Let's stop using the term "self-nomination" for this
process and call it "membership-nominated." That is both more accurate and less prejudicial.These
rules seem to be designed to make it as difficult as possible for member-nominated
candidates to be elected to the Board.
The most objectionable feature of the proposed
rules is that members can only support the nomination of one candidate. This rule
makes it extremely difficult for any candidate who is just building up their support
to get on the ballot. Members will not know whether giving their nomination support
to one person will later prevent them from supporting another person. There is no
good reason for this selectivity at the nomination stage. It is possible to support
the candidacy of several candidates, while not knowing which one is most electable
or how each one will campaign and what they will say. The size of the ballot is not
a significant problem. People will vote for who they know and who they support, regardless
of how many names are on the ballot.
Coupled with the one-nomination vote per member,
the requirement of 10% of the votes in a region is ridiculously restrictive. In effect
the member-nomination process becomes a pre-election. The purpose of nomination is
to identify candidates who have enough membership support to be worthy of a place
on the ballot. It should not attempt to force members to decide in advance who they
will vote for.