>Hmm, that there is a problem with the 10% is obvious to everyone it seems. But before
modificating it, one should ask what is more important - to get at least one representative
of every region as nominee, or too push only those, who get much support.
Because
with the idea, to allow everyone as nominee who gets 100 voices in the membership
in support to him, it is clear that the US will have the most nominees, simply because
they have the most members, as far as I know.<If I understood you correctly, your
fear was that we would not have representation from every region. That would
not be possible, since one person from every region will be elected regardless of
the number of nominees from that region. Therefore, even if the US had 500
nominees, supported properly, and Canada had 100 nominees, also supported, one person
from the North American region would be elected.
"The restriction that one can
only support members of ones own region doesn't make sense, I think. We don't want
a new hierarchy, but a democracy, don't we?"
On that, I agree. If candidates
are to be elected based on certain required criteria, then it should not matter by
whom he or she is supported. The election will still allow for only one candidate
per region to be elected.
In addition, members should be allowed to support
more than one nominee as is allowed in the US. You can support whomever you
wish, change your mind midstream if you find you cannot continue to support someone,
and change again prior to election. It does not mean you don't want to encourage
several people to run. I may want to show support for two people just to insure
they would reveal more about themselves and provide the membership with that much
more information to make an educated choice. In the end, you have only one
vote in the final election.