Kent Crispin wrote:
> The adcom members, on the other hand, have stood for election on their
> own merits. They are not riding anyone's coattails.
But you conveniently overlook the fact that the 4th and 5th Adcom members LOST the
election; that is, they may have received less than 10% of the eligible vote. And
you overlook the fact that people who do not like a replacement candidate can
refuse to vote for the main candidate on that basis. The "coattails" argument is
> > 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.
Two of the five regions will not be able to vote for candidates in their own
region (because they are already represented on the NC), so their votes will more
strongly affect the outcome in other regions.
> > 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.
Very simple. If another LAC candidate runs for the NC, then Vany could be unseated
from Adcom before her elected term is up. I find this destabilizing and
unnecessary. Why should an election to replace Kathy also end up replacing Vany?
Same could happen to Dany of Europe. What is the point? Why should the resignation
of one NC/Adcom member from one region create the need for a full-fledged election
that can undo the results of a previous election?
> > 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
No, because their votes would be diluted relative to the two regions that are
already represented. In this case, for example, if most AP members voted
differently, the African votes would be drowned out easily.
> 2) Once again: you assumption is that voting is purely regional, and your
> proposal is designed to further that form of factionalism.
No, my proposal is not based on that assumption at all, although if you look at
the recorded results you will find out that that is exactly what has happened. My
proposal is designed to minimize the effects of factionalism, whether regional or
> > 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.
That's precisely the point. They can't vote for a member of their own region,
therefore they will have more influence in choosing the candidate from the other
three regions. Think more carefully about this, and do the math.
> > 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.
Still waiting...rhetorical fluff like this just indicates that you have no
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 21 2000 - 08:01:23 PDT