Return to self-nomination Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: weisberg
Date/Time: Sat, May 27, 2000 at 10:03 PM GMT
Browser: Netscape Communicator V4.73 using Windows 98
Score: 5
Subject: I prefer the MAC approach

Message:
 

 
                       

Paragraph 9 of the staff recommendation appears to contradict the fundamental philosophy as
well as the mechanics recommended by the Membership Advisory Committee as reflected in its
report to ICANN's Berlin meeting.  Here are the competing recommendations:

The MAC:

   11.  Any individual who is a Member may stand for election as an
   at-large Director.  In the event that the number of candidates is
   so large as to discourage careful consideration by voters, then
   ICANN shall have the option of requiring all candidates to provide
   evidence of a reasonable amount of support from other Members for
   their candidacy...

   In contrast, the staff recommends:

           9. To obtain a place on the final ballot,
               an individual seeking self-nomination
               must meet the following conditions:

                 a.Support from 10% of the At Large
                     Members in her/his geographic
                     region,

The MAC approach encourages "bottom-up" governance and allows for more voter choice. 
The staff recommendation creates unnecessary and improper barriers to nomination.  Limitations
on voter choice (filters) are inherently suspect and should only be allowed upon a showing of real
and significant need, especially when the electorate is as sophisticated and involved as ours. 

Finally, there are exellent mechanisms for determining voter preferences in multi-candidate races
(even  where there are MANY candidates for a single seat).  The Center For Voting and
Democracy suggests the INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING (IRV) system
http://www.fairvote.org/irv/index.html in which voters are asked to rank their choices (1-X). 
The computer does the rest.  The Center's rationale is as follows:

         Instant Runoff Voting is a winner-take-all system that makes
         it more likely that a winning candidate will receive a
         majority of votes rather than a simple plurality. In plurality
         voting -- as used in most U.S. elections -- candidates can
         win with less than a majority when there are more than two
         candidates running for the office. In contrast, IRV is more
         likely to elect a majority candidate while still allowing
         voters to support a candidate who is not a front-runner. IRV is
         a sensible method in single winner elections.

   A full explanation of the system is on the Center's website
   http://www.fairvote.org/irv/index.html.

   I strongly recommend the use of the IRV voting system.

    
     
     

 

Link: Center for Democracy and Voting


Message Thread:


Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy