[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Membership] Is "head to head" the answer for ICANN?

At 22:13 21/02/99 -0600, Eric Weisberg wrote:
>While "cumulative voting" is "standard" for most corporate
>governance and "proportional representation" is used by some
>organizations, "head to head" elections is the norm for U.S.
>political jurisdictions and appears to be the "default" for
>ICANN.  I think "head to head" elections 
>are bad for the following reasons:
>1.  "Head to head" elections are personal, pitting persons against
>one another.  Voters do not necessarily choose the person they
>feel more qualified or representative, but are often only be
>voting "against" one candidate rather than "for" the other.  Such
>vote is for the "lesser of evils."  I prefer a system which
>chooses the best rather than eliminating the worst.

We need an election system that does both. Elect the best (subjective) and
eliminate the worst (also subjective).
I agree that a Head- to-head or first -past-the-post-system is far from
It's negative effects can only slightly be mitigated by second-round
voting, the way it is done for French presidential elections.
But for our 9 at large ICANN board members the issue does not really come
up. We are not voting for a single president, so we do not have a "race".
There are no parties racing either, at least , not yet. 
For multiple candidates I am still wedded to the "approval" voting system,
because I believe it allows the most wanted candidates to come to the top
and the most disliked ones to be eliminated.

>2.  "Head to head" elections do not result in diversity of
>representation, but easily lead to dominance by thin majorities
>and organized "list" votes (i.e. the same thin majority will win
>all the races).
Or a two party system develops and minirity opinion is no longer heard.
"List" votes occur when parties put up lists of nominees.

We still have to decide on the nomination system. 
Personally, I think that 100% self nomination is too frivolous, but that
the support requirements should be kept light, e.g. 5 members should be
able to nominate a candidate.