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

From: Kent Crispin (
Date: Mon Aug 21 2000 - 09:20:16 PDT

  • Next message: Dany Vandromme: "[ncc-charter] Charter"

    On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 11:00:24AM -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
    > 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.

    Semantics. They won the election to the adcom.

    > 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 false.

    No, it is not. In practice the main candidate is *always* a *far* more
    important factor. This is observed political reality.

    > > 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.

    Yes. I see that as a positive. It dilutes some of the regional
    factionalism, and makes candidates realize that they must appeal to a
    broader base.

    > > > 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.

    That objection was addressed...

    >>> 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.
    > 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.

    Sorry -- I should have said "very influential". Yes, in the unlikely
    event that the AF region put up a candidate with no support whatsoever
    outside the region -- in other words, a candidate that is purely there
    on the basis of regional factionalism, then that candidated would
    probably not get elected. This, once again, is a good thing.

    > > 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 otherwise.

    Your whole argument has been to preserve the power of the faction that
    elected the retiring NC officer. To me that clearly supports

    >>> 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.

    Yes, I have thought very carefully about it, and I like the result very
    much. I am rather concerned about the regional and other factions in
    the constituency -- that has been a rather negative tendency, in my
    opinion, and I'm sure you share that opinion.

    >>> 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
    > answer.

    Sorry -- you were droning on and on about "one candidate" -- something
    that just came out of the blue and that simply has no relation to

    As to your other points, there have been answers aplenty given to you,
    but you ignore them.

    Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 21 2000 - 09:20:49 PDT