[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Membership] Is "head to head" the answer for ICANN?
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.
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).