant
> > 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
> email@example.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain
I agree with almost all points made by Ken, in answering Milton's views
Dany VANDROMME | Directeur du GIP RENATER
Reseau National de Telecommunications
pour la Technologie, l'Enseignement et la Recherche
Tel : +33 (0)1 53 94 20 30 | 151 Boulevard de l'Hopital
Fax : +33 (0)1 53 94 20 31 | 75013 Paris
E-mail: Dany.Vandromme@renater.fr | FRANCE
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 20 2000 - 23:40:29 PDT