In response to the complaint...>2) The restriction on supporting only one
>nomination
(Rule 6) is patently ridiculous
>and totally undemocratic.
Andrew McLaughlin
said...
Why? Given that only one candidate will be elected per region, why
should each member in that region not be limited to supporting the one candidate
she likes best? I don't see anything undemocratic about that. Because
votes will be secret, she can always choose a different candidate later, if she wants.
McLaughlin
misses the point. It is not about votes being secret, it is about the difference
between a nomination and an election. There are several reasons why a sensible
voter might want to support multiple nominees.
1. They are interested in what they
have heard about several potential candidates - but don't know enough yet to prefer
one. Therefore they nominate all of those on their shortlist and let them all
present their cases during the campaigning period before making a well-informed choice.
2.
They are aware that in a democratic system their first choice may not be everybody
else's first choice. Therefore they nominate other 'second best' choices, so
that during the election at least some of their preferences might be represented.
This kind of 'compromise-allowing' feature is crucial in any kind of election such
as this because it allows a large electorate (ICANN @ large) to aggregate their preferences
around a small, workable representative body (the council).
3. They
are aware that their first choice may unexpectedly be 'disqualified' from the election
after nomination because of illness, misbehaviour, changing their mind or whatever.
Therefore they nominate one or two others so that when the election comes they will
have at least one candidate that interests them.
Could I suggest that before ICANN
drafters start making claims about what is 'democratic' and 'undemocratic' that they
look at some democratic theory, and practical examples of democratic systems, rather
than just using a 'seems good to me so that'll do' approach?